Government Love and Hate for Video Games

hapwned writes "Jason Della Rocca, the executive director of the International Game Developers Association, unmasks the hypocrisy of governmental interaction with the video game industry. He expounds: 'Why is it that the cultural and artistic merit of the game medium is so hard to accept? Are games simply too complex for digital immigrants to grok? Why can't they see games for the powerful medium that they are? Is the word 'game' honestly so damaging as to demean the entire creative output of the industry, to reduce it to an empty pastime? Or, are the politicos enacting an entirely different drama where the industry is their hapless whipping boy and the sincerity of their intentions to "save the children" need to be questioned altogether?'"

Comments

Escapist

[Anonymous Coward]

So, /. has linked to the escapist magazine what, three weeks in a row now? Can we please skip it now? It's an excellent magazine. In fact, it might be close to the best games journalism there is. But please stop linking to it week after week. People who want to read it will subscribe. Stop wasting a story on it.

Re:Escapist

[biryokumaru]

And they don't even link to the actually readable version:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/print/11/3

Re:Escapist

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Ok, we'll visit this ONE more time: Visitors have an opportunity to submit stories to Slashdot. The editors review these user-written summaries and decide whether or authorize the story. In this case, nobody at /. wrote the summary, linked to the article, or anything of the sort.

Re:Escapist

[Anonymous Coward]

Surprisingly, most of us have given up on our DOS browsers and bought these cool new COLOR computers with HIGH RESOLUTION displays! Take a hint.

Re:Escapist

[Anonymous Coward]

Also surprisingly, many of us don't like clicking next seven or eight times to read about 10 paragraphs of text.

Re:Escapist

[Anonymous Coward]

Its more than just the last three weeks. He's been doing this ever since the Escapist debuted. I actually thought he had missed this week for once, but I was just too busy to notice that he did it without explicitly mentioning the escapist in the write-up.

Huh?

[Otter]

1) Reading "Are games simply too complex for digital immigrants to grok?", I had a mental image of a pompous, prissy jackass -- that almost perfectly matches Jason Della Rocca's picture. Except for the weird facial hair. What the hell is that?

2) There's an odd bit of projection in the essay. He keeps tossing out these pairs of government action where the same government (or members thereof) promote one aspect of gaming and criticize another, and flips out at how they're supposedly saying VIDEO GAMES GOOD!!!! and VIDEO GAMES BAD!!!! Uhh, hello -- _they're_ making the distinction between some games and others. It's Angry Hat Guy who can't seem to grasp that it's possible to criticize, say, GTA but not the industry as a whole.

3) On the other hand, it's the first positive coverage Kathleen Blanco has had in a while...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean, "on the gripping hand..."

Ow. My brain.

[Bastian]

Tried reading into it, but with the beginnings the words chopped off along the left side of the page, I just lost interest too quickly.

("Standard." Must be the world's first one-word oxymoron.)

Okay

[vga_init]

The article heralds gaming as being a priceless cultural artifact and a savior of national economies.

Honestly, I don't think that video games are really that important. I grew up playing them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketting.

The one very good point that I see the article raise is how games are treated very differently from films. In Australia, why aren't games allowed to have adult ratings when films are? I do agree that games that are overly violent or sexual in nature are bad particularly for young children (and adults, mildly), and that's why I agree with censorship and regulation.

I always thought that a good happy medium could be found in countries like Germany, where games that are for adults only are kept behind the counter in stores; they can't be displayed where children can see them, which is okay, and they can't be sold to minors at all, which I think is a good idea. At the end of the day, though, the games are still on the market, and they are still finding their way into the hands of the people that are most fit for playing them.

The socialist libertarian inside of me says that parents should always have the ultimate choice as to what their kids' game consumption habits are, but I think a society that takes some measures to protect children is a good one, as long as these measures don't stifle beneficial aspects of the industry.

When all is said and done, however, what's the big deal? I think that the train of thought that leads to discussions like this stem from that pervasive fear that games are corrupting our children. But, in the past, other mediums like televisions and books were doing the same.

