May 22, 2006
Topic for Discussion - Differences between Movies and Games
Like Brenda, my wife and I happen to be Quentin Tarantino fans, so we rented the movie "Hostel" from the local rental place. We didn't bother to look to closely at the package -- it was Tarantino, what more did we need? -- so we didn't notice that (1) it was a horror movie, and (2) it was "unrated". If you haven't seen the movie, you should be able to imagine something of what it's like just from the description so far.
What does this have to do with games? Because the movie experience was so extreme and intense and graphic, that it makes supposedly "dangerous" games like Manhunt look downright tame by comparison.
But Manhunt is banned in several countries, and many legislators would love to force stores to keep their copies locked in the back room; meanwhile, I can pick up Hostel in the New Releases section of the local Blockbuster, right next to the latest Jim Carrey comedy. And of course, no angry parents are busy writing hate mail to Tarantino because he might teach kids how to torture someone to death using a power drill, scalpel and acetylene torch. Why the disconnect?
(Click the link below for a partial answer, and a challenge.)
I'm sure some of you are already thinking "interactivity". The big "I"-word that makes games an order of magnitude more dangerous than linear, passive media. But that ignores the other "I" word, "Intensity". From what I've just seen, filmmakers are way ahead of game developers in crafting an intense, on-the-edge-of-your-seat experience.
So, I offer you this challenge, dear readers: find the most extreme movie you can, and watch it. Then find the most extreme game you can, and play it. Compare the experience. Compare the ratings. And most of all, compare the political reaction: I doubt any legislators are losing sleep over Hostel, but somehow 50 Cent Bulletproof is clearly dangerous...
Ironically, I didn't even like Hostel that much; I was never a big fan of horror flicks. It just really drove home for me that interactivity is not a panacea when it comes to audience engagement, and that any theoretical arguments about games being more potentially damaging than movies really need to be held up to practical standards.
Posted by IanSchreiber at 12:28 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
March 27, 2006
Topic for Discussion - are Sex and Serious mortal enemies?
During GDC, I noticed some strongly conflicting themes between the Serious Games Summit and the Sex In Games sessions.
The overall attitude from the world of Serious Games (that is, creating productivity or learning software using game technologies) is that they are apologetics for games with harmful adult content. The reaction I saw from several people was that politicians want to censor games, and that Serious Games come to the rescue by showing that games can be a force for good: "We just created a game that helps cure cancer in kids! Want to censor that, Senator?"
There's a dangerous logical fallacy there. As far as I know, no one is seeking to make all games illegal; they just want to keep adult content out of the hands of kids.
Thus, the likely political response to Serious Games is to use it as ammunition in favor of censorship: "This game that cures cancer is great. Why can't the rest of you make more games like that, instead of trying to corrupt the youth to make a quick buck?"
If that happens, with Serious Games and Sexy Games put on opposite sides of the censorship issue by politicians, will the two groups be fighting a civil war within the game industry? If not, how can we prevent it?
Bonus question: If it comes down to a brawl between Serious and Sex, what happens to games that are both (such as a game that teaches the importance of safe, responsible sex to kids)? Will they be the peacemakers between the camps, or will they be destroyed in the crossfire?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 09:00 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
March 18, 2006
What should your studio do with non-sex games?
Rockstar's announcement that they're making a table tennis game (and all the obvious media fallout as a result) got me thinking about developer/publisher branding.
Suppose that you're a studio that's known for its sexual content (whether that was your original intent or not). Suppose that for any number of reasons, you now want to work on a new game that doesn't have any.
If it gets published under your banner, there are some obvious positives: you already have a loyal fan base that will try the new game specifically because it came from you and they like your other games; and if you view the sex-content branding as a stigma then this could help you to convince the world that you're capable of a wider range of games.
On the other hand, you could also lose customers that assume your new game will be "just like the others", and if the sex-content branding has been working in your favor you run the risk of weakening it.
You could always spin off a new company so that you'd have a separate brand to work with, but then the new brand is starting from square one, so that new game of yours had better be amazing.
Are there any hard-and-fast rules here that could assist a studio in deciding what to do, or does it all depend on the specific company, the specific game and the specific situation? Aside from developing the game under the existing brand or creating a new one, are there other alternatives?
