We need a new term for "computer game".
There have been two major stories in the electronic entertainment news over the last couple of days. Or at least two big ones that Google has pointed me to.
The first is the oh-so-shocking announcement that, what with the release of GTA San Andreas, Doom 3, Half Life 2 and a new Leisure Suit Larry game, this is a bumper year for sex and violence on the computer screen. This is a priori a bad thing, of course, and a sign of the evil things our kids are getting up to.
Children play games, you see.
Except that buried two thirds of the way down some of these articles is the embarrassed admission that the average age of the computer game player is something like 29. Computer games are adult entertainment1 now, and we shouldn't exactly be surprised that adults want the same sort of things out of games as they do out of movies.
The second piece of news was the release of JFK Reloaded an attempt to simulate the precise circumstances of the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald (the game is based on the assumption that Oswald did it). The hue and cry over the game's release has been predictable.
Traffic, the Glaswegian company behind the game, did a lot of things wrong PR-wise, but their biggest mistake was giving their simulation a hokey name, and calling it a "computer game".
If a major TV network were to air an advertisement tomorrow for a new documentary on Kennedy's assassination, nary an eyelid would be blinked. Ditto if they promoted that "through state of the art technology, we have been able to simulate the precise conditions of that fateful day, and prove that Oswald could have been the killer." Ditto if said simulation involved a 3d fly-through of the trajectory of each bullet.
You can't package that simulation for everyone, though. Democratise the documentary so that anyone can attempt the reconstruction themselves (offering a prize for the person who comes closest to proving Oswald could have done it), and pundits will be calling for your heads.
Because it's a computer game. Kids play games.
If you think about it, it's not much of a game, is it. There's one level. You get to fire at most three bullets, and then all you can do next is try again. The victory condition (making the shots exactly as described in the Warren Commission report) doesn't even make any sense from a gaming point of view. It's like writing a golf game where the aim is not to make the lowest possible score, but to reproduce a particular Greg Norman game down to the last stroke.
Its only real value, then, is as a simulation, an investigation of a particularly controversial historical event from a new angle.
(Then again, given the amount of time I've spent pushing simulated people down stairs, or clubbing penguins long distances, maybe the tolerance for such shallow and repetitive gameplay is greater than i think)
So we need a new word for "computer game". Preferably something short and unpretentious -- I don't want "simulated" this or "immersive electronic experience" that -- but without the baggage of the mental image of a thirteen year old kid playing Super Mario Brothers.
1 Admit it. You read "adult entertainment" and thought "porn". I dislike the way the word "adult" has been co-opted. Just once, I'd like the "Adult themes" disclaimer at the start of a TV show to mean that the program explores the nature of reality and the tragedy of existence, rather than just being a warning that someone might mention sex.
Hey, I wouldn't call the "hue and cry" over the JFK game a PR "mistake" -- its a marketing coup. That's how it works these days.
(I know PR and marketing aren't the same thing, but if the aim is to sell units, PR can go jump - what we want is eyeballs and the more fuss the better).
Mark Cuban wrote a good blog on this the other day:
http://blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000897020769/
I too have spent more time than I want to admit pushing people down stairs and clubbing penguins.
A problematic point I see here, is that "computer game" is itself very simple, to the point, and should by rights have no specific connotation of "kiddie". Just as it is observed that the word "adult" needs to be reclaimed from certain assotiations, in my view "computer game" or even "videogame" needs to be reclaimed rather than thrown out. Just chucking stuff out the window can be the lazy way out and do away with a perfectly good thing.
The problem is public perception, particularly in the United States, can be a very shallow and media-bite thing to contend with. The media often seems geared to service legions of soccor moms, with the latest scare story for their oh-so-vunerable children. Regardless of what we -call- computer and videogames, the media and public are determined to see the most "adult themed" piece of interactive software because they see "Nintendo" and "Toy" linked in a very simplistic framework. Heck, Nintendo itself is not as universally "kiddie" as the media and mainstream mindshare takes as a given!