Let's face it; we have to look out for our children, whether we're trying to "save" them from games, movies, comics, Ozzy Osbourne, Socrates, of liberalism (I say that facetiously). However, I think that what truly corrupts a human being takes place at home, and bad parents/societies should stop using scapegoats like video games, which fosters discussions like this.

Re:Okay

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"and that's why I agree with censorship and regulation."

Censorship and regulation? So because children shouldn't play some games, you want to censor them so no one can play them?

You can take that censorship you so love and stuff it. I don't need the government telling me what I should be playing.

Re:Okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't think that movies are really that important. I grew up watching them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketing.

Honestly, I don't think that books are really that important. I grew up reading them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketing.

Honestly, I don't think that paintings are really that important. I grew up looking at them, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketing.

Honestly, I don't think that music is really that important. I grew up listening to it, and to this day it is still one of my favorite hobbies, but I think that all of the fanfare regarding it is kind of a product of the overactive marketing.

Please, do tell me, exactly how are video games different from books, movies, music, or fine art? Why is it that you appear to be taking it for granted that they cannot have any cultural importance? They tell the same stories, they use the same techniques - indeed, truly excellent games can tell stories with the depth of a novel, using music as complex as any symphony, accompanied by visuals as deep and original as any painting, directed as subtly as any movie. Why is this fusion of all art forms denied recognition as a valid form of expression?

Re:Okay

[vga_init]

Censorship and regulation? So because children shouldn't play some games, you want to censor them so no one can play them?

I never said that. In fact, I said quite the opposite; we as a society ought to cooperate in raising well-socialized children and, in some cases, engage in cencorship so they don't get hurt. However, it's important not to overstep our bounds (children need to be exposed to the world if they are expected to grow and be intelligent), and I'm not suggesting a solution here.

You can take that censorship you so love and stuff it. I don't need the government telling me what I should be playing.

Again, I didn't say that; please read my post. Unless you're 12 years old (which isn't very farfetched, knowing slashdot), I specifically made the point that YOU should be allowed to enjoy what games you want.

Re:Okay

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

Yes - you said that but you also said you support censorship. Which is it?

You're inconsistent in your statement.

Save the 'you're 12' comments, they're a waste of time. Why don't you read your post again? You specifically said, "I do agree that games that are overly violent or sexual in nature are bad particularly for young children (and adults, mildly), and that's why I agree with censorship and regulation." [read your post!] - you SUPPORT CENSORSHIP, you said it.

My Views

[McLetter]

I understand where this person is coming from but they are viewing the industry in a different way then he is. People can say, "yeah some games are good and not bad influencing, but other games (shooters, GTA, etc) are a bad influence." Though IMO I think this is wrong. I think games give people skills such as multitasking and quick thinking, which are both required in almost every good game out there..

Remember the introduction of the VCR?

[m50d]

The government response went something like "OMG our families will be destroyed by an infestation of video filth, think of the children!!!!". Exactly the same thing happening here. Once a generation that has grown up with videogames gets old enough to run for office the problem will disappear, just as the last one did.

It's All About the Votes

[TychoCelchuuu]

When it comes to trivial, useless things like video games (I love them, but they're just entertainment, harmless), the only thing that a politician cares about is votes. Except for a few crazy ones, senators couldn't care less what people play on their consoles or their PCs as long as it falls short of interactive child porn. The only reason Hillary Clinton or any of the others even pay attention to someone like Jack Thompson is because he is scaring parents, making them think video games will ruin their children's lives. Jack Thompson might be completely nuts, but he can tell people who to vote for and if they've listened to him thus far, there's a good chance they'd agree with him. Courting Jack Thompson, and to a greater degree playing off of the latest irrational fear that the public has been infected with for some reason or another, is just an easy way to get votes. It's the same reason Republicans bring up 9/11 when they want to get elected: to scare people into voting for them. It's why Democrats blame Katrina on global warming: to scare people into voting for them.

