Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

Videogame Regulation Is Everyone's Business 50

Thanks to the International Game Developers Association for their editorial discussing why game developers should collectively take a stand against negative views of gaming. The writer, IGDA program director Jason Della Rocca, suggests: "The perception that games are 'bad' for us stubbornly persists, and we have yet to find effective ways to change people's minds on this issue. Game makers may be biased toward games' 'good' qualities, but you'd be surprised how many developers simply don't care about the issue of public perception, don't have an informed opinion, or believe it is all a big waste of time - even to the extent of questioning the need to fight government regulations." He concludes with a message to game developers: "In the bigger picture, resolve to push boundaries and innovate... We need not put a stop to games with violence, but we need other avenues beyond violence as a design crutch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Videogame Regulation Is Everyone's Business

Comments Filter:

  • I don't mind games with violence, [rockstargames.com] but I wish they would ban games that suck. [gamespy.com]

  • by NetDanzr ( 619387 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @03:50PM (#7621081)
    Gaming is just like watching movies or reading books. It's entertainment that is usually engaging enough to command all your attention. For some reason, however, most people get really surprised when I draw this comparison, and only those who are willing to think about it for a minute agree with me. Maybe the IGDA should target the people who are willing to think first and add some intellectual challenge back into games.
    • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:03PM (#7621260) Homepage
      Watching movies, watching TV, and reading comic books were once looked down upon as deeply as playing games is today. In fact, all visceral escapist entertainment seems to start that way... from radio shows to tango.

      From what I've seen, this won't change until the generations change. A group of people who grew up on videogames will necessarily have a different perception of the situation than a person to whom videogames were what "kids do." Of course, we need to draw more girls into the fold if we want to make that transition happen faster.

      All we can do is continue to make the best, most enjoyable games possible. Tarzan was once considered pulp, just as Pac Man was. Fighting bad perceptions is important too, but in perspective one more Myst would do a lot more than any number of screaming developers to change public opinion. 20 years from now, we will probably be debating the social ramafications of Dune 2, and everyone will have "always" loved good games.

      Insert obligatory Penny Arcade link [penny-arcade.com].

      • Tarzan was once considered pulp, just as Pac Man was

        Implying that the average person today views Tarzan and Pac Man as great art?
        • Tarzan is studied in nearly all major english literature programs. Pac Man is probably the first Videogame with a serious sociological dialog surrounding it, albeit one spawned by a raver joke.

          If Disney's Tarzan has re-pulped the novel, then feel free to subsitute Conrad's Heart of Darkness in the above observation.

  • by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @03:53PM (#7621121) Journal
    This type of thing has happened over and over again. Some new form of entertainment comes along, the current generation loves it, but the older generation does not understand it, and blames it for all the evils of society. In the end, the old people die off, and the form of entertainment becomes validated as the generation, who grew up with it, take over the control of society; only to repeate the same mistake with the new form of entertainment their own kids play. This is one of the problems with the long life spans we have now, the older generations get to hold on to the reins of power for too long, there is no way to take them from the older generation, and they don't die off soon enough to get out of the way of the progress of the younger generation. Or maybe I am just bitter because I think that 80 year old senators don't have a clue about video games, and are just knee-jerk reacting to the problem.

    • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:00PM (#7621219)
      To quote Jack Van Impe:

      "Nineteen hundred seventy-four is the year that they are now planning for
      sex on the streets in every major city from coast to coast. And -get ready
      for a shock- the 'music' that they're planning to use to crumble the morals
      of America is this rotten, filthy, dirty, lewd, lascivious JUNK called
      'rock and roll.' It isn't just the lyrics, it's the BEAT! I preached it to
      my conversion story which you can get (?) how this 'beat' gets them 400
      teenage girls in Detroit interviewed as to why they had illegitimate babies,
      they said 'not just the words, the BEAT.' The fertility rites of the jungles
      are the same beats (drums on lectern) incorporated in this 'modern rock.'

