Culture Clash

(July 2003)

Collision Detection

Gaming and its naysayers arm for battle. Again.

A mixture of pacification, complacency, and rebelliousness has factionalized the development and publishing arms of our industry. The topic, as usual, is how to respond to attacks from gaming’s opponents arguing that games promote violent and sexist behavior in those who play them. The occasional study that claims to corroborate such assertions adds fuel to the attacks, and the attackers are more or less united – with few clear goals in mind, they seek only to disseminate their view that violent video games are bad. Because they have no definite goals – goals that could splinter their current unity – opponents of gaming have enjoyed some success in endeavors such as the recent legislation (currently being challenged by the IGDA and others) that punishes retailers for not filling the role of parents. The gaming industry would do well to sharpen its responses by working to address internal viewpoints and objectives that segment the message.

Industry groups like the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), in the USA for example, provide ratings for all games (and literature on interpreting the ratings, as “Teen,” “Everybody,” and “Mature” evidently represent concepts too advanced for modern parents). Such voluntary rating systems clearly state that industry groups understand and respect outsider concerns, and are willing to make some concessions to accommodate them. However, the ESRB, along with other industry groups such as the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) and the IGDA also argue strongly that though voluntary ratings are okay, retail enforcement must also be voluntary. Also, industry group action tries to remind everyone that gaming is an art form that must be protected under various nations’ free speech legislation. Without that protection there is nothing at all to keep the nongaming refuseniks from running roughshod over creative, as well as retail, freedoms.

Meanwhile, an enormous number of game developers don’t appear to lose much sleep over the debate. They make the games they want to make and accept the ratings given them by the ESRB. When these developers are subjected to criticism for violence or sexual situations in their games, they shrug and point to the rating on the corner of the box. From a developer’s standpoint, this is the appropriate tactic – it is the publisher, not the developer, who is responsible for the marketing of a title, and it is the publisher and industry groups like those mentioned above who have the resources and contacts necessary to fight misconceptions. Developers make the art, not the ideals.

Or at least they’re supposed to. Some see the battle with anti-gaming advocates as a sort of digital holy war, see the existence of the opposition as parents who have abdicated their responsibilities to children. These developers have inexplicably decided that the best way to eliminate the possibility of censorship is to create the most appallingly offensive games possible. Fundamentally, the only difference between the violence and misogyny in Postal 2 and that in Max Payne is that in the former example, the behaviors are presented as casual cruelties rather than aspects of narrative exploration – “it’s funny to kill,” “it’s funny to beat up women,” and so forth. Games that include whatever level of violence or sexuality is necessary to tell their story rarely get attacked, since the art guides the content (as in Max Payne), rather than vice versa.

Efforts to eliminate opposition by shocking it into silence, while satisfying to these developers in the short term, are unfortunately neither successful nor harmless. The approach is self-defeating anyway. Historically, attempts of this nature to eliminate the threat of censorship have resulted in stronger crackdowns. Witness the development of the Comics Code Authority in the 1950s, an act spawned by increasing violence, sexual themes, and (baseless) charges of Communist sympathy in the medium. The same could happen in today’s climate. It is not a great stretch to imagine that demagogic legislators and parents might argue that all games (based on the evidence of a few) promote sympathy with the same sort of violence that, say, terrorists are so enamored of.

Is it possible that the existence of too many Postal 2s might one day cause the nongaming world to limit the existence of Max Paynes? Perhaps – but developers have the right to explore their art in whatever way they choose. All games, including those that some may not find worthwhile or even acceptable, must be as protected as the rest. I would merely warn certain developers that while exploring the outer limits of “free speech” is creatively laudable, it usually encourages society to narrow those limits. A more adroit response might be to point out the fundamental flaw in the argument of gaming’s attackers – they perceive the popularity of highly violent or misogynistic titles as an indication that natural human aggressiveness and dominance is fueled by violent media. In truth, that the casual-cruelty games sell better isn’t indicative of our society’s lust for violence. They sell better for the same reason toilet humor films like Scary Movie make millions – people, especially young people, find such antics irresistible because they are forbidden. Nine year olds say “Poo” because it’s naughty, not because they are future scatological predators.

This isn’t an argument against certain kinds of games, but a Sorting Hat Song intended to remind us all that segmented goals and principles are destructive to the cause. The industry must unify around a single guiding conviction: that gaming is an art form that must be protected, and that it must not be subjected to a greater level of censorship or control by outsiders than any other artistic medium. Ultimately our most potent weapon in this may be further education of the public at large. As gamers and game-makers, we can work to display the diversity of titles available in our medium to those who currently know it only through the blood-colored glasses of misconception and regulation.