New video! -Video Games and Facing Controversy-

[sephfire]

In Seph's video on Learning he specifically said "Games above all should be FUN." So if you're looking at it like that, then by nature you can't really make things like Black Hawk Down (or whatever) because we don't always go to movies or read books to be entertained. Like Malaki said, it's the nature of the medium.

You know, I'm actually beginning to reconsider that statement I made. I feel like it's important for games to continue being the source of entertainment they always have been, but I'm starting to wonder if there might be a place for games that offer other kinds of experiences in an interactive way. The very fact that the interactivity involves you as the player in what happens could give people an entirely new perspective on a variety of things.

I guess I'm starting to think of it like I think about movies: most of them are made to entertain, and I would never want that to go away. But there is also room for other kinds of movies: movies that scare, movies that inform, movies that make you think. I've heard of some indie games that fall roughly into this sort of category. I'd love to see games reach a point where other kinds of games could coexist with the fun ones.

On a side note, thanks for your part in providing me such a great outro. I was worried about finding a good tone to go out on with this slightly-more-serious video until I remembered Passing the Blue Crown. Awesome, awesome remix and a perfect fit.

[K.B.]

The choice of (and time-selection of) outro was impeccable.

Transcending the medium. That's what truly good movies do. That's what truly good games can do.

And I'm really sorry, Malaki, but you're putting way to much emphasis on the significance of the masses. Good is good regardless of popularity. Appeal to ignorance? No, we should not. We are more than that.

[zircon]

I agree that games can certainly be cinematic, actually. SPOILERS WARNING:

In FF7: Crisis Core, the ending sequence nearly brought a tear to my eye. Throughout the game, you are generally responsible for acting in any event. You fight all the enemies and all the bosses. If there are missiles being fired at a town, you have to PLAY to chop them in half. In this way, you really feel like you *are* the main character. It's awesome. However, at the end, you can just feel the desperation and hopelessness as Zack (the player) looks on at an endless army of Shinra troops. The music changes to the main theme of the game, not a battle theme, but rather than a mere cutscene, you actually *play the battle*. You can use every spell, every item and every attack, but you will lose; and you know you're going to.

After a brief non-interactive cutscene triggered by entering low HP in the previous battle, you enter a new battle. Zack can barely pick up his sword, this time. His movements are slowed. His HP bar is nearly depleted, and he cannot use his abilities. As you try in futility to attack, you do no damage - but the game forces you to keep playing. The DMW, used previously as a simple level up and limit break system, is 'broken'. You no longer get powerful attacks from it. Instead, it represents the desperation of Zack's dying mind. It flashes to characters you've met and places you've been, but only briefly. As Zack becomes pummeled further in the battle, it settles on just one image, Aeris, over and over.

THIS is the kind of cinematic, interactive storytelling that games are capable of. Nobody ever talks about Crisis Core like this except bustatunez and I, but I have yet to play any other game that delivers such an emotional punch in an interactive sequence. In my view, we need more games like this before we even attempt to tackle controversial subject matter. Simply making an FPS game set in Fallujah will not get your point across. But if you took such a game and forced the player to do quicktime events in order to resucitate their comrades - but inevitably failing - that would be something else.

[Thalzon]

KB, I don't want to quote your entire thing, but the only examples you posted are from games where the events that occur have no chance of every actually happening in real life (not to mention I thought SH1 was initially referring to Shadow Hearts). The question I meant to ask was, from a moral standpoint, is it RIGHT to have fun at the expense of potentially exploiting real-life tragedy? Especially when the tragedy is so fresh and recent?

I don't disagree with telling the soldiers' story. But honestly, I doubt a videogame is the appropriate medium, because there was nothing FUN about the things those soldiers went through.

[Vivi22]

I vehemently disagree. Many already recognize games such as SotC as art; this is a far cry from the perception of games during the 8-bit era. To give such an absolute in passing is to deny the progress that has already been made.

Allow me to correct you; many gamers already view games such as SotC as art (and I count myself among them). This is a far cry from being the accepted viewpoint. Many people who care little for seeing movies wouldn't deny that they're an art form, but that is not the case for games. This will change as people of our generation and the next continue to play them in ever increasing numbers, but not without continuing to offer thought provoking experiences to the player.

I'm also going to throw it out there that COD4 is one of the better games out there as far as offering a compelling and thought provoking experience in gameplay several times over, similar to what Zircon was getting at with Crisis Core I think (I skipped over much of the description because I haven't finished the game yet. Even though I know what happens I don't want to ruin the how for myself).

[The Derrit]

And I'm really sorry, Malaki, but you're putting way to much emphasis on the significance of the masses. Good is good regardless of popularity. Appeal to ignorance? No, we should not. We are more than that.

Sorry but this could not be less true. The masses are THE thing significant here. If not for the masses, things like six days in falluja DON'T HAPPEN. Companies pull out of deals and bail on good ideas, and decide to play it safe because of the masses, and because of popular opinion.

You're putting way too much emphasis on the quality. There are tons of items in ANY medium that are quality, and will never get the recognition they deserve. If every game company decided to make the game they always wanted to the industry would fold in a matter of months because while maybe we're not like this, the vast majority of people who play videogames wouldn't care about how awesome and meaningful these games were.

An awful lot of people who play videogames are dumb and/or doing so only to pass the time. This is important.

The whole point of his video was to say that while its not always what we want to do, we need to market to the masses. Not in the sense that we should give them all Halo and expect them to be happy, but when something controversial happens, to stand up for it and explain why it's so important/awesome/worth the controversy. If we all just say "well what's good is good the masses aren't important" then we will have gotten NOWHERE. The whole point here is people other than us need to understand. We already do. This is not appealing to ignorance, but instead informing ignorance; on the flip side, telling the general public "oh you just don't understand" sounds an awful lot like an angsty child. Not the image gaming wants or needs.