      -------------

      Epilogue: this "beat" now dominates Christian music.
    • I think this is an interesting point and although it may not exactly be "on-topic," is still relevant. It is also a growing problem as life expectancy increases. In the near future I see it entering the 100+ year range, and the rate of technological innovation is not slowing down but INCREASING. Try to imagine a world where new technology is released every day, but regulated by people who tend to have stopped keeping up with the times 25 years ago. Now look out the window. How different are these worlds? N
      • I think one thing we should do is put an age limit on our representatives. At the moment, you must be at least a certain age to serve in the senate, or as president. Sure, they are pretty low numbers, but they do exist. Why not have a maximum age? Why not accept the fact that as people age, thier ability to learn tends to decrese? Perhaps they do have some advantage in experience, but they also have that whole fear of the unknown working against them, and as they start pushing 75-80, there is going to
  • Misperception? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PreviouslySeen ( 714752 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @03:54PM (#7621127)
    "Politicians are acting in their constituents' best interest, and there's nothing I can do."

    Does anyone really think that politicians act in anyone's interest but their own?
  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @03:57PM (#7621175)
    This one is easy: if you don't like a game, don't play it. Now can we move on to more important things?
    • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:50PM (#7621780) Homepage
      Many of us identify as gamers. Many of us find ourselves in the position of having to defend our lifestyle choice to other people, as if our hobby were removing the hinges from public doors or planting cannibis around the local elementary school.

      Penny Arcade's latest comic shows this perception, in that we now have something to point to and say "see, we're not bad people." Why do we have to donate generously and publically to charity just to prove we aren't beasts, as if the donation somehow atones for our pasttime? It's not like community theater actors have to go outside and rake the leaves so that people will say "they may be evil, but at least they rake the leaves."

      I'm a game developer. In conversation when I mention being a game developer to non-gamers I'm instantly shunned. Obviously I'm selling violence and sexual debasement to children, along with the worst devil of all, Idleness. Pointing out that the last game I worked on was intended for adults in their mid 30's just makes them think I'm selling old smut to children. Pointing out the one before that was a non-violent basketball game? I'm blamed for frat parties.

      It's prejudiced [reference.com] crap, and we shouldn't have to put up with it.

  • Hrm... (Score:2, Interesting)

    This seems like a bit of a catch-22 to me. The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay. But it's hard to talk devs out of making violent games when they've been selling so well of late. Further, even if the percentage of violent games out there were to suddenly shrink to almost zero, I don't think it would help perception all that much - after all, t
    • Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Aelfy ( 727873 )
      Thats exactly it. If violent games sell really well, then it doesn't take a business genius to decide its a good investment to make more.
      Contrary to what it seems, devs come up with *loads* of great quality game ideas with innovative gameplay elements. Its the publisher that turns them down - its too much of a financial risk (unless you are an established "name", or have a prestiged lead designer).

      Do not for one minute think that game developers can't come up with fresh ideas any more. Its purely a numbers
    • Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MMaestro ( 585010 )
      "the few violent games that still did exist would get all the negative attention anyway."

      What do you mean? We only do have a few violent games out right now. We have,

      GTA3/VC
      Postal 2
      True Crime Streets of LA
      Manhunt
      And the already aged Soldier of Fortune 2 (the ways you could 'kill' a person's body makes it notable enough not counting the different weapons).

      Out of this list of (relatively) recent games, only GTA3/VC (and maybe Manhunt but the sales reports haven't come in yet) sold really well and thats becau

      • I mean that basically there's very little that can be done to change public perception. For example, if the most violent game out right now was Goldeneye, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth about it instead of Manhunt. Same song, different verse.

        Parents who didn't grow up with games themselves are always going to seize upon the most violent games and complain about them. In 20 years this will be a non-issue, but I doubt anything but the passage of time will stem the whining.

    • The best to way change public perception ("video games corrupt our nation's youth!", etc.) is for game devs to make more quality games that don't have to rely on violence as a core facet of the gameplay.

