|
Features

Converging: An Interview With Henry Jenkins
GS: Could violent video games be a good thing?
Yes, absolutely. Every artform, every storytelling tradition needs
the ability to represent violence because aggression, trauma, and
loss are a fundamental aspect of the human condition. The idea
that game violence is in and of itself bad is an absurdity. At
the end of the day, I might push further and say that there is
no such thing as game violence - at least the way that it is understood
in the popular press. Game violence is not one unified thing which
we can label, count, and study in the laboratory. There are various
representations of violence in specific games. The issue shouldn't
be how much violence is in the game but rather what the violence
in a game means.
I am not opposed to game violence per se but I would like to see
game designers make more meaningful choices about how they represent
violence through their games. There is too much repetitive, banal,
thoughtless violence which exists simply because people think it
will sell more units. There is not enough violence which has been
thought through, which is part of the logic of the game, which
makes some kind of statement. You can't really call it gratuitous
when the whole purpose of some games is to display violence, but
it is certainly a wasted opportunity. Game violence is often so
formulaic that it betrays the medium within which these designers
are working.
Game designers need to stop thinking about violence as an ethical
lapse and start thinking about it as a creative challenge. What
can we do that will get designers and players to really think about
the role of violence in their work? It is easy enough to defend
the role of violence in the work of Scorsese or Tarantino. It is
much harder to defend the role of violence in most video games.
But this goes hand and hand with what we have been saying about
game as art: with creative freedom must come creative responsibility.
GS: We're seeing a lot of coverage of Second Life,
but how important do you think The Linden's project really
is?
HJ: I think what is going on in Second Life is profoundly
important on several levels. At the most basic level, it probably
represents the furthest the game industry has gone in the direction
of user-generated content. It is utterly fascinating to see what
people are choosing to do within the context it provides for them
to create stuff, make stuff happen, and share stuff with other
people. (I am using stuff here because it signals just how diverse
the range of materials and activities these communities are generating
are.)

Second Life
Second Life ranks alongside YouTube as perhaps the most
visible example of the kinds of participatory culture I discuss
in my new book, Convergence Culture. It is a powerful example of
consumers taking media in their own hands. Will every person want
to build things? No - most of us don't build things in real life.
But a world where any one of us could potentially build something
and get it into cultural distribution feels different than one
where creativity rests in the hands of a talented few and the power
of distribution
resides purely with an ever smaller number of major media companies. I suspect
most of us will want to consume rather than produce media. But I am sure glad
that there are people out there making media for no other reason than because
they can.
And like YouTube, Second Life represents a meeting point
between different subcultural communities - and now, increasingly,
commercial, educational, nonprofit, and governmental institutions
as well. Last week, I participated in a major press conference
hosted by the MacArthur Foundation. On one hand, we were speaking
to key civic leaders from the Manhattan area - directors of school
systems, museums, libraries, and other public institutions - inside
the Museum of Natural History. On the other hand, we were speaking
to people who levitated or had feathers growing out of their heads
who were listening to the event via Second Life. All kinds
of groups are using Second Life as a platform for what
one might call thought experiments - trying things out in a virtual
world that they would not be able to do in the real world - and
as this happens, we are seeing Harvard try to teach law courses,
therapists doing group sessions, advertisers testing brand strategies,
and sexual minorities trying new kinds of practices, all in the
confines of this virtual world. Some of the things people are doing
right now will turn out to be dead-ends, but I love the generative
nature of Second Life and I am convinced that some major
discoveries will emerge through this outburst of bottom-up energy.
GS: Do you think that preconceptions about 'gaming' are
hindering the development of online worlds into a genuine of
a 3D-web or 'metaverse'? (I'm thinking about Prokofy Neva's comments
in this
comments thread):
HJ: I have long felt that the term, game, is both enabling and
crippling. We have a tendency right now to describe all forms of
digital entertainment as games. In the real world, we might maintain
meaningful distinctions between games, sports, toys, playgrounds,
theaters, artistic tools, community halls, and so forth, all of
them become games when computers are involved. This can be seen
in an elastic sense - the word just keeps expanding to include
all new play experiences - but it can also be done in a very constricting
sense - creating a hierarchy of experiences based on how much they
do or do not look like a prototypical game. So, the argument that "this
isn't really a game" gets used to shut down games for girls
or educational games or serious games or anything that doesn't
look like something a hardcore gamer might want to play.
I think it is unfortunate that these online worlds are being hijacked
by the term, game, so that we are now hearing Second Life isn't
really a game - as if this is a bad thing - and there are people
out there who don't play games who won't visit Second Life because
they think it is a game. Part of the problem is that we go to games
expecting to be entertained, anticipating predetermined roles and
goals and rules and all of that stuff, and that may or may not
be the best way to think about how a metaverse might work. There
are things designers of online worlds can learn from games but
there are also things they should be learning from MUDS or chat
rooms or all kinds of other communities online and off.
|