An R18 Discussion Paper Submission Letter

December last year the long awaited Discussion paper regarding an R18+ classification for games was finally released. With only a week remaining until the cut-off date for submissions, tallying has already begun. Although this is a call for feedback only – not a vote – results so far positive. I submitted one myself of course, but in addition to this I wrote a rather lengthy letter my local Attorney-General Cameron Dick, as well as Brendan O’Connor, Minister for Home Affairs.

The letter is a collection of thoughts and concerns regarding the R18 debate. I tried to avoid many of the points commonly bought up by pro-R18 supporters (though I still touch on several where relevant) simply because so many others have done a great job of bringing them up in their own submissions with reference to the compelling Interactive Australia research. Instead, my submission is more a personally letter based on my own opinions, experience, and reading.

The letter is as follows:


Dear [minister],

I write concerning the call for public consultation regarding the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games. I am delighted to see that the long promised Discussion paper on this issue was released last December, and have submitted a response myself. However, I feel that a more in-depth, personal letter is also necessary in order to fully express my thoughts on this issue.

I am a twenty-six year old game developer employed at Krome Studios, an Australian owned and operated video game company with studios in Brisbane, Melbourne, and Adelaide. I am a member of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) Brisbane Chapter, and frequent many game developer and consumer related conferences and events throughout Australia. In my spare time I am not only an avid player of games, but also enjoy studying gamer culture and how games intersect, influence, and reflect culture at large. Therefore my interest in this issue is that of a professional, a consumer, and a hobbyist.

I would like to address a few key issues that continuously pop up in this debate, namely:

• The impact of video games on players and the significance of interactivity

• The range of adult games available

• The ability for parents to restrict their children’s access to adult games

• Games as art and entertainment, their place in popular culture, and why we need an R18+ rating.

The impact of video games on players and the significance of interactivity

A key issue of the debate has been that because games are interactive, they are therefore of greater concern than other media such as film, where the viewer plays a purely passive role. I feel that this concern arises from key misconceptions about how people engage in games (and media in general).

Firstly, it is important to recognise the difference between the media content of a game and the gameplay systems. People unfamiliar with games often confuse these elements: they see players engrossing themselves in the violence and gore but do not see the underlying gameplay systems that are actually concerned with things like reaction time, problem solving, and teamwork. To use film as an analogy: it is the difference between the underlying plot and the imagery as presented on screen. It is important to understand that when a player is playing a game they are not mindlessly absorbing the content, but actively engaged in a complex system of rules and goals, stimulating a variety of thought processes including problem solving and creative thinking. It is also incorrect to assume that a player is focused entirely on one or the other. Instead a player’s mind is constantly shifting between both aspects, at one moment engaged in the imagery and the next moment considering how many seconds are left in the round. Players interpret each element individually as well as find meaning in the experience as a whole. This is not meant to discount the impact of the media content, but to recognise that watching bloody death animations and achieving a high score from 20 “kills” are two very different things.

Secondly, critics of violent games often cite players ‘rehearsing violence’, or liken their effect to military training simulations – they say players are training themselves to be violent. This assumes a direct transference of ideas that removes all room for context, interpretation, and player expression. No media is ever experienced without context, and people simply do not learn this way. People interpret games (and indeed all forms of media) in their own individual way, retaining some information and ignoring other parts, and interpreting all of it based on their own unique past experiences. It is not simply a case of “monkey play, monkey do”.

I find it unsurprising that the Byron Report (referenced in the Discussion paper) found studies into the effects of video game violence to be so polarised. It is difficult to separate the effects of the media content from the gameplay interaction, and therefore difficult to compare them to other forms of media or interactive activities (like aggressive sports). And they rarely, if ever, consider how players assess the media and interaction with regards to their own life experience.