And a bonus question: if you were Rockstar, would you be releasing a ping-pong game, or would you handle it differently?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 12:24 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
March 16, 2006
Topic for Discussion - Common Ground
In honor of GDC, where some of the best minds in the industry will be talking about sex content in games, I'd like you to all take a moment and consider:
As creators of games that contain adult content, we all face many of the same challenges. There are also some issues that are specific to each project and each company.
What specific topics are the most useful for us to discuss, because they apply to everyone? If we could all be in the same room but just for a few minutes, what would be the most productive things to talk about?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 06:08 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
March 09, 2006
Topic for Discussion - Contraception and Sensuality
For a stereotypical teenage boy (not to mention some grown men I know), telling his friends that he's going to "get lucky" next weekend is bragging... but buying condoms at a drugstore is embarassing... even though both actions are logically equivalent (more or less).
Why?
Let's take it one step further. We already know from the McDonalds Game that a game can challenge how a player thinks of a topic; if a game can make you think about where that burger you're about to eat comes from, maybe it can make you think of exactly what will happen to you if you don't bring some protection with you.
What is required to make a game's message really stick in the player's mind?
As a proof-of-concept, if you wanted to apply that to a game that encourages players to think about protection the next time have sex, what elements would that game have to have to be maximally effective?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 09:52 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
January 09, 2006
Topic for Discussion: Where does sex NOT sell?
The adult entertainment industry is huge (the last figure I saw was somewhere around $10B in the US alone). This would tend to support the "sex sells" theory of marketing.
And yet, my web searches fail to turn up adult-themed breakfast cereals, light bulbs, or vacuum cleaners (among other things).
It's possible that there are some huge untapped markets out there, just waiting for adult entrepreneurs to pounce on. I think it's more likely that certain markets simply don't lend themselves to adult entertainment, for whatever reason.
Are there any rules or guidelines here? And if so, how can we apply those to games? Can we show, for example, that certain game genres are more or less subject to being 'sexualized' than others?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 11:08 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
December 26, 2005
Topic for Discussion - The Spam Effect
I've been thinking about spam lately. It probably has to do with me clearing off about 60 comments a day to this blog advertising online poker. (Poker? Sheesh... at least if they were advertising porn sites we'd have considered keeping them on as being marginally relevant to our discussions here. It's called targeted marketing, people! But I digress.)
I wonder if spammers are giving the rest of the porn industry a bad name. While adult content is largely at the discretion of the viewer, spam is sent direct to the inbox of someone who may not want to see its contents, and the recipient often has little or no recourse.
As developers of adult content, we can at least promise not to spam our customers (or worse, "potential" customers) with unasked-for NSFW screenshots or the like.
Is there anything else we can do to separate ourselves from spammers in the minds of the public, some way of drilling into the public consciousness that there are "good" and "bad" adult content providers, and that everyone on this list is on the Light Side of the Force?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 10:44 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
December 20, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Dealing with Low Expectations
Let's face it. Most games that involve sex as a primary mechanic, aren't very fun or engaging. This sets the audience expectations low for the rest of us.
In a way, that's good. A well-done (or even mediocre) sex game will get some extra attention simply because it's way above what people have come to expect. Unfortunately, this effect is limited, because many people won't even give your game a first look if it has sex in it because they assume it will be bad.
How can we overcome this? Is this something an individual company can do by promoting its products wisely, or do all of us have to band together to provide a unified "our games don't suck" marketing front? Or will the problem fix itself as sufficient numbers of really good sex games get released?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 10:42 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
November 23, 2005
Topic for Discussion - What do we call them?
Here's a nice and simple one: what do you call a game where sex is a major component to it? This SIG has been around for quite a few months now and we still don't really have a consistent term for the topic we're discussing.
Sexy Game?
Sex Game?
Sexual Game?
Sexplay?
Gamasutra? (Oh wait, that one's taken already.)
Post your suggestions!
Posted by IanSchreiber at 02:59 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
November 19, 2005
Topic for Discussion - How Important are Designer Tastes?
A recent post in our forums mentioned the importance, when designing an erotic game, of making something that can turn you on ("you" being the game designer). This seems a reasonable baseline; if you can't arouse yourself, how can you expect to do so for your audience?
However, this can easily be taken to logical extremes, where the designer's personal preferences end up overriding common sense; the result is a game that turns on the designer and no one else.