[BardicKnowledge]

I guess I'm starting to think of it like I think about movies: most of them are made to entertain, and I would never want that to go away. But there is also room for other kinds of movies: movies that scare, movies that inform, movies that make you think. I've heard of some indie games that fall roughly into this sort of category. I'd love to see games reach a point where other kinds of games could coexist with the fun ones.

This. I've seen films that made me physically uncomfortable while watching them. Films like Crash that actively make YOU the watcher feel guilty and responsible for the types of behavior that occur. I still wouldn't describe it as an "entertaining" movie, but am I glad I saw it? Absolutely.

There is room for games to do this also, and I'd pay good money to see it; screw the "masses".

[Nabeel Ansari]

Good stuff, man.

The drawings are cute and the dialogue is funny, especially since he sounds so bored. xD

[K.B.]

KB, I don't want to quote your entire thing, but the only examples you posted are from games where the events that occur have no chance of every actually happening in real life (not to mention I thought SH1 was initially referring to Shadow Hearts). The question I meant to ask was, from a moral standpoint, is it RIGHT to have fun at the expense of potentially exploiting real-life tragedy? Especially when the tragedy is so fresh and recent?

I don't disagree with telling the soldiers' story. But honestly, I doubt a videogame is the appropriate medium, because there was nothing FUN about the things those soldiers went through.

Sorry about the SH confusion; I tend to over-abbreviate.

I don't think I've played many games that reflect reality completely, but I can think of several that dealt with serious, very real topics and did so appropriately. I don't see why this couldn't work by extending this from a topic to an actual event. And I think I was wrong before; 'fun' doesn't seem to be the right word for what is kept. I think sephfire, zircon, and Bardic nailed it: fun might have to be sacrificed, but something just as, if not more, valuable could take its place.

As to exploiting, it would come down to how well or how poorly the game is made and not merely to the fact that it is made. Also, I don't see how recency is a good counter; actually, if this is indeed a tribute to those who fought and died on both sides (all other issues being handled tactfully as well), then it would be a disservice to delay this.

Sorry but this could not be less true. The masses are THE thing significant here. If not for the masses, things like six days in falluja DON'T HAPPEN. Companies pull out of deals and bail on good ideas, and decide to play it safe because of the masses, and because of popular opinion.

Well, right, you need to sell enough to make a profit (unless you have a philanthropic benefactor... but I'm not holding out on that happening to a vg company). But that doesn't mean you have to appeal to the masses. Say a niche group of gamers - perhaps 5% - would appreciate a very deep, completely reality-based game and be willing to sacrifice a bit of fun (for lack of a better term) for the interactive reality. That's still a significant number of people. It could be harder to reach these people through marketing, yes, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible. Or it could be that this represents a hardcore fanbase, in which case all you need to do is make a good product and the purchases are all but guaranteed - low risk, small but definite return. I don't think we know which will be true for real-life vgs; every new type/variant of game takes a risk in this area.

I'm not saying that vg companies should show a disregard for their consumer base; I'm saying that they can turn a profit from products that do not necessarily appeal to the masses. A game might end up being popular among the majority, but it doesn't have to.

Does it make more business sense to appeal to the masses? Of course. So the vast majority of games, even well-crafted ones, are designed to try to appeal to as many people as possible. But that doesn't preclude an individual or a group of individuals from having a motive aside from or in addition to profit; more than one artist has refused to compromise his ideals, and sometimes the creations still make it to completion. That integrity and determination is exactly what this is about. Controversial vgs might have a lot more negative PR to weather, but this can be done by companies with enough faith in their products.

Now, looking at the 'masses' as the general public instead of potential consumers, my choice of terms wasn't the best. I agree that companies should try to appeal to the public to have them see the merits of their games and of vg as a medium. What I meant was that they should not appeal to widespread demand that controversial games be axed or toned down. A given game is either right in the way it handles its subject matter or it is not; the public perception of it is irrelevant. So if a company has a good game, they should try to change public opinion, not the game... and if they can't change public opinion, push on anyway with the knowledge that they have a quality, marketable product.

[Maco70]

You make many good points. But the problem with stating that taking a stand with the industry does not make sense in the long run. The general public who does not understand the medium are right in to a point to be critical of the videogames. Many representations are very unprofessional, and many consumers are rightfully called immature.

While I would like to believe that the industry is ready for a growth to respect, it is not something which will change for quite some time. The target audience is young, and consuming the same games over and over. The artistic games sell, but there is no comparison in profit. As long as this industry continues to produce the same types of games and they continue to turn profit, there is no need for drastic change.

I am not saying this is right, it's just what I see.

Furthermore, this problem is not exclusive to the games industry. All media has seen a degredation in content and expression to make way for profit. It has been art verses business out there for quite a while, and business is winning. Talent and passion are no longer rewarded, there is only the capacity for the mass production of a product for mass consumption of an audience.

[Neo Samus]

I'll make a note to watch this when I get home. Loved everyone of your videos so far.

[Sindra]

Loved the video, Seph. As always, you bring up excellent points in regards to the possibility of video games becoming n art form, and should be given the privileges of other media.

I also give you props for not once mentioning Jacko. Good on you.

[Neo Samus]

Just got a chance to watch your video. I found it very powerful and I agree we need to stand up for our industry if we are to be taken seriously.

[zircon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15videogames-t.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

Relevant?