Happy Holidays listeners-

For Episode 2, Steve moderated a panel discussion between Jason Della Rocca, Executive Director of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), Dennis McCauley of GamePolitics.com, Matthew Sakey, writer of the IGDA's monthly Culture Clash column, and Kyle Orland of Videogame Media Watch.com. The subject of the discussion was the Family Entertainment Protection Act, the first bill introduced on the federal level intended to regulate the sales of M-rated titles to minors. There are some important distinctions to this bill that distinguish it from the various state-level laws that have been proposed, enacted, and overturned.

I think the issue of game commerce legislation is a timely and important one for the game industry. And, it touches on other points that are of importance to the continuing development of games as an accepted medium of critical and creative expression. Particularly in light of the general public's perception of games as entertainment only suitable for children.

To be fair to the non-gamer's perception, there is little common ground for discussion. On the surface, most popular games are rather unsophisticated in their thematic presentation. It is hard to discuss what makes Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto series such great games to a non-gamer. Like GTA, there have been big, popular movies where the protagonists were amoral criminal misogynists. Scarface comes to mind.

But in 1983 when the movie came out, few would argue that film as a medium had no artistic merit, that Pacino as an actor had no talent, that DePalma as a director had no creative vision, or that Universal Pictures had no business releasing the movie. Or even, to a more subtle degree that Oliver Stone didn't craft an effective screenplay or that the movie didn't touch on larger issues that resonated with the audience. That I can justify these points with most people -- aside from the perception and presentation of the content of the movie -- speaks to a lack of shared dialog and terminology with artistic themes in games.

Movies did not crack that serious crust until people who loved movies began to dissect them seriously for a broader audience. Most movies are still rubbish, but Pauline Kael was still able to comment seriously upon the artistic choices in Rambo, and connect the film to a larger historical and artistic context. No Pauline Kael of video game criticism has stepped up to the plate. Is that the game press' fault for poor journalism, or gamers' fault, since product previews and reviews are apparently all they buy? If there is no critical mass of serious game journalism within the industry, there is no reason for anybody outside the industry to think games are anything but barren, and, more to the point, those outside the industry will always set the agenda. If you have not already seen it, take a look at Kyle Orland's article "It's Our Fault Video Games Aren't Considered Art."

Henry Jenkins has cited the fact that media messages are most effective when they tend to reinforce the values, beliefs and preconceptions of the reader, listener or viewer. Conversely, we are remarkably resistant to media messages which do not resonate with us. Which is, in no small part, why a well-adjusted teen is highly unlikely to go out and gun down the neighborhood after playing Grand Theft Auto. By the way, in light of the fact that media messages can be reinforcing of beliefs and behavior, my belief is that game designers and publishers should exercise some restraint on the content they put in their games. I can accept the pushing of limits of taste or execution if they are done in service of a message or theme. However, in my opinion, wanton violence and shocking subject matter shouldn't be employed indesciminately. I am somewhat conflicted, as a gamer, about my enjoyment of the play experience of the Grand Theft Auto series and Rockstar's irresponsible behavior. I feel their lying to the ESRB about the Hot Coffee content was unprofessional and damaging to gaming. But market forces and game sales introduce a ripe target.

Rockstar purposefully releases titles with controversial content. These tend to sell well for the same reasons that kids listened to rock and roll in the fifties and rap music in the aughties. And also because some of that music is pretty good, and some of Rockstar's games are pretty fun (the point that Rockstar's less well-designed games do not sell is kind of lost on suburban moms.) So as long as controversy produces profits, some developers will try to take advantage of that fact. And publishers have to decide with the bottom line. Both with little regard to the possible long-term effects on the industry. What bothers me about Rockstar is that they purposefully push the limits of what is admissible or generally acceptable in other media, and then resort to the First Amendment defense. The problem is that this erodes Constitutional protections. Because other media have been around for longer and enjoy more general public acceptance, the subject matter tends to be self-correcting. You probably wouldn't see a movie with big box office numbers that was essentially a snuff film (Manhunt).

When relevant to the story/theme at hand, violence and shocking subjects pack a lot of power. The problem in all media is when the artist uses them as their only theme, or as a lazy way to cover up a lack of original craft. The market will correct for a snuff film. It will not punish a Scarface that does something with its shock and violence. The problem specific to video games is that, for some reason, the violence either sells or is perceived to sell, on its own. The market does not correct against a game that advertises itself as having "more blood" -- it sometimes even rewards it, and the game press chirps along happily, focusing on the realism of limb severings instead of the theme -- or, sometimes, even the fun factor -- of a game.

But bad public perception and short term legislation might limit the choices we have as consumers. At least to the point where it might become a liability for publishers to distribute certain kinds of content in an already narrow and risk-averse retail channel. I don't want to see the marketplace shrunk in general. Nor do I want the public at large to continue in a self-perpetuating perception that games are, as Jason Della Rocca says, "just toys for children." Or worse, for sociopaths.