It is part of my job as a games developer to understand how my product affects people (indeed in order to create any media product you need to know how your medium engages people). As someone who has spent years developing games as well as investing time into personal study of video game theory and its relation to other media types, I believe I speak with some authority on the issue. Certainly more than the many lay-people who assume that because something is interactive it must necessarily have a greater impact. I maintain that interaction affords more powerful expression than passive media in some ways, while being weaker in others. I firmly believe that violent games are no more or less harmful than other types of violent media– rather their ideas are simply expressed in a different way.


The range of adult games available

One great fear of an R rating is that its introduction would result in a sudden flood of high level content. This is a ridiculous assumption that ignores the reality of the video game market: game content is dictated by the massive United States and European markets. In the US, many retailers (including Gamestop and Walmart which together make up a significant portion of game sales) refuse to carry games with an AO rating, and several platform holders (including Sony, Nintendo, and Apple) do not allow these games to be published on their platforms. Developers actively cut back content to fit into the M17 category (roughly equivalent to our R18, yet many of these games are released in Australia with an MA15 rating), as exceeding it is effectively a death sentence for the game. As a result the number of AO level titles released (whether from the US or other countries) is significantly small and are mostly distributed digitally via small online retailers – an R rating will not change this. While an R rating would open up the potential for more extreme titles to enter Australia, it is ridiculous to assume we would see a sudden influx of ultra-violent titles because Australia, one of the world’s smallest game markets, suddenly allows it.

The range of titles available under an R rating will be no more extreme than those currently available in unedited form overseas. If anything, an R rating will reduce the number of games squeezed into an MA15+ rating. Fallout 3, which was Refused Classification in 2008 was released with two edits: The animation showing the player injecting drugs was removed, and the drug ‘Morphine’ was renamed to ‘Med-X’. Yet this does not change the fact the game still deals in adult themes, and all the ultra-violence, coarse language and (now non-animated) drug use remains – but it can now be sold to children (incidentally, within days of the game’s release a user created modification was released online that renamed Med-X back to Morphine, effectively undoing half of the censorship). Additionally, more than 50% of titles classified MA15+ last year were classified as 18+ or equivalent overseas. This shoehorning of adult games into the MA rating stretches the MA spectrum beyond rational understanding. Fallout 3 at the high end of the spectrum is vastly different from Uncharted 2 at the low end, a game with a level of violence comparable to a James Bond movie.

Far from allowing hoards of vastly more extreme titles into the country, an R ratting allows for more accurate classification of existing levels of content, and clearly separates edited or shoehorned games like Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto from those acceptable for minors.


The ability for parents to restrict their children’s access to adult Games

Critics argue that it will be difficult to keep R rated games out of the hands of children. Personally, I find all arguments for this conclusion unsatisfactory. An R18 rating sends a clear message to parents that these games are not meant for children, and stores are already encouraged to refuse sale to minors – a process that is deemed acceptable enough at a video store or movie cinema and legally enforceable under an R rating. Yet games have even further restrictions in the form of parental locks which can be found on all major consoles, handhelds and the Windows operating system. Nothing short of guessing the password will allow a minor to play an adult game on a console with this setting enabled. (While it is noted in the discussion paper that older consoles do not include parental locks, these legacy systems are no longer being manufactured and no new games are being developed for them).

It is ridiculous to assume children will have access to adult games any more than they will other media, especially when games have more restrictions and parental aids in place than other media. Indeed, even non-media products such as cigarettes and alcohol which have very serious detrimental effects and cause numerous health and social problems are less easily restricted than video games. If parents and society can restrict children’s access to other adult media with existing safeguards then it follows the same can be done for games – to say nothing of the extra protection afforded by parental locks.

Existing restrictions, along with education and parental responsibility, offers more than adequate protection.


Games as art and entertainment, their place in culture, and why we need an R18+ Rating

As a developer and a hobbyist I not only develop games at work, but also in my spare time. I hope to create games that push the boundaries of the medium, to explore meaningful adult themes and tackle difficult social issues – and so do many others like me. But not only are such games illegal to sell in Australia, a lack of and R rating means that it is not legal to even develop them here. How can any Australian developer hope to develop meaningful games that explore complex adult topics when the law says we can only make games for children? Aside from being restrictive artistically, it’s downright insulting. As an adult I demand the right to develop and play games with adult themes. It is incongruous that a medium so rich and diverse in art and culture such as games is still considered frivolous children’s entertainment by the Australian Government.