There must be a happy medium, where the designer's tastes play a role in the design of the game along with other inputs (focus testing, research on human sexuality, market studies, etc.). Would anyone like to try quantifying what the right mix is, in order to craft an erotic experience for a reasonably large portion of the target market of a game?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 03:02 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
November 07, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Is Humor the Secret Formula?
When Danial Terdiman praised Brenda for using humor to diffuse a highly charged situation, it struck me that the sex games that stand out as being successful and critically acclaimed all seem to have humor as a central theme (such as Leisure Suit Larry and Leather Goddesses of Phobos). The most recent LSL game was universally praised for its humor, even as many critics panned it for its gameplay.
Is this the secret, then: If you want to make a successful commercial game with sexual themes, make it funny?
Can anyone think of any sex games that were genuinely funny and had good gameplay, but were commercial flops? How about any sex games that didn't use humor, but were commercially successful anyway?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 10:33 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
October 29, 2005
Topic for Discussion - the Chicken and the Egg
Here's one for the designers in the audience:
There seem to be two approaches taken when designing a sex game. One is to take a sex-related, non-game activity and add a game to it (an example would be "The Guy Game": start with videos of topless coeds, figure out a way to turn it into a game). The other is to start with a non-sex-related game and add sex to it (an example would be "Strip Poker": start with poker, then add stripping).
Is either of these approaches inherently superior to the other? Are each of them superior for making certain kinds of games but not others? Or are both approaches flawed in some way, and an entirely different design methodology is necessary to make quality sex games?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 02:51 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
October 22, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Why is sex "bad" again?
This is admittedly a US-specific question, but here in the States sex is viewed as "bad" or "wrong" or "evil" by a good many people, even though other natural bodily functions like eating are considered perfectly normal.
Why?
The typical answer says something about our "Puritan roots". That would be a perfectly viable answer back when we had a reasonable Puritan population... but how many registered voters are Puritan nowadays, anyway? Certainly not a majority.
Puritans were also convinced that dancing was evil. If you enjoyed dancing, you were being tempted by Satan. Yet, today we can talk about dancing as a fun recreational activity. What happened to the Puritan roots? I'm sure there are a hundred other examples of polite conversation today that would have been blasphemous 200 years ago.
So, this whole "sex is bad" thing has to be more than just history. What is it about sex that makes it stick around as a taboo, when so many other things became normal and natural? (I doubt it's the whole "mystique" thing, either -- the only reason sex is mysterious at all is because we refuse to talk about it.)
Anyone care to share their theories?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 03:05 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
October 11, 2005
Topic for Discussion - What should the limits be?
Some games are relatively tame, sexually speaking. Others have gone to some pretty intense extremes. Are there any lines that should never, ever be crossed in a game... either due to good taste, marketing issues, ethical issues, or any other reason? Are there any sexual acts that just have no place in a game? Or is anything game, in theory, depending on an appropriate context?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 05:11 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
October 08, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Games that Teach Sex?
Broaching the subject of sex with your child for the first time is one of those things that's always been difficult for parents. (Birds? Bees? Someone clearly isn't trying hard enough here.)
Historically, there have been ways for a particularly squeamish parent to "outsource" this knowledge transfer. There are pillow books, ancient sex manuals that could be given to the kid for study. There are places where you can rent a professional to introduce the kid through hands on experience (don't look at me like that, there were certain times and cultures where this was the norm). Nowadays there's sex ed in public school.
But kids today play games, and in fact they probably spend more time playing games than they do reading. So it would seem fairly obvious for there to be tasteful, curiosity-satiating, educational games about sex and sexuality, aimed at teens (or specifically, parents of teens who need a little help in bringing up the topic).
The technology for this has existed for the past 10 years, at least. So why hasn't this sort of software been out there for that long (or if it has, why isn't it more ingrained in our culture by now)?
For once, I don't think the answer is "puritan values" -- it's specifically these values of "thou shalt not mention sex" that such a game would be directly addressing! So why the cultural vacuum?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 09:37 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
October 03, 2005
Topic for Discussion - What do we mean when we say "sex"?
Fifty years ago, having sex used to be this straightforward thing. Both parties were pretty clear on whether they were having it or not. With the progress of technology, things seem to be more muddled on this front.