It's all about the votes. If people are afraid of video games, if they're mad at video games, then it's time to regulate video games. The content doesn't come into play for the people making the decisions.

Re:It's All About the Votes

[superpulpsicle]

I for one would play alot less video games if I had the millions of dollars politicans has for other forms of entertainment.

Re:Matter of interpretation?

[Idealius]

"Blowing the heads of whores is NOT ART!"

However, a whore blowing your head? Now, that's ART!

Re:Matter of interpretation?

[arkanes]

I'll get right on that, as soon as you can provide a definition of artistic merit that doesn't include "stuff that doesn't bother me".

Did you know theres more explicit sex in a romance novel in a grocery store checkout line than there is in GTA? True fact!

Hard to accept?

[TheWanderingHermit]

Why is it that the cultural and artistic merit of the game medium is so hard to accept?

While there are some games that are artistic, maybe if we saw some topselling games that didn't feature easter eggs that were sex scenes with hookers, rewards for stealing cars, or woman that look at all realistic, instead of Lara Croft with her need for a cantilevered bra, people might start taking games seriously. When the well known and publicized games appeal to more than the adolescent male ego, with a need for large breasts and testosterone rushes, we'll see others having a different viewpoint.

As long as people keep buying the games that celebrate senseless violence and sexual objects instead of focusing on games that are art, video games will not be seen as art.

Re:Hard to accept?

[TychoCelchuuu]

Hey, San Andreas has realistic women. For California I mean.

Re:Hard to accept?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a very accurate picture you have there.

Have a look at the chart.

Games like The Sims, MS Flight Simulator and Football Manager are all over the chart. Approximately 1 in 3 of the top 75 PC games have no violence. Hardly any have any kind of sexual aspect (though WTF is that "stud farming" one?).

You're complaining that controvertial games are the ones that get publicy. Think about that for a second, will you...

Now, most of these games aren't art either. Or at least not art that interests me. But, so what? Nor are most films or most novels.

Re:Hard to accept?

[TheWanderingHermit]

MS Flight Sim hasn't had much publicity for years. The Sims is a good game. Football -- well, that's a sport, not an art form.

You missed my point. Maybe I should not have put it just in sales. (That's also a UK chart -- I don't know the problems in the UK, but it's the trashy behavior in the US that seems to get most notice.) It was the same for years in SF. There were a few good SF films, like 2001: ASO, but it was still alwyas looked down on because of the cheap monster flics.

As long as game companies have reason to keep pushing trash titles instead of art titles, the trash will get the attention. You're saying 1 in 3 don't have violence. That means 2/3s do. While it isn't violence in itself that is bad, it is often as titillating as Lara Croft's overdone body.

Personally, I think when games like Myst were popular (and when Riven came out), there was a higher level of respect in general because the games were focused more on appealing to one's intelligence than to baser instincts.

You're complaining that controvertial games are the ones that get publicy.

First, I'm not so much complaining, as I am pointing out that there are too many titles like this and that makes it easy for them to dominate an outsider's view of the field. Second, these games would not be coming out, would not be created, and would not be publicized if people weren't making a big deal out of them with their hard earned cash.

Elminate the special attention trash titles get and people will start to look at the games differently. If that isn't what matters to you (that's a generic you), then don't complain buy what you want and encourage more trash titles.

Re:Hard to accept?

[snuf23]

As long as game companies have reason to keep pushing trash titles instead of art titles, the trash will get the attention. You're saying 1 in 3 don't have violence. That means 2/3s do. While it isn't violence in itself that is bad, it is often as titillating as Lara Croft's overdone body.

Your argument could be applied directly to movies as well. Hell, even popular music recently has become so inundated with blatant sexual and violent themes. I guess kids today want that, when I grew up most popular music was about expressing emotions (i.e. love, sadness etc.) or just having a good time.
I guess it's what sells and movie/music/game/tv developers are going to keep pumping out formulas that sell. I've gotten so tired of it that I deliberately avoid most of this crap. Even stupid TV dramas that focus on people fucking their friends and then getting fucked over by other friends. Sex and violence. Wheee. It's old.
I actually think it's less of a problem for video games. One of the things that turned me off of GTA was because it was so much LIKE a modern gangster movie. I'd rather have the comic book violence of City of Heroes, or the whimsy of Katamari Damancy.