      None of the censorship arguments against videogame violence have anything to do with actual game quality - strictly content. (Likewise, we aren't even really talking about violence per se - games like Civilization depict unbelievable amounts of violence, but you will never hear a news program complain abou
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:06PM (#7621286)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:11PM (#7621353) Homepage
    Apparently, vegetarians should stop watching Matlock, too. I guess Matlock doesn't eat babies.

    Matthew Elton
    Department of Philosophy
    University of Stirling

    1. An Absurd Question?
    Many video games feature animated agents that the player attacks with the aim of maiming or
    killing. Less dramatically the animated agents may be treated instrumentally, herded or goaded
    with no regard for potential suffering, injury, or death. Such activity would be utterly
    unacceptable if directed at people. And for many, but clearly not all, it would be repugnant if
    directed at animals. For simplicity, if not accuracy, let me call those who do take the latter
    attitude ?vegetarians?. In this paper I want to raise the question of whether such vegetarians
    ought to refrain from playing video games on the grounds that the animated agents in the game
    require of us the same sort of treatment as animals do in our natural environment. Should, that
    is, vegetarians play video games?
    My answer may strike some readers as absurd, for I shall argue, with some important
    qualifications, that vegetarians should not play video games. That is, I shall argue that
    between real animals and some of the animated agents that feature in video games there are no
    differences that make a moral difference, and hence no ground for a difference in treatment. Of
    course, many readers may share with me the overwhelming intuition that there must be some
    relevant difference, and this may suggest that there is something awry with my arguments.
    But if this is so, I shall at least have shown that the relevant difference is not obvious, and,
    hence, that the vegetarian has work to do in justifying her playing of video games.

    If you can't see where this is going already, you can view the rest here [216.239.41.104]
    • I think this should be taken up with People for the Ethical Treatment of Anime, a group devoted to the protection of animated characters (digital and drawn).

      They came into being back in 1983 when the founder was playing Ms. Pac-Man and cried when she saw Inky being eaten. This later led to a protest campaign against "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" when it was realized that animated characters were erased during the production of the film.
  • My comment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jonathan_the_ninja ( 704301 ) <watashi_o_katana@linuxmail.org> on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:23PM (#7621500) Journal
    Yes, being unjustly biased against games is just a bunch of crap, and I wish it would stop. Yet, people keep saying that they're addictive, violent, unwholesome, etc. What about books? I know there's a lot of crap out there in literature, and yet, parents are proud of their kids when they continuously are reading "Animorphs", "Secret of Droon", etc., and for what reason? "Oh, it improves his/her reading skills". Ahem. You do reading in video games. (Okay, Doom, or other games don't contain very much text in them at all, but consider RPGs, for one genre) But then they argue the crap about violence and addiction and games inspiring people to do bad things and all of that. Books contain all of these things. My own Mother, one who isn't all that pleased with video games admits to being addicted to reading books. And there are certainly more books out there than games, and books contain many more kinds of things in them, (good or bad) whether it be fiction or non-fiction, and yet, in their eyes, books are good, video games are bad. Now, I'm not trying to condemn books in any way--all I'm saying is that books contain the same stuff that they are condemning video games for.
    • you read my mind. i was just talking to someone TODAY about this. about how we have ratings for TV, Movies, Video Games, Music, but not books.

      why not books?
      would you seriously want your 7 year old daughter reading a danielle steel novel?
      how come parents seem to trust the self-parenting of children when it comes to books but not music, TV or video games?

  • how about (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theMerovingian ( 722983 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @04:23PM (#7621501) Journal
    games like Neverwinter Nights?

    There is a sliding scale for "violence" in the options menu, and you can password protect it.

    Problem solved - no censorship, all it takes is active parenting.
    • Re:how about (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      so.. after you turn the violence off you don't need to kill anyone in the game? how you get the experience??