There are those who think that "cybering" isn't anywhere even close to sex, not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Others argue that it's even more intimate than physical sex, since you're in each other's minds. Let's take the point of view for the moment that this isn't "real" sex, on the grounds that one of the people involved may think of it just as a roleplaying exercise, or even a joke.
Now let's add a webcam and speakers, so you see, hear and speak to each other. But there's still no physical contact. Is it sex yet?
Then add teledildonics on both sides, so that you're each controlling what the other person feels. There's physical contact, just not directly with each other. Now is it sex?
Suppose we extend the current technology so that each teledildonic sends its motion to the other side and has force-feedback, so that you feel each other's movements. The sensations are practically identical to the real thing, you just happen to be physically located in different rooms. This is the point where even the people who say "cybering isn't sex and never will be" start to waver.
So, where's the dividing line? Is there a dividing line?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 10:56 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 30, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Why is it easier to roleplay a different species than a different gender?
We're all geeks here, right? We've all played D&D, cast Magic Missile, attacked the darkness, etc.
So, why is it that people seem to have absolutely no problem playing a character who is an entirely different race from a different society with different moral values than our own -- say, a Dark Elf or a Cave Troll or something -- but as soon as they're asked to play a character of the opposite gender, things suddenly got a lot more tense around the table?
Most of you have probably met someone who became very uncomfortable (or very crude) when they played a character of different sex than their own. Can anyone explain to me why? Especially given that you're already in a fantasy world, with magic and dragons and other things that constantly drive home the message that it's not real?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 07:29 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 26, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Should ratings just measure sex and violence?
To take one example of many, let's look at Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. It's rated E, for everyone, because there is no bad language, minimal cartoon violence, no sex, and it's pretty much as unobjectionable as you'd find in a family game. Obviously this is a game for kids.
Except, have you ever seen a six-year-old play a Zelda game? There's a lot of reading and some fairly obscure vocabulary ("Ocarina", for example) that is way beyond most first-graders I've seen... and it's necessary to read and understand the words to progress in the game. The controller is a bit large and unwieldy for small hands. Some mandatory puzzles in the game require abstract thinking that isn't usually developed until the age of 10 or so (and still manages to throw many adults for a loop, even then). The material may not be objectionable, but it's not what I'd call "age-appropriate content" either, purely on mental difficulty.
Where's the ESRB descriptor for "requires abstract puzzle-solving skills", or "uses vocabulary and requires mathematical skills of 3rd grade and above", or "uses control mechanisms that are difficult for handspans of less than 3 inches"?
Should the ESRB's job be to rate games based purely on objectionable material, or should they cover the more broad case of age-appropriateness? Where does the ESRB's responsibility end in the area of providing purchasing guidelines for parents?
Let's see some discussion. If you think the ratings should only cover sex and violence, why should it be so limited? If you think the ratings should also cover non-objectionable content, why do you suppose it's not being done already?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 10:36 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 22, 2005
Topic for Discussion - How much attention should we be seeking here?
Some recent discussion on our online forums brings up an interesting question. (Several questions, actually, but for now I'm posting this one.)
On the one hand, there's no such thing as bad publicity. And the more interest and awareness we raise about sexuality-in-games, the more comfortable we can theoretically make consumers, politicians, developers and publishers, which can benefit the entire industry.
On the other hand, some people (especially in the US) are a bit touchy on the subject of sex. Large announcements of with great fanfare about all the great sex you can have while gaming could draw political fire that would strangle this emerging market for more mature games. By calling out from the rooftops, we also paint big targets on our collective back.
Is there such a thing as too much publicity, especially for a hot-button issue like sex? Or should this SIG be grabbing as much public consciousness as it can get its hands on?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 11:00 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 15, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Why do avatars look so unrealistic?
The majority of avatars in video games look... shall we say... anatomically unrealistic. There are a few exceptions (and these exceptions are often praised for being so refreshingly different), but it makes one wonder why there aren't more.
Is this another case of marketing-to-teenage-boys, where we just assume that the player wants to see big muscly guys on steroids and hypersexualized barbie-proportioned girls?
Is it that video games are supposed to be an escape from reality, therefore we eschew realistic styles in favor of the fantastical?
Are there other reasons why it's hard to find an avatar that looks anything like me or any of my friends?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 11:26 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 10, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Mommy, Where do Booth Babes Come From?
