|
If there’s one pervasive topic that I’ve been opinionated about, it’s about maturity – in games and as an industry. Some think that games have to tackle mature subject matter. Some think that we need a critical vocabulary. Some think that it’s a futile endeavor. I’d like to provide another option: objective gaming. If we can all look upon all games from a purely objective perspective, without labels (i.e. casual/hardcore/female), then we’ll see true maturity in the industry.
Is A Toy Only For Children?
One of my favorite hobbies is toy collecting. My prize possession is an Alien figure from 1979. In a way, that figure represents my view of the game industry and how it’s perceived in the world.
A brief history lesson. In 1979, Kenner was riding high on its Star Wars license, and perceived sci-fi as the next big thing. Without much thought, they picked up Alien, knowing that: a) it was sci-fi, and b) it was going to be hugely popular. They made the figure 18”, so it could stand at a similar scale to a GI Joe, and they sculpted it downright accurate to the movie – it was a beauty to behold.
When it was released to stores, the public was outraged. How could something so completely horrifying, based on an R-rated movie, be sold to CHILDREN? Shortly after its release, due to pressure from the public, it was binned or recalled, and disappeared from the Earth.
Videogames have been suffering from the same prejudice. I can distinctly remember the day when games became a child’s toy; the release of Mortal Kombat at the arcade. Prior to Mortal Kombat, videogames were living in a day of lawlessness. No one knew Leisure Suit Larry, or what a Wofenstein was. It was a gamer paradise…until someone got whiff of Mortal Kombat.
Parents and politicians instantly banded together and questioned the game industry why they were promoting decapitations and spine ripping (my favorite) to our CHILDREN. Fortunately, the industry responded by establishing a self-policing group, instead of banning such games.
Here lies the problem. People unfamiliar with videogames perceive it as something you grow out of, like footy pajamas. Like in the movie Toy Story 2, abandoning your toys is a part of growing up.
Why devote time to moving graphics on a screen when you should be worrying about the economy? When you have a prejudice towards games such as that, you fail to see and experience a game for what it is. Games should be treated the same as any hobby like reading and exercising; there is no childish aspect to it.
We’re Out To Get Us
This is not an “us versus them” situation either; gamers are guilty of the same thing. The obvious example would be the “hardcore.” These are a passionate group who feel their territory is threatened by the growing number of “casuals” in the area.
With every Nintendo announcement made, the hardcore are chanting, “This is not the Nintendo I grew up with!” If you can see the parallels between this and certain historical events, then you can see how this attitude can poison the community. The fact that Nintendo remained in the hardware business and kept themselves from becoming a software developer – as it was rumored during the Gamecube days – should be enough to silence “the core.”
In a more subtle approach, game scholars have been dividing games by establishing a nomenclature based on artistic criticism, as if the game industry would be regarded as a mature medium if we all spoke like artists.
While this may be a reasonable approach towards achieving mainstream acceptance, the art world is not necessarily the model of maturity, and aesthetic criticism is highly subjective. To me, all this does is establish a hierarchy where it is not needed.
A Gamer-Blind Society
In the early days of PC games, it was pretty difficult to tell if a game was good, bad, or offensive. Everything you knew about the game was presented in front of you, whether in a box or in a plastic bag. What was a gamer to do but choose the game that seemed the most interesting?
Imagine where we would be as an industry if games were not marketed by appealing to demographics. What would happen if people picked up a game as they would a book; judging it only by its genre and a synopsis? Would we have the same debates about legitimacy and maturity as we do now?
Maturity has nothing to do with age. It has everything to do with experience. If we can abandon the prejudices we have towards games and experience them solely based on how they are themed and structured, you will see games and gamers mature over time.
|
Video games were marketed as a child's toy long before Mortal Kombat. The Magnavox Odyssey was the first consumer home video console when it was released in 1972. The magazine and newspaper ads in those days showed a happy familyof two children and their parents all playing on the Odyssey together. Telstar, Atari VCS, Intellivision, Vectrex, Colecovision and so on were all marketed as children's entertainment. Heck, the big selling feature of the Atari Personal Computer and the Commodore Vic 20 were that they were computers that doubled as game machines...and they could help you with math homework.
The video game industry is very much like a rebellious teenager going through puberty. It wants to be recognized, respected, and treated like an adult, but at the same time it doesn't want to accept the responsibilities that go with 'adulthood', such as acknowledging the impact and influence of today's games on society. The video game industry hates to be criticized; our record for promoting public awareness of the industry and what we do as developers is abysmal.
The majority of videogame developers in North America young adult males in their 20's and early 30's who grew up playing hardcore video games. They still tend to work on hardcore titles. The industry is so segmented and specialized today; it's very rare for a game developer to work on different genres of games so they can experience the scope of game experiences available today.
I don't think it's possible to be 'objective' about video games. Like any other form of creative expression, people look at it subjectively. An artisan of long experience can study a piece of artwork and give you a detailed analysis, but an ordinary person might throw up their hands and say they don't see the meaning of the piece. You can praise Grand Theft Auto for it's open game play and level of narrative, but many people can't see past the inherent violence, coarse language, and vulgarity of the experience. Rather than denigrate and insult people who don't like Grand Theft Auto, we should be engaging them in a conversation about the game.
