The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 13: Moving Forward
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
[PATV] Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 13: Moving Forward
This week, we discuss the need to change the conversation around video games.
Here's a link to the Rockethub project!
Want to contribute in another way? Email us at: gamesforgoodfund@gmail.com
Come discuss this topic in the forums!
Unknown User on
0
Posts
How much will I have to give to Kickstarter to let us all go back to calling it "TRENCHED!" instead of Iron Brigade?
Sincerely, -ZZoMBiE13
I understand in the grand scheme of things this is a minor thing, nitpicking even, but it seems like something worth keeping in mind. We don't need to create artificial barriers between who can be a designer and who can be a programmer, though one may be better at their specialty than the other, ideas can come from anywhere.
I think the crew with EC has a bit more faith in the US legal system than I'd give it credit for. We would need a metric CRAPTON of cash to even make a dent in what our elected representatives do because of the sheer capital on the other side. The fact is 'fear' is a great tool in politics. If people are pointing at games and fear their influence then there is little incentive to look at other more logical reasons. Take the gun lobby and gun violence. For any sane person a connection can be made between a lack of gun control and uncontrolled gun usage. For the US we get some iffy link that games cause gun violence and not the easy access or availability of guns in moments of passion. Yet when over 90% of the general public agree that some small measure needs to be taken, our representatives still are held captive by the gun lobby and we don't get what we want. The same holds true with healthcare and the perversion of what those changes mean and a number of other issues.
Sadly the US has taken capitalism a step too far and votes are for sale as the courts have recognized cash contributions as a method of speech. If you ever watched Fox News and their reports on how non-violent games are indoctrination tools for the left into liberal agenda you can see just how far the rabbit hole goes. Yeah...it's Fox (or Faux) News with a record of complete false news and sensationalism that is no where near the truth, but over 50% of people still think it a credible news source which means their crap gets heard.
His father paid off the government about £1,000,000 to release him, and then their family fled the country.
It does broaden your perspective when you learn someone you met online could have died, and the rest of their peers did... Very chilling. I mean, if you're 'lucky' you might learn of conflict around the world that isn't connected to your own country. But to hear more personal accounts it makes it even more real. It makes the conflict feel more local.
I'm sure the games industry has some lobby group working for them, but as plenty of industries/companies (i.e. Oil, Defense, Agra, Google, etc.) by spending for lobbying, you can pretty much bend the government to your will.
They probably need to just organize better.
I'm not exactly sure where the consumer (the gamer)'s fight is in all that. The health of an industry, and the interests represented by trade associations and their lobbies - which is what any sort of advocacy group formed by game designers would be, maybe a bit more like a professional association than an outright industry schilling outfit but still certainly a supply-side, interests of game producers oriented outfit.
And trade associations don't represent the interests of their employees, much less the consumer; or else there wouldn't be trade unions and consumer rights groups.
If an Electronic Frontiers type gaming-advocacy group needs founded, it shouldn't be founded by a clique of game-makers just to further the interests of fellow game-makers or what they think the interests of the consumers is; and if it is formed that way, it shouldn't be formed using consumer, which is to say gamer, cash, it should use industry cash.
In a world where censorship is increasingly hard to enforce because of the internet, things that hurt the industry or government scrutiny on the industry are not the consumer's problem. The consumer has to pay for games, which are designed for profit by entities that are ultimately businesses. Any time gamers complain about this the refrain is always "they're running a business", yet those businesses then expect consumers to act like loyal fans rather than as people who trade money for a product that is designed to make money.
Just as it isn't the job of the consumer to support the industry (see used games and how those are by the same way the industry runs itself the smart and moral choice for the consumer, by the same system of evaluation a game design studio would use to make a sound decision) it isn't the job of the consumer to speak for the industry - because no industry can speak for its consumers with any kind of legitimacy due to the inherent conflict of interest.
You guys don't need to convince me or anyone else watching this that games aren't evil. I understand the good games can do, but if this argument is ever going to hold water, we can't just go to legislators and claim that games aren't bad by using the "strawmans" of the industry as a basis for change. We have to convince them that there is value and no negative impacts from GEARS OF WAR. We need to convince them that Call of Duty is a positive for society; Skyrim, Chivalry: Medieval Warfare, Rage, Borderlands, Final Fantasy, and, if we really want to blow off some energy, Manhunt. Not fricken' Fold It.