Re:Hard to accept?

[badasscat]

While there are some games that are artistic, maybe if we saw some topselling games that didn't feature easter eggs that were sex scenes with hookers, rewards for stealing cars, or woman that look at all realistic, instead of Lara Croft with her need for a cantilevered bra, people might start taking games seriously.

Bingo! I had ctrl-c'd the exact same sentence you had all ready to make pretty much the same reply you did. So allow me to just expand upon it a little bit further.

In my experience, when most people talk about "artistic merit" where it applies to games, it's in the context of "government action", as in the case of this post. The government has only even talked about acting in the cases of M-rated games, most of which are *at best* artistically questionable. (Note that I'm not saying that's *because* they're M-rated, but it is true in my experience that unlike the film industry with its R rating, most M-rated games are M-rated because M-rated content sells better, not because the "art" required it.)

In other words, whoever makes this argument is barking up the wrong tree. If you want to talk about the artistic merits of a game like Katamari Damacy or Rez, that's great. But these are not the kinds of games anybody is talking about regulating. So it's a little disingenuous to suggest that it's hard for anybody to accept the "artistic merit" of games based on games that have no artistic merit.

Now, it's a little different thing to argue that you just shouldn't be regulating anything, because artistic merit is subjective at best. But this is the real world, not fantasy land. If the game industry wants people to recognize games as art, then they should start treating their own products that way. As it is, for the most part games are simply commodities, designed to sell as many copies as possible. If developers could fix upon one magic formula that would guarantee sales of 10 million units every time, they would use it every time, regardless of how artistic that formula was, or how artistic re-using that formula over and over was. (Does this sound familiar to anyone? This is the ideal game publishers have been working towards for about the last 10 or 15 years.)

Art is speech and speech should not be regulated. Commodity products, however, are a different story - in fact, commodity products can be and are regulated, in every industry. And when those commodity products contain almost nothing but prurient content designed for no other reason than to attract the attention (and dollars) of immature males, then it's really hard to argue that they should be protected from anything.

Art is art. Games are not art, with a few exceptions. If the industry wants games to be considered art, then they should make them that way. The fact is, right now at least, they don't.

Re:Hard to accept?

[TheWanderingHermit]

Your argument could be applied directly to movies as well

It should be. What Kate Winslet and Jim Carry did in "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" was art. What she did with DiCarpio in "Titanic" was slick and vapid. There is no way I could ever consider that flic art. If Cubby Broccoli (not that he's still around) started complaining that people didn't see his James Bond films as art, I'd make the same arguments. They aren't art, and should never be considered as art.

Most people didn't consider movies as an art form, but there are many directors, writers, and actors who have proven it is. Enough high quality films have been made to prove the medium, even though there are too many like "Death Race 2000" to make it look otherwise.

Video games are a new medium and they won't be accepted as art until proving that enough of their creators are willing, consistently, to rise above the level of crass commercialism to let everyone else know there are real artists creating games, not just companies willing to pander to baser instincts for money.

And yes, I remember when I was growing up, most pop music was about feelings. Even when I think about big band music and before. It seems somewhere along the line people started to realize they could get away with just being crude -- they didn't need talent or any need to be creative -- they just had to be crude. That's when pop music and TV and many other media started their ultimate decline.

Unfortunately, even with some early examples like Myst (as I mentioned in another post), the video game medium has started on a crash course for the bottom much faster than many other media.

What? Jealous?

[hackwrench]

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22Jason+Della+R occa For those interested in what Jason Della Rocca Generally looks like.

What's up with sites with dark text on dark background until the "real" image background loads? That's no fun at all! :

Violence

[cs668]

The funny thing is violence in video games suits the government just fine when it is used as a recruiting tool for the military as "America's Army" the video game.