Video games have become as much a part of art, culture and entertainment as any other form of media, and around the world people are exploring the full spectrum of what this means:

• During 2008 and 2009 the Game On exhibition toured Australian museums and art galleries, exhibiting the history of games as art and entertainment
• In 2007 PLAY! A Video Game Symphony preformed at the Sydney Opera House as part of their world tour
• Many major awards ceremonies now include game related awards, including the Writers Guild of America and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA)
• In November last year the game Modern Warfare 2 recorded day-one sales of over US $310 million, making it the biggest entertainment launch in history eclipsing even major Hollywood films. The previous record holder was another a video game, namely Grand Theft Auto IV (significantly, both games are made for adults and rated 18+ or equivalent in other countries, and MA15+ in Australia).
• Large numbers of movie releases are now accompanied by a video game version
• The success of Nintendo’s Wii has put games into the homes of traditional non-gamer consumers - including even senior citizens
• And in March this year Australia’s first video game themed bar is opening in Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley – legally serving alcohol to 18+ gamers.

It is fair to say that games have become a powerful economic and cultural force that intersects all areas of our media consumption and increasingly our daily lives. Video games have become the primary entertainment medium for a vast number of Australians, whether they play on a 52” screen in their living room or a 2” screen on their phone. Indeed, games have become so ingrained in our culture that they are becoming as synonymous with our daily lives as television or mobile phones.

Already the distinction is blurring – Facebook games are as much social networking applications as they are entertainment. Consoles are no longer dedicated game machines and instead act as centralised media hubs, supporting games, video, music, web browsing, social networking feeds like Twitter and Facebook, and acting as gateways to online communities. People are meeting in online games, building friendships, even hosting weddings in Massively Multiplayer Games. Concerts, film premiers, and even political speeches are being simulcast in online worlds like Second Life, and game technology is increasingly being used in education and academic research.

This convergence of life and media is only going to increase, the percentage of the population playing games is only going to increase, and the average age of gamers is only going to increase (according to the latest studies it currently sits at 30).

Games represent the driving force behind 21st century entertainment culture. To neglect an adult rating is to deny this fact. A medium with such cultural and economic significance, enjoyed by people of all ages, should not be restricted by such outdated classification laws. Games are serious form of entertainment enjoyed by millions of adults Australia wide, and it’s time they were recognised as such.

At the next Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting I request that you acknowledge video gaming for the diverse and significant medium that it is, and show support for an R18+ rating.


Yours sincerely,
Ben Droste

Read more...

R18+ Classification: A reply from the Attorney-General's Department

Shortly before Christmas the long awaited discussion paper on an R 18+ rating for video games was released. It can be found here and I encourage all Australian residents to send in a reply.

Shortly before hand I sent a letter to Brendan O’Connor, the Minister for Home Affairs asking when the discussion paper would be released. Little did I know it would be released only a couple of days latter, which made the whole exercise feel a little late and silly. Today I received a reply, and even though it doesn't mean a whole lot now that the discussion paper is out I thought I'd post a transcript of the letter here for posterity.

Dear Mr Droste

Thank you for your recent correspondence about an R 18+ classification for computer games.

I am pleased to advise that a discussion paper Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R 18+ classification category for computer games? has been released seeking input from the public on this issue. The views you have expressed will be taken into consideration by the Department when preparing its report on the responses to the discussion paper. The report will be given to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

However, if you are also interested in providing further comments and responding to the discussion paper, it is available at www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification. Instructions for responding to the discussion paper are set out on the website. The closing date for comments is 28 February 2010.

I hope this information is of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Peter Treyde
Acting Assistant Secretary
Copyright and Classification Policy branch

My original letter, send on December 10, 2009:

The Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP
Minister for Home Affairs
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT, 2601


Dear Minister O’Conner,

I write concerning the discussion paper on the introduction of an R 18+ rating for video games.