I don't want to sound counter-productive to the cause, but looking to the few abstract examples of games that are clearly positive in its effect on society and using it as a banner game to convince people to change their minds will never work. I have a hard time believing that anyone in congress or the society we aim to change is that gullible or unaware. Even my grandma knows about Call of Duty.
If you are proposing to represent the cause of games as a vehicle for "social good", you need to take a few steps back before raising money and actually clarify what potential funders are supporting. Good is a very generic term that is taken at face value in the tech community for whatever reason but that certainly is not the case in Washington or government in general. You need to clearly define what you mean by good in this case.
It would also be nice to see a more comprehensive plan of action for the lobbying efforts. What does it mean to have the right face on TV talking about games? Working to fight legislation that would attack violent games or the free distribution of games is fine, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of other policy issues where game consumers, industry, and industry employees are on different sides of the issues. If we are hiring you to form an advocacy group, we need to know where this group will stand on these points of contrast. I'm not going to pay for you to lobby in Washington if you are going to use consumers money to advocate on behalf of the developer's perspective, or even your own personal perspective. I need to know how you are going to represent "my" perspective.
Also, trying to sell a negative idea is never a recipe for success. I don't want to spend money to fight against anti-game legislation that has been recycled over and over again for close to two decades now. I want somebody out there advocating and pitching new pro-game consumer legislation. I want people fighting for my property rights, moving more games into the public domain, breaking down trade barriers that keep good foreign games from coming to america or resulting is stupid pricing tariffs. I want somebody collaborating with other industry groups and forming alliances so that other consumer media and trade groups think of gaming alongside other industries in their work. Most importantly I want a mission statement and at least a one page action plan so that I have a more concrete sense of what I am supporting.
Sid Meier's Civilization, where you get to be the man in charge of civilization itself, and control it from the beginning starting in year 4000 BC to the modern era of today. The social good it does is that it helps present history and its significance of human progress to the player, by putting abstract terms such as the British agricultural revolution, the that enabled the rapid urbanization of large populations and help avert the prediction made half a century ago of a population time bomb, into a single fertilizer technology that grants all farms +1 food. So instead of trying to make all your lands a fertile farm so that it can feed itself and grow in population, you can have more artists, engineers, and scientists in the city to work in your universities, factories, and museums that you construct in each city while the dedicated farmers with fertilizers, sprinkler systems, tractors, and genetically engineered seeds grows enough food to feed everyone and transport it by rail or truck to the city. Hard to get all that in textbooks, but by experiencing the same phenomena with different starting point in the game, you start to understand better the historic and functional causes of how society arrived at where it is instead of just under great historical leaders or abstract social constructs that are different from society to society. Also it got me interested in overall world history with a unit encyclopedia that gives a nice description of the special units unique to each country and gives a brief history of it next to the unit's stats that I look at to play the game with, as well as famous quotes made by great and famous people help motivate me to research them and their history as well.
Another would be Eve Online and how a well kept and functional economic system is made not by overarching game mechanics (though they do help) that are forced onto the player, but instead made by market forces of supply and demand, as well as a large amount of entrepreneurs looking for the next big thing to make money out of by looking at how other players play the space ship simulator. Could also put Minecraft into the economics category as well by letting players have a set environment with some randomness generated and allowing players the choice of what to make out of it based on the resources around them while also showing the players how hard it is too build something you want with scare resources available and the effort / price it takes to obtain it.
Unfortunately, the ability to produce morons that make their way into local, state and federal governments knows no bounds.
Shining Force (the first twos) : Learning english and math made easy. The game's dialogs are EXTREMELY to the point, no faffing about, no complex words. It's word economy to its best. And the player's action are ENTIRELY through universal little animated icons ("yes" is a nodding head, "search" is a guy opening a chest, "spell" is a little wizard) AND contrary to most tactic RPGs the maths are super simple and consistant ("2 damage" is a lot for a long time). I know that playing it around 6 years old as a foreigner self-taught me english, basic algebra and tactical thinking. It's a freakin' good game to boot, too. Good for all ages, perfect for children.
as an adult, these two resonate with me on so many levels:
Dwarf Fortress : The game forces you to learn... you always need learn to something. I know it was my gateway into geology and metallurgy primarly, but it got me do a lot of research on ancient and modern history too. Plus it's a creative game to boot. (Everytime I encounter something for the first time, I systematically pause and go check wikipedia wtf it is, even if I "thought" I knew about it.). You can easily remove violence from it, too.