It's time for the video game industry to grow up and accept the responsibility of being more accountable and open with the rest of society.
Console games may have been treated as a toy prior to Mortal Kombat, but not games in general. In other words, console gaming was targeted towards children, hence the toy aspect. Arcade and PC games, however, were not targeted towards children (the birth of the arcade began in a bar!). While consoles whittled away at killing dragons and aliens, arcades and PC games were covering city management, martial arts, zombies, sex, government conspiracies, etc. It wasn't until Mortal Kombat, that all games were classified under one roof, and it crippled the industry.
In an ideal situation, GTA would have disclosed its content upfront, so people could clearly see whether the game is "for them" or not. There's no need for a dialogue, especially an incensed one, because any detractors should have known better. If they do not like violence, then they shouldn't have played the game. However, if they are interested in the theme of GTA, then they should be accepting of the violence. That is the core of my argument; objective gaming means you can have a preference, but you shouldn't have a prejudice.
Maturity comes when people are informed and make informed decisions on their own. When people are able to see a game as a game, not as a category or demographic, we'll be better for it.
@David
The irony is delicious. I suggest everyone take a bite.
This is where games come in, the word game itself is in reference to play, which again if we follow the logical thought pattern leads us back to children. Where this truly goes wrong though is the misconception that only children play. In fact most forms of entertainment are in truth just play, but we give them high minded terms such as "art" or "sport". All this doesn't answer the question as to why people associate video games with children precisely, after all we call sport a "game" as well.
I'd say this is because games seem pointless to those who don't understand them, they appear a waste of time, they seem like frivolous play, while at least sport can be seen as physical exercise. And frivolous play of course, exists only in the realm of children.....
In truth until people realise a large portion of any learning or entertaining activities they have ever performed are in truth just a form of play ( simply more complex and high minded ), they won't understand that games can perform the same sort of satisfactory uses that we have for any other form of entertaining past time.
Thanks for the comments, guys. I think there's a huge idea buried underneath all this, and your input helps me find it. Thank you.
@Christopher
I think videogames as a childrens' toy comes from the its basic input-output structure -- you press a button, a sprite reacts -- not necessarily from the play aspect. People generally accept all games (e.g. sports, crosswords, etc.) as a pastime, but a videogame's perceived lack of handling abstract ideas based on the interface, makes it geared towards children. It's that perception that we, as an industry, have to address.
The Wii is at the head of this movement, because it eliminates (though not accurately) the button interface, and replaces it with movement; an abstraction of a real-world motion. It's this feature alone that makes it more "mature" than console games before it. I say "console games," because PC and Arcade games had multiple input methods -- thus more mature content -- long before the Wii.
I think we're both in agreement that there's a general perception of videogames that has to be addressed in order for games and and the industry to mature; That's promising.
I'd tend to disagree on the concept of video games having a basic input-output system. In fact the system is quite abstract and difficult for many to comprehend or understand. Many of us who take the simplicity of game interfaces for granted are merely those who have grown accustomed to them from prolonged exposure. This further drives away many of the video games detractors, for they are unable to easily play a game and thus read deeper into it through experiencing the thing first hand (a point for another day) I don't think people dismiss a games ability to handle abstract ideas because of the interface. I think it's more to do with the concept that it's a child's toy that leads to that dismissal. People don't think of children's activities to be dealing with concepts those of us who have "grown up" consider worldy, they think of them to be simple trifles, amusements, not as serious or a valid form of media that communicate deeper ideas and emotions (cor' blimey and when they do and a parent realises it, boy is there a media explosion). The concept that it's a child's plaything, coupled with, in general a games inaccessibility, usually prevents people playing in the first place, let alone considering a game as deep or meaningful.
The Wii by contrast is a success because people understand the motions involved, they're merely following motions that they do on an everyday basis, this I agree with, but this in and of itself doesn't make people view games in a more mature light. In fact most people who play the Wii and no other console, associate it even more with play and childlike content than other consoles merely because of the nature of the popular party games that tend to be produced for it. The only exception for this rule are exercise themed games, people consider these to have mature worth because of their association to what people already consider to be socially acceptable past times.
But I'll grant the Wii one thing, by getting a larger audience to be able to access it and understand it's control schema it paves the way for mature games to be built for it. Now we just need people to make such games....something easier said than done. To sum up what I'm saying here, I don't think interface is truly a matter of maturity, it is one of accessibility. The interface doesn't change the content or truly a persons perception of it, it merely removes the barriers that prevent a person from journeying on that path of discovery that will lead them to realise games have the potential to be deeper than they had previously thought.
As for PCs they have travelled their own path to acceptance, and in fact aren't much further in terms of the stigma attached to their games. But more people use them simply because they've become such a common part of everyday life that they're accessible to almost everyone. Arcades on the other hand are often still considered a very childlike thing. Much of this is to do with the teen culture that surrounded them during their social supremacy, and much of it was to do with the stigma attached to games. Talk to many people who grew up around arcades and they will fondly reflect on the time, but is not something they would consider doing again. (and yes part of this is because of the availability of console games, but the people who came from arcades and picked up a console aren't the people we're talking about).