For some time now there has been growing public debate about Australia’s lack of an R 18+ rating, and indeed since the discussion paper was first promised over a year ago public interest in the issue has continued grow. This year alone has seen several high profile games Refused Classification, an increased media interest in the issue, Queensland residents have begun a government petition to allow R 18+ games into their state, and just last weekend a public rally concerning the issue was held in Brisbane.

Perhaps the most important next step in this debate is the release of the long promised discussion paper. Yet there is still no word on when this paper will be released.

Video games have fast become the preeminent entertainment medium of the 21st century, yet we continue to restrict and censor them based on classification laws established at time prior to serious academic study of games and before they had become the mass market entertainment medium they are today. Put simply, our classification laws are out of date.

The lack of an R 18+ rating denies Australian adults the right to choose the media they wish to consume, makes it more difficult for parents to determine what content is suitable for their children, harms local business by encouraging video game piracy and importation from overseas, and sets a dangerous precedent for the medium’s legitimacy as a form of entertainment enjoyed by Australians of all ages.

The debate surrounding this issue continues gain support year on year, and with millions of Australian adults engaging in video games I believe that we should all be given the opportunity to have our say on this issue.

The release of the discussion paper is a vital step in the future of this debate.

To that end, I request that you please advise when the discussion paper will be released.


Yours sincerely,
Ben Droste

Read more...

Australia’s Dangerous Proposal to Classify Mobile Games

For gamers still reeling in frustration that yet another high profile game has fallen victim to Australia’s antiquated Classification System comes the news that the Australian Classification Board wants to classify iPhone and other mobile games. Itnews is reporting that the Classification Board director Donald McDonald wrote to Censorship Minister Brendan O'Connor “regarding [his] concern that some so-called mobile phone applications, which can be purchased online or either downloaded to mobile phones or played online via mobile phone access, are not being submitted to the board for classification.” If the proposed internet filter demonstrates the Australian Government’s failure to understand the nature of the web, then this demonstrates their inability to understand the changing face of video games and the distribution of media in the 21st century.

This desire to classify all mobiles games is preposterous, dangerous, and ultimately proof of the Classification Board’s increasing irrelevance in modern culture.

According to data from tracking site Apptism and reported on by Gamasutra, there are nearly 18000 games available for the iPhone – a system has only been available for little over two years. All the while the number of iPhone developers increases every day and the total number of games continues to climb at an even more frequent pace. By contrast, in the 2008-2009 year the Classification Board processed only 1095 games (out of a total of 4792 submissions across film, games and literature).

It would not be unreasonable to expect the number of games to more than double in the next year alone, and that’s just games for the iPhone. How the Classification Board hopes to process such massive numbers of applications is anyone’s guess.

That is of course if they even receive many applications at all - and this is why the proposal is dangerous. McDonald shows a complete lack of understanding as to who is developing these games in the first place. These aren’t large companies with millions of dollars to spend on development, advertising and distribution, the majority of developers are small teams of very few people – many just one or two people working in their spare time on their home PC. They are working on incredibly small budgets, and some on no budget at all. It costs over $1000 to submit a game for classification, to expect most of these developers to be able to afford that is ludicrous. Furthermore $1000 is more money than most iPhone games ever hope to make, which makes the idea of being over a grand in the red before the game is even released dumbfounding.

I see one terrible outcome from this: developers simply don’t submit their games for classification, which in turn means they are not available on the Australian store, which in turn means the number of Australian releases dries to a trickle. This is my greatest fear if mobile game ratings became required by law: that it would essentially kill the Australian market for mobile games. Even if the Board charged as little as $100 to classify a mobile game I would still expect to see a severe drop in local releases.

This preposterous idea is yet another indication of how embarrassingly out of touch the Australian Government has become with our place in the modern online, global community. It exposes our Classification System’s increasing age and irrelevance in the modern world by highlighting for all to see its inability to adapt to new forms of media and the changing face of media production and distribution. Trying to shoehorn a fifteen-year-old system into a modern media environment is what has resulted in the cumbersome, inconsistent mess we have today, it’s time to scrap it in favour of a system better suited to the 21st century before we embarrass ourselves further with this idiotic idea.