Kerbal Space Program : This game litterally teaches you rocket science through a sort of LEGO system, physical science and a lot more about astronomy and NASA than anything else out there... through first-hand and risk-free trial and error.
With that in mind, I think we need to ask what messages we are sending through our games. Japanese media sends some positive messages about loyalty and close friendship -- but they also manage to push rampant misogyny and even social isolation, though this is slowly getting a bit better. Russian developers embed a dramatic level of self-reliance, stoicism, and bitterness into their game worlds -- nobody else can describe survival like someone who's experienced or witnessed hunger in real life.
In this sense, what do Western games say? What values do these games ask players to condone through their avatars' actions? Do our games not overwhelmingly laud violence and oppression, consumerism and careerism, cynicism and existential despair? Games reflect our own character, and truly, these are parts of our nature that games should address and should explore. Yet, lest video games be inescapably locked into the ghetto of "murder simulation," we should also remember to include elements that appeal to players' better natures, inspiring and rewarding values like civic participation, charity, forgiveness, ecological awareness, good parenting, intellectual curiosity, and all the other things that let us take pride in ourselves and our cultures.
So, I'd ask developers to keep in mind that in addition to being a valuable product and enthralling form of entertainment, our games also serve as our cultural ambassadors. For a lot of people, a video game running on a rickety last-gen console may be the very first extended exposure they have to Western culture. Do sandbox crime games really reflect our ideals? What about military shooters wherein virtual soldiers get trophies for leveling residential neighborhoods? How about games that pit one hero as the sole, running-and-gunning hope against a corrupt establishment, when something more like mass organization or /la resistance/ would make far more sense?
I know developers periodically do find ways to express these notions, and everyone here will have their own list of "good actors" to mention, from creative and analytical games like FoldIt and Minecraft to MMOs that encourage various sorts of community-building and teamwork. These games make it "feel good to do good," and are every bit as important as deconstructions like Spec Ops: The Line that work to make vile behavior unrewarding. Furthermore, unlike deconstructions, games like these don't necessarily require genre awareness to get their point across. Even the stodgiest bureaucrat can see that Journey isn't a murder sim.
Education is the only thing that will help get America out of the state it's in. Corporate culture hires cheap outside labor for everything, which means that graduates won't find work with current companies. They have to form their own businesses and compete with the current giants of their industries. Even in supposedly high tech fields like computer science and technology engineering, companies would rather hire cheap labor form India and Pakistan than hire even a recently graduated American. And keep in mind, as someone in this industry, I don't begrudge the immigrants their desire to come here and work towards a better life. That's the American Dream and its open to all people. I begrudge the companies their desire to pay someone with a Bachelor's Degree the same rate of pay as McDonald's pays their cashiers.
Think I'm joking? In 1990, when I graduated high school, I worked for McDonald's for a few months, and I was paid $7.50/hour. Minimum wage was $6.25 (I believe, as it was a while ago). Over time, I moved from job to job, eventually making about $9.75/hour. Just the other day, I was talking to a recruiter for a tech job that wanted to offer me $11/hour to drive all over the place and service Dells. True, they offered mileage reimbursement, but $11/hour? A couple years ago I was working jobs that paid me $18-$24/hour to do the same thing.
Now, why am I talking about this on a board about "Games for Good"? Because simply wanting to change how people think about games, make them see them as tools of education, learning, and responsible fun, won't work until you change the perceptions of the people in power that education is a piggy bank and that it only exists to get honest, hard working Americans' hopes up only to saddle them with crippling debt and few, if any job prospects. Without hope for the future, there's no reason to bother changing perceptions about video games. There won't be a future to worry about. It's all connected, and we're all in it together.
Either way, I think an update might be due, and this conversation would be a great context for it!
You are imo absolutely correct. The market for games is still dominated by stereotypes of violence. Games could be a force of good, but they usually are not.