You can't sell a violent game, but the army can give it away for free.

Re:Violence

[alan_dershowitz]

The Army used to use a modified version of DOOM to help train troops. Look at it from the government's persepective. They are promoting games that facilitate socially-acceptable violent ends (working in the army, as a team toward a national goal.) This has two items to it that I can perceive. Firstly, try convincing the government that games don't facilitate violence when they are actively using it for that purpose; and secondly, if you actually play America's Army, it's not an anything-goes deathmatch like Unreal Tournament, you are punished for antisocial behavior, going off mission, intentional friendly fire, etc. Some of the things that are perceived as promoting school shootings and the like, does not exist in America's Army. The government never claimed to be against violence. They are (at least they say...) against games making little kids into antisocial killers.

You can't play both sides of the issue. Do games cause violence or not? If they don't, then the violence aspect of America's army should be no problem. Personally, I don't think there is a contradiction, since a) the government never claimed that they were against all violence and b) America's Army is rated T for TEEN, old enough for 90% of top rated slashdot posters to agree they can cope with violent content. Oh yeah, and the government didn't actually prevent any kid from playing any game as long as their parent bought it, which I still don't understand why anyone thinks this is a problem.

Re:Violence

[cs668]

I appreciate you perspective, and agree with it.

I just thought it was funny that the violence in video games is "bad" until it benefits Uncle Sam.

I love video game violence. I think that if you can not tell the difference between fantasy and reality and that causes you to do stupid things we should just put you out of your misery - video games should not be an excuse.

I am actually all for our soldiers getting as immersive experience as possible before they find themselves in harms way.

But, that does not mean that I will not take jabs at our lovely elected officials. With 290 Million people in the US I just wish one of the parties would find someone to run that isn't a moron.

What theyre called

[Gogo0]

Is the word 'game' honestly so damaging as to demean the entire creative output of the industry, to reduce it to an empty pastime?

Dont worry, in a few years Microsoft and Sony will start calling them "interactive media". The only people who will call them games any more will be Nintendo.

Re:Matter of interpretation?

[Anonymous Coward]

re:"Blowing the heads of whores is NOT ART!"

And dipping crucifixes in urine IS. What the fuck are you talking about asshole? Art is what the artist intends and what the viewer perceives. The rest is up for grabs.

Who are you to "decide" art for anybody? It's the individual's decision - not yours. Fuck you very much,I hope your dog dies - AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Re:Ow. My brain.

[Anonymous Coward]

it's worse on firefox for wintel. top of the second pages was chopped off too.

CSS for dummies anyone?

Interesting thing to note about China

[tsm_sf]

As stated by a Chinese culture minister, apparently player versus player or "player killing" (PK) is harmful to kids:

"Minors should not be allowed to play online games that have PK content, that allow players to increase the power of their own online game characters by killing other players ... They are harmful to young people."

Their government took the time to actually learn what was going on in-game before taking a position. And they're addressing something that coud be seen as an actual problem with online gaming. Great... I get owned by chinese rogues and my government gets owned by chinese bureaucrats.

Gosh

[mrs dogbreath]

Reading the replies its like you all have a problem with the female form and violence

I mean is there anything else worth looking at?

Save ... um, someone...

[Thing 1]

Or, are the politicos enacting an entirely different drama where the industry is their hapless whipping boy and the sincerity of their intentions to "save the children" need to be questioned altogether?

My take on political speech is that any time anybody asks you to "think of the children" they're really asking you to stop thinking, and agree with them that their restriction is palatable.

Hate to burst your bubble, but

[Moraelin]

Hate to burst your bubble, but, no offense, "art" isn't defined as "that subset which I approve of". It's also not defined as "snotty philosophical stuff that contemplates really deep stuff and/or makes references to obscure 19'th century authors".

Art never was defined like that. A lot of what we today consider classic art never was more than an expensive low-tech version of pornography. (I'll go on a limb and say that in an age where female clothing was such that seeing an ankle counted as arousing, having an oil painting or three of naked women on the wall might have done something for the hormones too, and wasn't there just as a tribute to the beauty of the human body.) A lot of it was just plain old entertainment, e.g., dance music or theatre plays that were just a low-tech sitcom.