Read more...

BrainHex

I took International Hobo’s BrainHex test the other day and was surprised by the result: Socialiser-Mastermind. Socialiser, meaning multiplayer and social gaming (either online or with immediate company), and Mastermind, meaning puzzle solving and strategic thinking.

Mastermind is understandable as I’ve always been a fan games that require a little more thought, such as the Zelda series and RTS games, but Socialiser was a surprise. I’m not sure what else I expected, five years ago I might have said Conqueror (enjoys tough challenges and punishing failures. Plays for the sensation of victory), but lately I’ve found myself with less patience for games built around the classic hardcore mentality. Don’t get me wrong - I still enjoy a hard earned victory, it’s just I no longer get a thrill out of failing thirty times beforehand. Ten years ago I might have said Achiever (collects everything, plays all the game has to offer), but the completionist in me perished with Donkey Kong 64 (the ultimate collect-a-thon, which none the less I still completed to 101%), unless maybe it’s the odd Metroid game – but only because I’m a hopeless Metroid fanboy.

When I filled out the initial page of the survey I listed three single player games in the ‘games that exemplify what you enjoy about games’ section: Deus Ex (for its innovative design and roll playing), the Metroid series (for its labyrinthine level design) and the Zelda series (for its puzzle solving game play). I also checked ‘Single player alone’ as my preferred way of playing games, based on my all time favourite games and the sort of games I’ve been playing lately. However I did wish I could select multiple options as half of my gaming time involves playing TF2 during lunch with other people in the office. On page two I responded with ‘love’ or ‘like’ to most questions with very few ranked ‘ok’ and even less ‘disliked’, and often the social gaming related questions received high ranks. On the final page ‘sense of unity’, ‘puzzle solution’ and ‘hard-fought victory’ were my top three preferences (in that order).

I hindsight it’s obvious that the Socialiser class would have a large influence on the results, but until now I’ve given very little thought to the social side of the games I play. I should have though considering the amount of social gaming I’ve been doing in recent years: I played World of Warcraft for nearly three years, content to run the same dungeons and kill the same bosses over and over because I enjoyed the company of the people I was playing with; I play TF2 every lunch time and often some weeknights with the guys at work; and I’ve been to more than a few Guitar Hero/Rock Band parties. And yet all this time I’ve often thought about games in terms of the experience presented by the game itself, and rarely in terms of the social context and the people am I playing it with. There’s an important lesson to be learned there.

So I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised that the social experience is such an important influence on my gaming habits after all. Perhaps what’s surprising is it’s taken this survey to make me realise it!


My survey results in full:

Your BrainHex Class is Socialiser.

Your BrainHex Class Your BrainHex Sub-Class is Socialiser-Mastermind.

You like hanging around with people you trust and helping people as well as solving puzzles and devising strategies.

According to your results, there are few play experiences that you strongly dislike.

Learn more about your classes and exceptions at BrainHex.com.

Your scores for each of the classes in this test were as follows:

Socialiser: 20
Mastermind: 14
Daredevil: 11
Conqueror: 11
Achiever: 8
Seeker: 8
Survivor: 5

Go to BrainHex.com to learn more about this player model, and the neurobiological research behind it.

Read more...

What We Have to Learn about Learning From Video Games

Over at Screen Play Jason Hill is talking about what video games have taught him. It’s a fun read, and of course the joke is that much of how videos games represent life is silly. This in turn has sparked Screenplay Reader James “DexX” Dominguez to reply with his own list of how video games lie.
Reading these posts got me thinking about what games actually do teach us. Cynics will laugh at the idea that games can teach us anything, unless maybe it’s how to steal cars and shoot people (a familiar argument that never ceases to contradict itself), while gamers on the other hand will claim that games can teach many things - but certainly not how to use a firearm.