Game companies and publishers are fully aware, that the promise of a high level of disgusting and disturbing violence is a reliable way to sell a game to adolescent males. And publishers are all about reliable and are not really concerned with innovation or quality.
The custumers, the financers, and the makers are complicit in that violence plays an important part in getting games sold.
Gamers want to get emotions out of a game, and as Tarrantino explained, violence is a very easy way to emotionally manage your audience.
Also, to this day, males see violence as an integral part of their personality. There are virtually no male children that don't play with weapons. Violence is a social norm for men, that is reinforced everyday through media (24, Stargate, pick your own), parents (boys don't cry, don't let him do that to you), and peers (that's so gay, you **** <- female expletive).
And thirdly, violence is still an accepted and legitimate way of achieving goals in our society. Over 100k dead in Iraq, drones over Pakistan.
So, as I see it, as a social scientist, violence is widely accepted and entertaining, easy to sell and legit. Noone actually believes, that violence is so bad, as long as it's used against those subhuman foreigners, or whatever group has been found to be alien enough.
Violence is needed, as a political means, a marketing tool, and entertainment. The debate is not about violence at all, but about violence in the wrong form (not as succesfull entrepreneurship or law enforcement or military) and in the wrong direction (not against the poor, the moslems, the asians).
So, as of now, the gaming industry benefits from the violent games discussion more than it is harmed. What this discusion (wrongly, as we know) claims, is that the games are actually as intense as the gamers wish them to be. A game that turns you into a more violent person is exactly what adolescent males want to buy.
I will start to defend gaming under two conditions (and I'm a gamer):
A) If gamers and gamemakers showed a strong tendency to pacifism (as in "gamers against war" or similiar activism) and violent games no longer were the norm in the marketplace.
Oh, and I'm german and learned english, you guessed it, through games and gaming communities.
Personally I lost interest in this discussion a long way ago, because it is lead so incincere on all sides. Gamers don't admit that they enjoy violence, politicians don't admit that they orchestrate violence, content producers don't admit that they live of selling violence simulations.
I learned English mostly through Pokemon,and other games later,so I see that point right in front of me.
1. The Daily Show is NOT news.
2. You're coming at this from the wrong direction. We don't need to change the medium at all, we simply need to reframe the discussion. No one blames movies or TV when there's a school shooting. Almost without fail, the scapegoats are videogames, and to a lesser degree popular music (usually rap). This has to do with the pastime being associated with children, even though consumption of videogames persists across demographics of age. IE: young gamers grow up into old gamers. We don't see people "growing out" of videogames as one might grow out of action figures or kids cartoons. This debate will vanish as gamers take up positions in the halls of our policy creators. Trying to pander to reactionaries with examples of "good" games merely feeds into the stereotype that existing games are "bad". It doesn't matter if a game lets you murder babies, or kick puppies, or rape grandma. In the end, it's entertainment. The videogame entertainment genre is no more responsible for societies woes than comics were during the adoption of the Comics Code Authority. If you remember, this Act didn't improve the view of comics, it just regulated them and damaged the industry. In time, they were seen as valid adult entertainment and the witchhunt went away. By trying to appease these people, you will only egg them on to greater heights of tyranny. Stand firm on your convictions, because if you back down you will only inspire greater persecution.
As others have pointed out, the Daily Show isn't news, doesn't claim to be news, and it's kind of a bad look to talk about "news" and use a satirical comedy programme to illustrate that.
Less critically, form a PAC or at the very least an organised non-profit (501(c)3). It's cheap, it's easy, and it's a great way to create an operational cash flow. A PAC, which is doubtlessly the easiest to form, allows you the ability to function not just as a lobbying group, but a communications and outreach organisation that can back ballot initiatives on state and local levels. Additionally, PAC money can be used for unconnected outreach for candidates who support that PAC's goals.
Alternatively, I'm not sure if a gaming outreach organisation would be covered (I'm an accountant, not a lawyer), but non-profit or 501(c)3 organisation could be an intelligent move. 501(c)3's are more geared to community outreach and education than political activity than a PAC (which does have "political action" right in the name) and grants additional freedoms and tax exemptions your outreach and education efforts would undoubtedly benefit from.
