     |
 |
 |
 | | | | |
 |
|||
 |
||||||
          |
 |
 |
||||
|
I don't see the type of response that occurred when the PMRC threatened the music industry in the early '80s; I don't see Frank Zappas and Elvis Costellos and articulate, passionate speakers stepping forward to defend our craft and livelihood. I'm not saying we need to draft Will Wright and Peter Molyneux as spokespersons, but we do need to be vocal and defend (and legitimize) games as a creative medium, in the same way that film, photography, traditional art and music have defended themselves before restrictive legislation. -Michael Eilers, University of Advancing Technology I just think we should make the games we would want to play and let the ESRB rate them. Easier said than done. People need to understand that video games are not just for kids. They need to learn that games have ratings, and if you wouldn't let your kid see an R rated movie, then why in the world would you let your kid play an M rated game? My sister knows this with her children. They cannot even play T rated games. As more parents learn, I think we will see many different games. The problem right now is that a lot of parents are just ignorant to it, especially the older parents. This is like rock and roll. Right now it might be controversial. But 10-20 years from now, it will be something else. -David Demaree, The Guildhall @ SMU I never cease to be amazed by the technical genius, artistic talent, incredible work ethic and creative brilliance of the games industry. But I see censorship as only one small aspect of the industry's inability to stand up for itself. The IGDA is a wonderful organization, and the Game Developers Conference clearly demonstrates the strength and vibrancy of the developer community. But somehow it seems that the collective genius of the games industry sometimes can’t see the forest through the trees. While censorship and game content have long been recurring discussions, I see them merely as a distraction to a larger issue. The issue is for game developers to take more control over how their work reaches the public. For two decades, the game development community has continued to allow proprietary hardware manufacturers to dictate the marketplace. The history of this transformation could fill a book. But the fact is that the circumstances that made this arrangement so necessary and successful no longer exist. Today interactive content is far more important than the hardware. But the games industry has continued to allow Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony to call the shots. The game business is always looking for parallels to Hollywood. As frequently as possible it is pointed out that the video game business grosses more money than Hollywood. But Hollywood never would have become Hollywood if the manufacturers of movie projectors took 40% of the movie business’ revenue. It sounds silly, but there is your parallel. Even sillier, imagine movie projector manufacturers dictated what could be shown on their projectors. That’s censorship! Anyone can make a video or movie that is easily disseminated to the general public. Any musician can create content for everyone to hear. Certainly writers have no trouble reaching their audience. But the most talented artists in the world have been divided and conquered by a few hardware manufacturers. Even more important to the development community than their fight against censorship should be the fight to distribute their work on an open platform; a platform that allows developers to be rewarded for their effort, and not destroyed for their failures. This is a realistic goal that everyone in the game development community should be working towards. -Eli Tomlinson, Gamix Censorship only becomes an issue if we make it an issue. Freedom is not defined by an enforced lack of or an increase in the restrictions being placed upon the censor, but by an abundance of options which facilitate working with the censor as an acknowledgment to those who purchase the games in terms of their freedom, as consumers, to choose from an equally vast collection of options or alternatives that are being provided to the consumer in terms of what is or is not available for the consumers' respective consumption. Examples can be easily drawn from those who create cinematic or televisual programming. Why do people prefer to buy the option of viewing an unrated version of any given movie or television program? Typically those are purchased, not because the unrated version might be any more entertaining, but because they are perceived as being more likely to reflect the original "spirit" and "focus" of the screenwriters and/or directors that created the entertainment itself. Scenes or portions are not deleted only because they might be too "risque" for general consumption. If any of us have sat through a collection of deleted scenes, with the directors' commentary "on", then it becomes much clearer as to why the director chose to snip any given scene. As to the philosophical and ethical aspects of developing any given form of entertainment, I am reminded of inscriptions said to still be prescribed across the entry arch to an ancient temple, one devoted to the goddess Diana. The inscriptions I am thinking of go like this: "As above so below." and "Do all things in moderation." A New Paradigm - By facilitating creative choices throughout production, game professionals can do nothing but stand up for their freedom as an expression of their creative drive. This can be accommodated and facilitated by simply making the choice to participate in the creation of entertainment, nothing else is necessary. The question then becomes, "Can game professionals adopt this new paradigm, or will we limit our freedom of choice and our freedom of expression by continuing to fight with the censors about what is or is not considered art?" In closing, censorship can, if we wish, be perceived as an attack against "the artist", "art" or as a means by which the art itself can be made available to and appreciated by a much wider audience. The choice - once that choice has been made, can and may be a means by which we as game professionals can and may promote and facilitate not only our freedom, but the freedom of our clients. -Paul Garceau, NewDawn Productions I am for any censorship. If every man could say what he thinks, do what he wants, and if every man could hear thoughts of other people - nothing good would happen, I think. Man has conscience, common sense, which can be interpreted as special cases of censorship. So, it's an ordinary thing. On the other hand, I don't understand why little children must not play Doom? For now, the main lesson, that children have to learn - do not believe everything what remains on the other side of the screen. But if it is A MAN on the other side, and your children shoot him, they could do it much more easily in the real world. We must have GAMES FOR KIDS, which teaches them, for example, that shooting other people is bad. And we must have GAMES FOR ADULTS, which can allow us to do what we must not do in the real world. -Anonymous |
|||||||||||||||
Previous
|
|
|