Now not everything is _good_ art, and not everything is an intellectual exercise, but

If I paint a picture, it's art. If I sculpt a statue, it's art. Then why isn't it art if I make it a 3D model and apply a texture on top of it?

If I were to choreograph a ballet or a live concert performance, it would be art. IIRC, in at least one country (I don't remember which now) it was ruled that the strippers dancing in a club counts as art, and is therefore exempt from VAT. Why isn't it then art if I script some NPCs to enact it? (The German version of Gothic for example included an in-game concert by the band In Extremo.)

Etc. So, please. Again, it may be bad art or whatever, but classifying it as not art strikes me as just misguided elitism.

"As it is, for the most part games are simply commodities, designed to sell as many copies as possible."

Should we then start excluding from the definition of "art" all the artists who've ever worked just for the money? I can think of quite a few quotes from people who've had the cojones to admit that they're in it primarily for the money, and not for pure art for art's sake.

If art made just for money gets to be non-art, you've just lost for example Leonardo DaVinci, Michelangelo, and all those renaissance "sellouts" who made a living (and in some cases, like Leonardo DaVinci financed their other interests) out of painting or sculpting whatever the client wanted to buy.

Seems to me that if it's ok for a renaissance painter to paint a duke's portrait only because he was paid to do so, and still be art, the same should apply to an artist paid by a game company. A painting of, say, a dragon doesn't cease being art just because it was paid for by Electronic Arts, just as it wouldn't cease being art if it was paid for by a 9'th century Chinese emperor.

"If developers could fix upon one magic formula that would guarantee sales of 10 million units every time, they would use it every time, regardless of how artistic that formula was, or how artistic re-using that formula over and over was. (Does this sound familiar to anyone? This is the ideal game publishers have been working towards for about the last 10 or 15 years.)"

You mean the same as Hollywood is fixed on a handful of tried-and-tested scripts (e.g., "the hero's journey"), and how RIAA is fixed on a small number of tried-and-tested music and lyrics recipes? (Including, yes, girl bands singing about being a total slut, to appeal to teenager males just discovering their testosterone, and conversely boy bands whose only merit is appealing to the hormones of teenage girls.)

So I fail to see why would anyone single out games there. If we're going to redefine art as some prissy, pure and intellectual exercise that it never was, a _lot_ more will start counting as non-art than just video games. In fact, you're left with a world where extremely little art has been created in the last 5000 years straight.

They dont get "Video Games"

[darkmayo]

because our advocates use words like "Grok"

Re:Matter of interpretation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Birth of a Nation its stance on race isn't morally justifiable but it still art or how about the Bible there are whores in it and people get killed should it outlawed

Who cares?

[MrJack5304]

Why is it that everyone has this dying urge for people to consider videogames art. Videogames are a form of entertainment and while there are plenty of games that spew style(Katamari) and have tons of artistic overtones(Zelda, esp. Wind Waker) that doesn't mean that it matters whether anyone else thinks it is or is not art. The type of people who appreciate something as an art are the most die hard types of people. The average person doesn't see a movie as an art, but ask Roger Ebert and I'm sure he'll have a different rap for you. The same exists in the Videogame Community, ask a seasoned gamer and they will be able to tell you what is full of artistic genious and what is just mundane garbage.

For right now and some years to come people will just have to accept gaming as a niche in the market for a group of enthusiasts, mainly the younger crowd. But I can assure you when our generation starts to have children (Which has already happened) you will see a wider acceptance of games. Even with games with hooker mutilation and stealing cars, the medium will be widely accepted enough to start considering it art.

And to be perfectly honest, I love video games, it is my number one hobby and form of entertainment, and I couldn't care less whether the general public sees the beauty of video games. Accept the fact that even though you may love your games doesn't mean the whole damn world needs to appreciate it as art for you to keep loving it.