Both of those types of organisations also benefit from a permanence that an individual track of activity that isn't organised into such an organisation wouldn't grant. Permanence is a great thing for two reasons. One, it allows you an easier (and much less legally-difficult) path to funding and, two, it allows that organisation to operate at different levels of activity depending on circumstances while still being able to raise funds in the background and otherwise exist.
If you're already doing either of those or something like it (because there are lots of organisational structures something like this could use), sorry, I didn't see it on the project page! Feel free to disregard my post and I'm sorry it takes up so much space!
Video games are now primarily entertainment, just like movies. Also, they can (in theory) have a large educational segment, like books do, and be even better at it due to inherent reactivity. Now, the problem is, by focusing on promoting educational games specifically on the news and in politics and whatnot, the obvious implication is that games made for the sake of entertainment or some sort of cultural or aesthetic value are *worse* and not deserving of discussion on this level.
The proper solution to the problem is for more genres of games to become truly mainstream, and not just CoD or Battlefield like it is now. And the current trend of social gaming (see ps4 and xbone) is clearly the way to achieve this, disgusting though it may be. Also, I'm not even American, and those news networks are really unique in their madness. Everywhere else, video games are just not something that the majority see as good entertainment even without direct media attacks against them. Point is, the situation will get significantly better in time (a decade or two?), and sucking up to media and politicians by focusing on educational aspects or that drivel with "hand-eye coordination" will do only harm. Games should be everything that any other sort of media ever were, and more.
And i remember some educational games in my ages(they want one for typing if like invaders but whit typing if was very fun and really enjoyed).
And i am gonna agree, this and whit the new tech that is in the very proximity(Oculus Rift), can make the learning experience of some themes like a HELL more easy to learn(a physic game where you need to put data to save a car of crashing for example). Sooooo i don´t see the problem with what that is purposed here in this page.
I understand that most people want to create a dialogue regarding the "games = violence" theory, but there's another argument that is equally as bad: "Games = misogyny"
Both seem to stem from a reactionary position whereby someone is offended by the dress or look of a character and decides to equate their look to something evil. How can we discuss games when the default position of games is the same as the comic books and other mediums that are fairly new? In order to really be able to discuss games as a cultural medium we have to accept them as art first. Then, after accepting them as art, we need to recognize and be able to have them as parts of a cultural dialogue. Personally, I see it that we can't even do this right now because publishers and various laws prevent this (namely copyright). We can't archive, preserve, or try to understand our culture in gaming and begin to figure out what the public needs to become informed. That's fairly odd to me. We recognize that games have certain themes and narratives where we can explore our own humanity, yet we don't have the public resources to look into these issues.
So I guess my largest concern is how can we begin to look at this from a cultural perspective if we don't even know where to begin with this project?
I'm grateful to anyone willing to knock on doors and windows to remind us of that.
- Hawk
P.S.: I wrote a small tumblr piece based on this video. So extra thanks for a handy inspiration!
http://prompt-ripost.tumblr.com/post/52266463101/natalia
On the topic of professionalism, the quality of the video is disappointing. The backdrop of what appears to be a cluttered home office does nothing to inspire confidence in me or make me take James serious. What is more annoying as a viewer is that the sound is only feeding into the left speaker, meaning that when I'm listening to the video with headphones on I'm only getting it in one ear. This lack of professionalism makes me seriously doubt that you know how to put together moving presentations.
You present a vague conceptual message which manages to ramble on for nearly five minutes, leaving me unsure of any plans beyond going to Washington D.C. and talking to people. Again, it makes me question James' ability to put together a coherent and moving presentation and effectively lobby. I agree with him that informing Congress would go a long way in giving them some reasonable background to work from but he does not seem like the person for the job.
Finally, you should try posting a video of a pitch you plan to make to congress. If you can't convince your audience of a belief they already hold then you need to go back and rework what you have. It also serves as a great rallying cry to have something that people point to as an example of the argument that they are trying to make.
As far as the content goes, I have minimal desire for the government to offer grants to game developers, that's far more the place of non-profits spending private money rather than the government spending taxpayer dollars. Hooking the grant money that is available up with the "right people" sounds great but who are the "right people"? It would be far more effective to improve communication about what grants are available so that more publishers and developers know about them. If they don't know about them it's awfully hard for them to try to capitalize on them.