Politicians will cite the teaching power of games when lobbying for stricter laws and censorship of violent and controversial titles, and indeed the fear of teaching our kids to be murderers and car thieves has been one of the key concerns in the R18 debate here in Australia. Yet despite all of this there is very little mainstream discussion about what games actually are teaching people. With so much money on the line you would think the critics might show some concern as to the facts they are basing their opinions on (though as we have seen, when it comes to video game censorship the facts often seem to be of very little concern).

I think there is fundamental misunderstanding of what games actually teach, and after reading the Screen Play posts I began to think about what games have taught me. I’m not talking about educational games or training simulations, (which are already in use by many schools, educators and businesses around the world) but the mainstream entertainment we play every day.

What I’ve learnt

Most games teach special awareness in some capacity, whether it be navigating an environment while keeping track of all of its elements in relation to your avatar, or in holistic sense like in many puzzle games where you are expected to understand the layout and relationships of the entire play space. They also tend to train your reaction speed in some way, usually by introducing new elements into the play space or changing the circumstances, and expecting the you to identify, categorise, and react to this new element. Often this will also mean adjusting your current strategy to compensate. Finally, most games involve some form of resource management, even if it’s something as basic as player health.

Different games genres teach more specific things. I’m not crazy enough to attempt to catalogue all of them, but below are a few that I’ve experienced:

SimCity teaches city planning, and from playing it when I was younger I learned a lot about taxes, property values, the power grid, the importance of efficient public transport, and what to do when your city is attacked by giant monster (incidentally, my first time playing SimCity was also the first time I had used a computer – and thus taught me how to use a mouse). In fact simulation games in general are more or less an interactive ‘how to’ manual for their respective subject matter - flight sims in particular can be incredibly comprehensive. It’s no surprise then that sim evolved in complexity and sophistication into serious training tools.

RTS games teach battlefield command, or more specifically unit and squad tactics, resource management, the use of strategic positions, and the vital importance of recon and accurate information. Some even attempt to include basic moral systems, though I think these games have a long way to go before anyone could claim they teach leadership.

Sports games most prominently teach the rules of the sport, and in fact almost everything I know about tennis and soccer I know from video games. Additionally they also teach plays and tactics, ranking systems, team management, and often detailed statistical histories of real world athletes. Some games even recreate significant historical matches, which in turn educates people on the history of the sport.

MMO have been said to teach management and leadership skills – vital skills in running a successful guild, and even a few job ads have listed MMO experience as a desirable trait. On the other hand some companies are known to specifically reject applicants with MMO experience for fear that they will be too focused on the game and not enough on their job, so I guess the verdict is still out that one. They certainly teach teamwork and coordination though, and social skills to a greater (or lesser) extent. And one way or another they teach time management, wether by how you make the most of your time within the game world, or how you manage to have a life outside of the game world (and speaking from personal experience, that’s not always a lesson quickly learnt).

FPS games and shooters excel at special awareness, resource management, and your ability to reaction to changing conditions. And of course they are always the go-to genre whenever someone is worried about games teaching kids to kill. But contrary to popular media belief they do not teach anyone how to fire a weapon. They do not teach how to properly grip and position a weapon, how to steady yourself as you pull the trigger, and how to compensate for the recoil. Most teach little more than how to map one pixel over the top of another.
However the more realistic ones will teach how to use a weapon’s sights to aim, the importance of firing from a steady position, and some will even go so far as managing your breathing. Additionally they can teach such things as combat tactics, squad movement, the importance of cover and the dangers of becoming exposed. So it’s not a completely innocent lesson plan, there are skills here that translate into real world combat.

How Games Teach

You may have noticed that throughout this post every lesson I’ve spoken of is almost entirely concerned with the rules and mechanics. Aesthetics have little to no bearing on the majority of them. I have deliberately avoided aesthetics for two reasons. First, because I’m not convinced that games can communicate ideas through their aesthetics any better than other mediums like film and television. In fact I feel the interactive nature of games often weakens their ability to do this compared to linier mediums, since important elements such as pacing, framing and timing are much less predictable.
And second, because I believe the true communicative power of games lies in their interactivity. Significantly, the practical lessons learned between one RTS and another are interchangeable, so much so that you could replace the tanks and soldiers in Company of Heroes with boxes and triangles and the lessons would be exactly the same.