A recent thread on the mailing list got me thinking: most other industries don't have "booth babes". You don't see scantily-clad women advertising the latest candy bar or SUV or political organization or fast food joint. And yet, we see this sort of thing at every video game trade show and even in ad copy -- for games that have nothing at all to do with sex.
Why?
Don't give me the old "sex sells" argument. If sex sold that much, we'd know what Sara Lee looks like, and she'd be hot. If sex always sells more units, McDonalds would be using their marketing dollars to buy airtime to show people having sex, with fast food on the side. (Ah, you say, McD's targets its marketing to kids. But wait, aren't games supposedly marketed to kids too? Isn't that why Hot Coffee is such a political hot topic -- because games are for kids? You can't have it both ways.)
Don't just say "the industry's marketing people are clueless". I've met some marketing folks and they seem like perfectly rational, reasonable and intelligent people. The ads notwithstanding.
So really, where does this "sex sells" mentality come from... and why is it so prevalent in the video game industry and not elsewhere? Let's hear your theories.
Posted by IanSchreiber at 09:02 AM | Discuss this post on our forums
September 06, 2005
Topic for Discussion - What would turn YOU on in a game?
I'm talking specifically about single-player games here. Multiplayer experiences can be as sensual as the participants make it, even if the "game" is just a chat text window.
Okay, so we're (mostly) agreed that all games currently made that center around sex as a primary focus are targeted at straight men. Amusingly, most of the straight men I know aren't really titillated much by the products that are out there, finding them rather... juvenile. In other words, even when the makers of sex games go out of their way to create something erotic, they seem to be failing. Hmmm.
I've heard arguments that go something like this: "sex is inherently an emotional connection between two people. The computer isn't a person and it isn't capable of showing emotion. Ergo, one-player sex games can never really work." But I don't buy it; adult videos seem to do a perfectly fine job even though they're an additional step removed from the viewer since there's no interactivity. You never hear anyone saying "video can never turn a viewer on because you need an emotional connection that just isn't there with your VCR"...
So, let's try it this way. Assume that there DOES exist a game that can, well, turn you on. Forget about budgets and production teams and all that; let's just pretend this game exists, whatever it is. What qualities does it have? What does it let you do? (If you like, you can start by picturing a video that you'd like, and then add interactive or other game elements to it.)
Posted by IanSchreiber at 02:38 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
August 29, 2005
Topic for Discussion - Moral Responsibility of Developers?
"Given [our] power to influence, we need to look at the issue of an artist's social responsibility. I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth."
-- Robert McKee, Story
The above quote was originally talking about screenwriting, but it could be applied to any creative medium, including games. "Truth" here doesn't mean that everything must be factual (it certainly isn't in most of the stuff that comes from Hollywood). Rather, it means that whatever the work is saying about the world or humanity, whatever fundamental truth of life the artist is trying to convey to the audience, that this meaning is true in the opinion of the author.
To the extent that games teach the player skills and (to a lesser extent) morality -- whether the developer means it to or not -- would you agree or disagree with McKee's quote above, and why?
Posted by IanSchreiber at 12:35 PM | Discuss this post on our forums
August 22, 2005
Topic for Discussion - A Niche by Any Other Name...
When I see a forum thread like this, it becomes clear that the male teen demographic is alive and well. The market may have expanded, but they're still there.
Now, whenever I see objections about game design or marketing copy that obviously targets this demographic to the exclusion of others, it's always on business principles and never moralistic ones. "Don't exclude female gamers," they say, "you're throwing away half your potential market!" And they're right -- a big-budget AAA game has to reach as many people as it can, so it makes sense not to exclude anyone.
But what about niche games? Here's where the argument falls apart. Business-wise, there's nothing obviously different about targeting the Male Teen niche than targeting the Tactical RPG niche, or the Puzzle Game niche, or the 2D Side-Scrolling Platformer niche; in each case you're focusing on a specific type of gamer and giving them an experience that they simply won't find with the latest big game that tries to please everyone. You can get away with this because the games are cheap to make. If we can see Castlevania 16: Kill Dracula Again for DS, why can't we see Duke Nukem 6: Same Game Engine, More 3D Boobs?
I want to be convinced that there's a business case to support the former but not the latter. Convince me.
Posted by IanSchreiber at 04:25 AM | Discuss this post on our forums