Games are not all bad.
And in Guild Wars 2, everything is talked about in main/all chat... serious stuff and b.s
Games imho are a great thing to have, MMO's get you in touch with people everywhere on the planet, with already a common interest (the game) and it goes from there... Solo games can help you calm down and 'forget' about real life for awhile, we all need that, some can even help people with disabilities, health issues.... games have their place...
Really I think the real problem is that you care. People will always blame the media. Always and forever. They've been doing it for centuries. They will continue until the end of time. IT WILL NEVER CHANGE. People talk about TV, media, culture, everything as being the cause of all that is bad.
ETA @ Jagos1: Exactly. When the core game play mechanic is "eat it, shoot it or f*ck it" the last thing you need to worry about is PR.
This is how the media viewed comic books in the 1950's
and this feeling created the comics code, censorship, and a stagnation of creativity that lasted less then 10 years.
And today, even marvel sells versions of there comics that have graphic sex, violence, and nudity.
The point is this, old people hate the things that are unique to the next generation, and nothing can or will change that. The solution is simple, despite you efforts... regardless your efforts, give it a few years, all the old people will die, or retire, and the young people who love and understand this media will take their place and this will become a non-issue.
Just be happy that despite all the coverage and debate that games are just awful, it is not preventing most games from being made; The comics code made all comics essentially espn 'teen' or lower, and I just played a mainstream successful game with everything you need to make a game 'Mature.'
'Jumping jack flash' is a song about getting so incredibly high you go insane, and it plays in supermarkets because the people who where the young counter culture grew up to be the mainstream. As someone who worked at a game retailer for 3 years, despite all the yelling and shouting of a few people trying to fill the 24/hour news cycle no one is listening to them, every day parents buy there kids M rated games.
As long as games are a billion dollar industry politicians will only say they are against games to look family friendly, but then do nothing. That is why the game industry isn't worried, no politician is going to raise up against jobs and industry in any way that will effect the industry, so they don't bother.
Also, there are plenty of good educational games, and many good development groups making them, and despite the few you have seen that are not good, (your examples by the way where private business ventures by people who didn't know what they where doing), The rest of the people who are making them, including me, who work like hell to get those grants to make those games do so because it's our passion and what drives us. My group has been around for almost a decade, and we have received countless emails and letter from people thanking us, and letting us know they became scientist because of our games. SO LET GO MY EGO!
How about penny arcade should give the money they give you to an animation group that wont just show stick figures and clip art. They don't because while an animation team could produce better shows, they would probably miss the point of what you are doing and why.
I earn half of what I could at a game studio that makes games just for entertainment, but I do what I do because all threw college I knew it's what I wanted to do. BUT I guess it's important that we force companies like EA to take the money so they can have their drones pump out a game they have no interest in making? The people who's life passion is making educational video games, are making educational video games. Terrible educational video games, like your examples, come from your scenario of giving the money and projects to developments groups that will gladly take the money so they can afford to make other games they would rather make.
ALSO, get off your high horse, There is room for both Games as art, and Games as dick and fart jokes with gratuitous sex and violence. Don't get mad at EA for advertising Dead Space as a fun game your mother would not like, she wouldn't and that is why it's fun and that is OK so back off!
And while we are talking about how you are wrong; The reason jrpg's are different from western rpg's was the HUGE success of Fightin)g Fantasy novels in japan (a chose your own adventure novel with rpg elements) compared to minuscule penetration of Dungeons and Dragons (Which is what inspired western rpg's) because of the inability to affordably import the pewter miniature that where needed for the game at the time.
So in conclusion, the 'games make you violent so they are bad' problem is not a problem and it will solve itself without your help (and please, the last thing we need is YOU to represent us to congress), stop trying to take away my grant money (the people who should make educational games are the ones who want to make them), try researching more then 30 minutes before you write these OPINION pieces, stop acting so holier then thou about gratuitous graphic games while you pretend to defend them in the same breath, and try researching more then 30 minutes before you write these OPINION pieces about gaming history, history is not suppose to be based on opinion.
p.s. I really like watching your show and I look forward to watching it in the future, please keep up the good work (not sarcastic, one of my favorite parts of the week is this show.)