The good news is that retailers, merchants' associations and the courts are on the side of consumers. Also, I believe that efforts should be put toward educating parents and consumers rather than harassing retailers. But if senators Clinton and Lieberman start gaining public and political traction on their proposed legislation, things could start looking very ugly for the game industry. The press won't be good. What's more likely to get aired and resonate more with mainstream America: an earnest advocate for the game industry with a sound-bite to get across his or her points, or a ten second montage of violent game footage? Where are outlets in the press or points of public contact where we could address these issues in a more proactive way? Also, what would happen if there is another prominent incident of youth violence? How long do you think it would take before activist groups found a "prominent link" to video games?

Part of the reason press about games won't be good is that press by gamers is so bad. Why should mainstream media credit video games as art or even simply a legitimate medium, deserving First Amendment protection, if the publications by and for gamers consist primarily of blurbs covering graphics, blood, and cleavage? No ten-second soundbite can stand against what the rest of the industry is saying about itself. It is no wonder that those with an agenda find games such easy pickings; these are all self-inflicted wounds. If the game community wants to be taken seriously, it has to take itself seriously, first.

I am very interested to hear our listeners' opinions on these matters.

-Tom

In this episode, we present part one of our panel discussion with Jason Della Rocca and Matthew Sakey of the IGDA, Dennis McCauley of GamePolitics.com, and Kyle Orland of Videogame Media Watch.com on the Family Entertainment Protection Act. Also, what we're playing over the holidays, and platform agnosticism. Please email us at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com or visit us at http://fatpixelsradio.com. (c) 2005, fatpixels radio podcast.

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Dark Horizons Lore
GameDaily.com's November 23rd article on Wedbush Morgan Securities' "The Nightmare Before Xmas"
GameDaily.com's article on Tips for the Independent Developer.
The Independent Games Festival
Kai Backman's Shorthike
Kieron Gillen's "How To Use And Abuse The Gaming Press And How The Gaming Press Wants To Use and Abuse You."
Marble Blast Ultra page on Xbox Live Arcade
Nethack
Popcap Games
RuneScape

Also, check out Greg Costikyan's excellent articles on "Death to the Games Industry" in issue 8 and issue 9 of The Escapist.

On December 1st, fatpixels radio co-host, Steve McLaughlin interviewed Greg Costikyan of Manifesto Games and Jay Moore of GarageGames on their respective roles in promoting independent game development. In an increasingly risk-averse retail environment, it is difficult to find games that aren't sequels, tie-ins to licensed properties, or re-treads of market-proven styles of game play. A look at Amazon.com's top selling game titles for this week demonstrates the point: Madden 2006, Mario Party 7, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Battlefront II (sometimes, all three in one...), Civ IV...

Is this a problem? According to Michael Pachter, analyst for Wedbush Morgan Securities, the full-year growth of the games industry may be in jeopardy, due in no small part to "sequelitis." Pachter notes, "In particular, consumers appear to be indifferent to the proliferation of sequels, indicating a slow start to holiday sales and risk of continuing weakness." And it appears that Mr. Pachter's fears were justified. The NPD Group, one of the premier sources of market information for the video game industry, recently retracted its November figures due to an unprecedented mis-prediction of actual sales numbers. The revised data wasn't pretty.

Of course, this doesn't mean that every sequel necessarily sucks. Sometimes successive iterations of a franchise allow the developer to more finely tune the play experience. However, as much as I have enjoyed the latest Mario Kart on the DS and throwing down with my buddies playing Madden, I long for the days of original, creative play experiences. Besides, am I the only one who is feeling more than a little indifferent about the latest Tony Hawk game?

But with so many titles competing for our time and money, any new release has only two weeks' shelf time before it is cleared to make room for the next cycle of games. And the next generation of hardware only promises greater time and expense to create assets, with correspondingly higher risk for game publishers. But Bigger-Faster-More doesn't necessarily lead to better game play or innovation. On the contrary, with 9 out of 10 titles failing to recoup their development costs, is it any wonder that publishers are wary about backing new properties or novel styles of play?

So where does this leave the you and me -- not to mention the developer? Is there any solution on the horizon?

There are people out there who are trying to do something about the problem. Some developers such as Wideload Games are seeking different studio and production models in an effort to maximize efficiencies and lower costs. BioWare|Pandemic is seeking development funding from venture capital, rather than exclusively relying on the backing of a traditional game publisher. I am pulling for their efforts to secure a better development environment for themselves. But both of these companies are still trying to create games firmly within the existing market and retail channel.

Our panelists are attempting to skirt the traditional game publishing model altogether. Their rationale: it is nearly impossible to sustainably release games under the current model without profits ultimately driving the development process. If a developer seeks to create unique experiences without these pressures, they have to resort to a different path to market. Also, our panelists would argue that there is a creative, as well as a commercial need for independent development.

We welcome your feedback. It is the only way we'll make the show better. I would request that the comments on the page stick to the theme of indie game development. For any other issues, please email us at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

-Tom

Our December 1st interview with Greg Costikyan of Manifesto Games and Jay Moore of GarageGames on their respective roles in promoting independent game development. Please email us at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com or visit us at http://fatpixelsradio.com (c) 2005, fatpixels radio podcast.