It is vitally important to recognise games for what and how they actually teach. Games do not teach through their visuals, sounds, or storytelling nearly as much as they do through their mechanics. It has been noted in game design textbooks and lectures (and I wish I could remember some sources) that a player’s perception of a game changes over time. Upon picking up a game a player is enthralled by the aesthetics. It is the visuals that catch their attention, and the story sucks them in. But as they learn the mechanics the aesthetic level begins to give way to the system level. They begin to analyse the relationship between elements and experiment with the rules. Eventually the player is playing in the system as much as or more so than the aesthetic. This is no more evident than in hardcore competitive gamers, who will often turndown the graphics settings on games so as to remove distracting or obscuring visual effects and more easily pick out their opponent from the game world.

This is not to say that a game’s aesthetics cannot also contribute though. Obviously a more realistic representation can help to communicate ideas to greater affect, but more than this a game’s aesthetics can draw us into that world and present ideas just like film – but their interactive nature also lets us explore them. Games allow us to learn through experimentation and experience. On the front page of Serious Games Source today is a story about a new XNA game called The Unconcerned, which puts the player in control of a mother and father searching for their missing daughter in the streets of Tehran during the riots that followed Iranian presidential election earlier this year. A film might teach the viewer about civil unrest, human rights, and gender roles in Iranian society, but a game lets the player explore the problems - and experience the consequences of their decisions.

What We Should Learn

There are two points I want to make from all of this. Firstly that the media, politicians, and critics of violent games need to better understand how and what games are teaching. Too often people confuse the mechanics for the aesthetics. The morals presented when stealing a car in Grand Theft Auto are different to the mechanical skills taught by the actual playing of it. The fear that gamers are “practicing stealing cars” is a fallacy. As games become more and more imbedded in our society it becomes increasingly frustrating to hear comments like “he learnt to kill from video games”. It is a tired, misinformed view that only serves to make the speaker appear clueless in the eyes of gamers. This knowledge gap between gamers and critics is perhaps the greatest obstacle to meaningful debate about the impact of games on society.

Secondly, I’m disappointed that the games industry has not embraced the teaching power of games more fully. The interactive nature of games allows us to explore concepts and ideas like never before, and yet most videogame genres have been teaching us the same lessons for over twenty years. I want new genres, and new lessons to learn.
But importantly I want more than just new mechanical lessons, I want games to start teaching ideas. Games like The Unconcerned combine their mechanics and their aesthetics to teach something more than a linier story or set of rules could do alone. Every so often we see a major title that allows the player to explore the consequences of their choices in difficult moral circumstances, and even sometimes games that have to courage take a political or ideological stance. But by and large games take the route of Call of Duty 4: excelling in mechanics, creating a vividly realised and believable world, but deliberately avoiding any political or moral viewpoint. Most games are still the equivalent of popcorn flicks, where are the ones that have something worth saying?

I think Borut Pfeifer, creator of The Unconcerned says it best:

“Games have the power to put people in other's shoes, to illustrate what effect roles have on a person. Meanwhile, there are those in the game industry that argue that games cannot or should not approach such controversial topics. Games, as preeminent art form of the 21st century, must and will bring to light difficult issues, in ways that can inform, entertain, make us question the world around us, and hopefully inspire us to change it.”

Read more...

Batman: Arkham Asylum

I’m so glad to have played this game. I picked it up on launch day like so many others, but I didn’t know then what I was getting into. I was expecting a good game – I’d watched the videos, read some previews – but I certainly wasn’t expecting a potential Game of the Year. The gameplay is solid and engrossing, the art is great, the sound work is perfect, and the atmosphere never ceases to draw you in. There are plenty of reviews on the web for this game already that say exactly this, so I don’t feel the need to write another one here. Rather I want to talk about two things in particular that stood out for me from a professional point of view. Two things that set this game apart from all others I’ve played this year.