Overall, I think you make a good point about screwed up popular associations and misconceptions about interactive entertaiment. But my caveat is that it's a problem that runs a lot deeper than a mere name. And I just don't think a name change (and one away from an already perfectly fitting name) will do much. Also, it doesn't take into account that the "kids" do still play the "adult" stuff as well much of the time if given the chance. This isn't quite like trying to disassociate one thing from a totally mistaken framework - as if the kids never played GTA and only played Super Mario Brothers (a game series I still play myself, har har, as a 31-year-old. A lot of so-called "mature" games bore me, pandering to shut-in geek perceptions of "mature".) Adults play Gamecubes as well as obsessing over flash games where you blow up fowl, or geeking out over assassination simulators. Kids play GTA. It's just not a cleanly or simply defined situation.
Kal: Kids sneak in to see Pulp Fiction and South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut too. Of course, for the first one there's no outcry, but for the second one, there is because South Park is a cartoon, which has the same stigma...
I thought of this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4187943
NPR : Elected Officials Focus on Video-Game Content
"The new video games coming out this Christmas are seen by many as more violent than ever before, with increasing emphasis on sexual themes. And some politicians are concerned about children being exposed to what they see as inappropriate content."
What I don't get is why lots of people believe it's the video game manufacturer's responsibility to keep these video games out of the hands of children even when it's the parents & grandparents who are supposedly often buying the games for the kids. In other words, the retailers are responsible for not selling them to under-agers, but that the video game manufacturers should do more to educate & inform these parents & grandparents about what they're buying for their kids.
Yet I swear, it's these same people who do NOT believe that fast food companies should do more to educate and inform people of what exactly they're feeding themselves and their kids when they eat at fast food joints.
Is it truly about protection? I say bullocks.
I think these people don't want the 29 year olds playing these games either, plain and simple. They just can't do anything about it, so they guise their strategies as aimed at the under-agers.
So yes, I think some people are duped by the game = children ploy... But that's all it is, a ploy. The people who really want to do something about this crap want to stop EVERYONE from playing these games. I really believe that.
And thank you for pointing out the marketing/advertising angle on the JFK assassination game. I thought the very same thing actually... that plenty of people watch documentary after documentary of it... watching his head get blown open over & over. And here a simulation (not real) of the story is getting such hot focus. Do I think the game is appealing? No, I rather think it's in bad taste, myself, because I personally have no wish, even in a fantasy, to step into Oswald's shoes, or any once-real killer situation. (I like video games that escape reality! haha.) But I hardly think it's a big deal. And there are plenty of video games I have no interest in playing, for any number of reasons.
Finally, I thought it was HYSTERICAL that the guy interviewed in NPR recently, cited "The Sims" as family-friendly type of game, because it's not violent. Not violent? Not only can you kill Sims in the game, but you can TORTURE them! I doubt there's any actual TORTURE going on in that JFK assassination game!
But it's all about PR and "intent"... You won't find instructions in the Sims manual on how to torture Sims... But it's possible all the same!
The thing is, many of those 29-year-olds actually *are* playing the latest Super Mario game, too.
I'd venture to guess that the ultra-violent games you list may actually have proportionately more popularity among a stereotypical game-playing audience (teenage-to-early-20s males) than among older gamers, who most likely play a wider range and perhaps aren't even ashamed to get their Donkey Konga on.
The word 'game' shouldn't really have a negative connotation, but (except in the context of sport) it usually does. That's because adults aren't supposed to play games. In a modern society where most adults have leisure time, adults actually do play games (from computer games through to even more derided pastimes like D&D) and I think eventually society will realise this about itself. There's no particular need to rush it. Let the media have their 'oh my god you can kill somebody in this' frenzy every few months, let the developers get their PR; none of it will make much difference.
PS Jason is not my real name. I actually normally use my real name in this kind of context, but I found the 'real names, please' and linked article insufferably patronising. My nickname, should I choose to use it, is just as valid and just as much 'me' as my realname - and it's been equally stringently verified... (Cheers for not making me lie about email address, though... and then I spoiled all the [supposed] anonymity by filling in a URL, just because.)
Damnit! I just realised you know who I am anyway. That'll teach me for assuming random blog links I follow are to people I've never heard of.
--notJason
"Hacker", anyone?
this is gay everything is blocked at my school
this is gay everything is blocked at my school help