      -

      -yes i know that it's most probably just a matter of turning off the blood&etc.. but that doesn't really alter the nature of the game, and if that were the case(that violence is simply matter of red pixels) then there couldn't be books that are quite 'disturbing'(and violent) to say the least.. violence(and other things, like sex) are not just about what you show on the screen, you could have a
  • Thanks to the International Game Developers Association for their editorial discussing why game developers should collectively take a stand against negative views of gaming

    Shouldn't the game publishers and console makers be the ones fighting this fight? After all they have the money to buy lobbyists to influence politicians.

    There is no doubt that children (under 17) shouldn't be playing video games that depict things that would get a movie a R or NC-17 rating. It's up to the video game companies t
  • Do you want to get rid of all that's morally reprehensible in gaming?

    Simply stop Akklaim from producing any more games.

    And kill the Akklaim marketing department.

    Problem solved.
  • Like the software industry dictates the kinds of games that are made. Game makers will make whatever the public wants because that's what brings home the bacon. Yet an other case of industy and politicians thinking backwards... that somehow _they_ drive the market. Follow the cash and you'll find the truth.

    Hrm...
    In Soviet Russia, you drive the market!
    or is it
    In Soviet Russia, the market drives you!
    (ow, my head hurts)

    • Follow the cash to corporate gaming monoliths like Electronic Arts and Vivendi, or follow the cash to see the narrow demographic (young males) to which most games today are sold, or follow the cash to see that 90% of games lose money, and you start to wonder exactly how well games makers are following what the public wants.

      I suspect that corporate boardrooms are simply bad at choosing game projects, and the software industry DOES dictate the kinds of games that are made, because they simply have no abilit

  • As if I haven't posted too many times in this topic already. A good article from the BBC News, except for the unnecessary bit at the end demonizing games.

    Pensioners catch the gaming bug

    Increasing numbers of over 60s are picking up joysticks to play video games, says a games company.


    Nicknamed "grey gamers", they are buying the more diverse games around, like strategy and historical titles.

    "Because of the breadth of games now with more universal appeal, they are more enjoyable and social these days,"
  • by TRACK-YOUR-POSITION ( 553878 ) on Wednesday December 03, 2003 @08:35PM (#7623960)
    Look into the Comics Code--apparently, they were going to make comic books illegal back in the 1950s, so the major American comics publishers began to voluntarily comply with the Comics Code.

    Some interesting pieces of the code:

    Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals. Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

    Basically, they mandated that America produce nothing but boring superhero comics for several decades, which is why comics tended to become more popular in Europe and Japan than in America.

    Could something similar happen to games? The one big advantage games have in the 00s that comics didn't in the 50s is that comics were explicitly targeted to juveniles, which is why there was such public furor over them, while the more violent games made today are (supposedly) aimed at people in their 20s and up.

    An industry effort to make more quality games rather than relying on the same old violence cliches could only be a good thing, but I don't think it will really prove necessary--games companies just have to keep emphasizing that they are not trying to sell to kids. (Hey, it works for the tobacco companies--which even with the settlement are rolling in the dough.)

    Even if games never leave this sophomoric violent stage, any public attempt to ban them will run into the same problem that is run into when trying to ban guns in America--most people want to eliminate guns, but too many of the people who want to keep guns are single-issue voters.

    • Note also that a very famous issue (or was it a three part series?) of Spider-Man got published without the Code seal of approval, because they wanted to do an *anti-drug* story.

    • I know that is the conventional history of what went on with the Comics Code garbage, but in reality it was just a good way for the threatened biggies (Marvel and whatever DC was called then) to destroy the massively successful upstart, EC Comics. Just like the Night Trap censorship fiasco was created by Nintendo to try to stop Sega and its very sucessful Genesis. Newspapers, television, and radio are all starting to be widdled away a little by videogames (witness the huge drop in television ratings this se
  • How can any self respecting game designer follow their own artistic vision without regaurd to public opinion?

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...