1. Where does he get those wonderful toys?

The weapons. These impressed me purely from a design point of view. Rocksteady have done an exceptional job of making each of them feel original. Some of Batman’s items are things that you don’t generally find in other games to start with so it’s no surprise that they feel unique. However even common video game weapon types like the explosive gel and the Line Launcher are presented in ways such that they don’t feel like weapons you’ve played with a hundred times before.

They achieve this in two ways. Firstly aesthetically: the explosive gel and the Batarang are basically just a remote mine and any throwing weapon, but they don’t feel as such. I appreciate the effort to reconceptualise these concepts into something thematically relevant to the Batman universe. And besides, no throwing weapon is as awesome as a Batarang!

The second is mechanically, and the Line Launcher is a perfect example of this. Its basic concept is that of a hookshot/grapple gun, and indeed I’ve read some comments from people wishing you could aim it vertically as well as along the horizontal (or at least downward). However I think this horizontal limitation works in the game’s favour, it stops the tool from simply being a hookshot clone (as well as helps to differentiate it from the already very simular Batclaw) and fundamentally changes the way the tool is used. Rather than just aiming where you want to go and launching yourself along, you have to find your way to a position of equal height before you can use it to reach your destination. This ties its use to the level design without the need for attach points and allows it to become a situational puzzle solving tool more than a use-anywhere mobility device. The end result is a mechanic unlike anything I’ve encountered in a game before.

Implementing an established mechanic may be a safe bet but it also runs the risk of feeling clichéd. I appreciate a game that makes the effort to reconceptualise these ideas – whether aesthetically or mechanically – and turn a familiar concept into something refreshing and interesting.

2. It’s time my enemies shared my dread

The second thing I want to talk about is perhaps Arkham Asylum’s greatest achievement: this game makes you feel like Batman. In many games I feel like I’m acting upon the avatar. Directing it and playing with it in the world like you would an action figure in a toy set. Arkham Asylum on the other hand is all about becoming the character, and most importantly it does this not through RPG like elements such as dialogue options or character building, but through the gameplay itself.

Arkham Asylum’s design encourages roleplaying – it expects you to do Batman like things and rewards you for doing so. The stealth gameplay is a perfect example of this. Hiding in the shadows, swinging around the ceiling, and watching as your enemies become increasingly terrified as you pick them off one by one using all manner of cunning takedowns is incredibly delightful. Likewise, watching the Dark Knight move swiftly about the room as you expertly string together combos in combat is like being in a Batman film.

Even when traversing the environment you feel like the Dark Knight: aided by the seamless, inter-connected level design, which helps to sell the idea that you are exploring a single environment; The controls and animation, which make doing Batman like things such zipping up to rooftops and gliding to the ground look and feel incredibly natural; The art and sound, which together create a wonderful atmosphere; And the unintrusive storytelling, which is expressed more so through the environment and the events going on around you than it is in the cut scenes.
In addition to this is the gameplay supporting the detective side of Batman, whether it be scanning the surroundings in Detective Mode, discovering hidden paths, solving the Riddler’s puzzles or delving into patient records.

Finally I have to give special mention to the amazing Scarecrow sequences. Importantly these allow the player to experience firsthand Batman’s own psyche, which further develops your understandings of the Batman character and strengthens your ties to him. Looking back, I consider these sequences to be crucial to the game’s full experience. Without them I may have understood Batman in an action sense – fighting villains and solving puzzles – but these allowed me to understand Batman in a psychological sense. I consider these sequences an insightful contribution to the game.

Arkham Asylum delivered for me an authentic Batman experience. So few games actually make me feel like the character I’m supposed to be playing, and yet this one excels at it. This is Arkham Asylum’s crowning achievement. This alone means it will probably end up being my favourite game of the year, and beyond that it’s a game I will remember for a very long time.

Read more...