Is Germany the right Country to call for Censorship?

In my experience, Germans usually have a very acute sense of history, but history is being entirely forgotten at the moment: Many German politicians are lobbying for a ban of “killer games”, and trying to lobby the European Union for common regulations.

There have been several school shootings in Germany, and some of the killers have played video games. Isn’t that sufficient proof? Time to ban those games.

Incidentally, the last school shooting in Denmark was by someone who studied Nordic Literature (yes, just like me). Isn’t that sufficient proof? Time to ban those books.

If history teaches us anything, it is that censorship is not a good path to go down. It has been put more succinctly:

Dort, wo man B?cher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.

Know your history.

What do Games Mean? Braid, then flOw pulled from Slamdance

More fallout from Peter Baxter’s decision to remove Super Columbine Massacre from the Slamdance festival:

First Jonathan Blow pulled Braid, and now Jenova Chen has pulled flOw.

Not much to say, the error of Baxter’s decision so obvious, and Blow and Chen deserving credit for sticking out their neck.

The basic problem is this: For unknown reasons, some people assume that games always condone the actions of the player or the events in the game. This is obviously wrong, so let me offer a broader perspective with what I wrote in Half-Real about what games mean:

*

Where is the moral?

As a first example, consider Cecil B. DeMille’s film The Ten Commandments (1956). With Charlton Heston playing the part as Moses, we follow the biblical tale about the birth of Moses, his adoption, the exodus from Egypt, Moses parting the waters, and finally receiving the Ten Commandments from God. In this film, it is clear that the protagonist is good, and that his actions are good. This means that we see the protagonist as carrier of the film’s moral, but are protagonists always good? We can compare the Ten Commandments to Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni: The personal goal of Don Giovanni is to seduce as many women as possible, something at which he is sublimely skilled. Towards the end of the opera, Don Giovanni is offered the option of repenting his sins, but he refuses and is finally swallowed by the flames of hell. It should be clear that the moral of the opera is that God punishes sinners, and that the protagonist demonstrates what we should not do. We do not automatically assume that the actions of a protagonist are “good” or “right”.

[…]

A meaningful car crash

We can see why it would be a misunderstanding to see a game as an expression of the players wanting to perform the in-game actions in reality. Games are rather – like stories – things that we use to relate to death and disaster. Not because we want them to happen, but because we know they exist. Consider the game Burnout 2 (Criterion Studios 2002). Burnout 2 can be played in a special crash mode, where the object is to drive into a busy intersection at full speed in order to create as large pile-ups as possible (fig. 5.18). It should be obvious that we do not play this game because we want traffic accidents, but because we know they exist and because we want to consider the possibility of death and destruction.

Burnout intersection Burnout buses

Figure 5.18. Burnout 2 (Criterion Studios 2002), crash mode: Create the largest traffic accident possible.

The audience of a movie does not automatically assume that the protagonist does good, and neither does the player of a video game believe that the protagonist of the game does good. A game is rather play with identities, where the player at one moment performs an action considered morally defensible, and the next moment tries something that the player considers indefensible. The player chooses one mission or another, tries to complete the mission in one way or another, tries to do “good” or “evil”. Games are playgrounds where players can experiment with doing things they would or would not normally do.

[…]

I think that having the tools for discussing games, and remembering how we interpret other cultural forms can prevent us from making na?ve, literal interpretations of games.

(Half-Real, p. 191-194).

Without a Goal: On Open and Expressive Games

I have posted a new article for your perusal: Without a Goal: On Open and Expressive Games.

The article discusses the recent popularity of games without goals or with optional goals, such as Sims, the Grand Theft Auto series, and World of Warcraft.
It is slated to appear in the forthcoming Videogame/Player/Text anthology edited by Tanya Krzywinska and Barry Atkins.

Without a Goal can be considered the academic version of my Game Developer’s Conference 2006 talk on A New Kind of Game. I.e. more references, fewer practical suggestions, and broader theoretical strokes.

Game Studies Volume 6, Issue 1 is Here

In time for the holidays, the new Game Studies issue has just been published.

The biggest issue yet. For the future, we are considering switching to a fixed release schedule of twice a year. (We do these things so you don’t have to.)

*

Nick Montfort: Combat in Context

Mia Consalvo, Nathan Dutton: Game analysis: Developing a methodological toolkit for the qualitative study of games

Rob Cover: Gaming (Ad)diction: Discourse, Identity, Time and Play in the Production of the Gamer Addiction Myth

Hans Christian Arnseth: Learning to Play or Playing to Learn – A Critical Account of the Models of Communication Informing Educational Research on Computer Gameplay

Joris Dormans: On the Role of the Die: A brief ludologic study of pen-and-paper roleplaying games and their rules

Thaddeus Griebel: Self-Portrayal in a Simulated Life: Projecting Personality and Values in The Sims 2

Charles Paulk: Signifying Play: The Sims and the Sociology of Interior Design

Benjamin Wai-ming Ng: Street Fighter and The King of Fighters in Hong Kong: A Study of Cultural Consumption and Localization of Japanese Games in an Asian Context

Jonas Heide Smith: The Games Economists Play – Implications of Economic Game Theory for the Study of Computer Games

Hector Rodriguez: The Playful and the Serious: An approximation to Huizinga’s Homo Ludens

Jussi Parikka, Jaakko Suominen: Victorian Snakes? Towards A Cultural History of Mobile Games and the Experience of Movement

Games have Rules

I am at the State of Play symposium in New York, and by the end of the first panel, we witnessed a discussion about rules.

I have heard this discussion many times by now, but it tends to follow the exact structure that it did here. According to my notes:

Richard Bartle: In games, everyone must play by the rules, and people play by the rules because this gives fun that you wouldn’t have without those constraints. At the same time, there will also be people who cheat.

Conference participant 1: No no, there are many studies that players don’t play by the same rules, and don’t agree what the rules are.

Conference participant 2: Sure soccer has rules, but there is also a large aspect of cheating, so why not make the rules to accommodate this cheating?

*

I think I understand it now. Let’s say there are two positions here: 1) Pro-rules, and 2) anti-rules. Pro-rules people generally make pragmatic descriptions of the gameplaying activity, and anti-rules people commonly apply a general poststructuralist skepticism towards descriptions of structure. Here’s how the discussion plays out:

  1. The discussion typically begins with a pro-rules pragmatic statement along the lines of “games have rules”.
  2. The anti-rules person interprets this as saying “games have perfect rules created by an authority, the rules are always perfect, are never ambiguous in any way, players never cheat, and players are always in absolutely perfect agreement about all aspects of the rules, including written rules, house rules, and unwritten rules” and objects on all these counts.
  3. Pro-rules response: Eh yes, players cheat, and people may be in disagreement about what the rules are, but that doesn’t change the point that players engage in games well-aware that they have rules; players negotiate rules and tend to have a clear distinction between what is playing by the rules and what is cheating.
  4. Other anti-rules response concerns the idea that game designers should make the game more open, let players create rules themselves.

Here’s what I think: I think the pro-rules people (such as myself) make general pragmatic descriptions of games and gameplaying. And I think that these descriptions just push a very well-defined button for the anti-rules people that then hear something very different from what I believe is being said.

The anti-rules position additionally tends to claim to be uniquely taking the player’s side, and to uniquely be interested in how players actually use games. Eric Zimmerman once pointed out that talking about rules tends to get you pigeonholed as “anti-player”. This is obviously wrong.

I think a much better starting position for rule research would be to say you want to look at how rules are negotiated, constructed, upheld, and broken. But not to begin by a priori privileging (oh yes) rules being upheld, or rules broken as the preferred conclusion you hope to arrive at.