Sex and Violence: Welcome to Adulthood

[Echolocating]

The part that I don't understand with people who are protecting the way games are today is that by doing so, you are condemning them to simply being a child's toy. You are giving more fuel to the ignorance surrounding games in the adult world, specifically with the people that regulate these things and those that use fear mongering to scare the uneducated masses (parents). A single movie might come under fire, but not the film industry, yet the entire videogame industry is under fire in most cases because it's supposedly a dangerous toy for children. If you allow yourself to imagine video gaming as a powerful medium that has limitless potential for expression, you allow the industry to grow. With those kinds of thoughts, video games begin to offer something more than childish experiences and become a more respectable industry and medium.

Maybe we're 100 percent okay with that.

Maybe we think that instead of trying to protect games by making them 'serious' we'd rather see society find value in something that is 'just a toy'. Maybe we think play--even childish play--is an important liberty worthy of protection.

Are you honestly concerned that if mature video games were made, the development of games for kids would cease to exist? You're not protecting anything. I'm okay if you don't want mature content in the video games that you play, but to argue to deny others is selfish.

Maybe we don't want to continue to give the fearmongers even more power than they have now by conforming, by allowing them to use another medium to advance the idea that 'adult=immoral' and 'safe for children=good'. Maybe we want to break the connection between something being inappropriate for children and something being morally questionable or obscene.

Yeah, look how film, music, and literature have suffered. Give me a break.

I don't get what is so bad about something being a "child's toy": games like _Civilization_ and _Railroad Tycoon_ are electronic versions of playing with the action figures or toy trains which children enjoy, only in versions complex enough to hold the interest of adults. What's the problem with that?

There's nothing wrong with that. I've never said there was. I simply want diversity; not to eliminate the types of games currently being made... because why would I deny others something that they enjoy? Hmmm?

Why do you talk of "toys" or things that are "childish" in such a negative fashion?

Because I'm grumpy... and still amazed that someone is arguing that by making mature video games (something I'd like to play), that would somehow affect their enjoyment that they have for the way games currently are.

Why do you care about the respect of people who don't recognize the value of play?

I don't care about their respect. I just think that having mature games would have the added benefit of showing these types of people that video games are not evil. I don't think developers should make it their mission to convince these people either way.

Ready for round 2, Cheese?

 

[Echolocating]

1) Why do you think anyone is trying to "deny" you anything?

2) How is calling something "childish" in the manner you are here not saying there is something "wrong with that"?

I think it's more that people are arguing with you because in order to show the value in the games you want in the future, you are putting down the games in the present that bore you. Why can't you argue *for* the games you want without arguing *against* the games you don't?

Let's back up. Heather Chaplin says that developers need to grow up. Tom Endo writes this article and basically says that games are grown up. I and others feel that Tom missed the point and that video games lack maturity when dealing with sex and violence; it's not that sex and violence is immature. Others continue to defend the article by saying that they like things the way they are. Okay. Let's stop there.

Some of the points being made don't contradict each other. I want mature games, you like the current trend of adolescent games. That's fine, but then you replied to something I said questioning the validity of practically every point. How am I supposed to take that? (Don't answer that, it's rhetorical.) You said, "Maybe we're 100 percent okay with that." That being the way games are; the immature escapism that they embrace.

When you argue against me, you are saying that you don't want mature games to be made. If that wasn't you're intention, then you have a weird way of agreeing with me.

You're not serious, are you? From _A Clockwork Orange_ bumping up against an X rating to the career of Lenny Bruce, the idea that 'adult=immoral' *has* set back artistic media again and again.

It's my belief that a lot of the greatness behind those examples (and countless others) is that they pushed the limits. It was the fact that limits existed which helped make them so unforgettable and powerful. Lenny Bruce was brilliant; good choice.

Maybe we don't want to continue to give the fearmongers even more power than they have now by conforming, by allowing them to use another medium to advance the idea that 'adult=immoral' and 'safe for children=good'. Maybe we want to break the connection between something being inappropriate for children and something being morally questionable or obscene.

Again... so you're arguing that by allowing games to mature, this will allow adults to have a voice in the gaming medium and that will be a bad thing? Huh?

You seem to be attacking the games you no longer want to play as 'childish' but then are backing off from saying that you're putting them down and switching to an argument about how people want to "deny" you the games you want.

I called the current trend in gaming childish because it is. This is not attacking video games; this is describing where they are on a level of maturity compared to what other mediums offer.

But hey, like I said, I'm not against what's out there; it's just that there is hardly any mature alternative. To be honest, I don't know what you're arguing against. I thought it was against what I've said above, but now I think you're arguing for argument's sake. If it makes you feel better: you win, Cheese.

 

[Echolocating]

...allowing *closeminded* adults a voice in the gaming medium will be a bad thing. Allowing adults that only see value in a game if it's 'educational' or 'artistic' and won't admit any value in a game that is just 'fun' would be a *terrible* thing.

That's an incredibly paranoid and narrow-minded view. I'm also bothered by your hypocritical statements that you see no problem with having mature games being made, but you don't want games to attract mature minded people who don't value "fun" above all else. Fun is not exclusive to enjoyment in an adult world.

Calling something "childish" is an attack. Maybe you're just making bad word choices, but when you call something childish--especially when you contrast it with something that is mature--that's an attack.

How about youthful then? It doesn't change my point at all. If calling the majority of games childish actually offends you though, think for a moment why that is.

 

[Echolocating]

I never said that. I said: "Allowing adults that only see value in a game if it's 'educational' or 'artistic' and won't admit any value in a game that is just 'fun'."

Whatever. So you only want adults who value fun to play video games. The point still stands. Again, fun is not exclusive to enjoyment.

How about youthful then? It doesn't change my point at all. If calling the majority of games childish actually offends you though, think for a moment why that is.

Because it implies that something that can be enjoyed by children cannot be of as much value as something that requires an adult sensibility. I think that's ridiculous.

You're arguing about semantics and political correctness here. This has nothing to do with my stance on the issue which is what I thought we were discussing.

It's an intellectually unsophisticated approach to the subject.

Is that a round-about way of saying that you have no issue with the crux of anything I've said, just with the way I've implied it? If so, can we move on and further discuss issues with actual substance?

 

[Echolocating]

I basically only want people who see the value in fun as an end in itself involved in just about anything to do with me.

Again, fun is not exclusive to enjoyment.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.

I mean, not all forms of entertainment need to be fun in order to be enjoyable.

I think what you imply is the crux of what you are saying. It's my way of saying I think I've found the deeper issue, the reason you believe what you believe and making the point that the reason you disagree with people on this issue stems from the disagreements you have with them on a more fundamental level.

In other words, it's not semantics at all: it has everything to do with your stance on the issue in terms of it being the reason you have that stance, and the way in which other people differ explaining why they have a different stance.

Cheese, are you on drugs? If you want to shift the debate to how I present my concerns instead of what my concerns are, I don't want to play that game. You're showing all the classic signs of someone whose trying to win a debate, instead of making a sound argument.

I want the video game industry to offer more sophisticated and mature content, but apparently it's more important to argue about why I'm so grumpy and how my negativity nullifies any point I'm trying to make. I don't get it and I don't think anyone else does either.

 

[Echolocating]

I thought the classic sign was to tell someone they're 'arguing semantics'...

Heh, heh... yeah, but you were and I didn't know how else to drive the discussion back to a purposeful direction.

Well, I was asking what you mean as far as 'fun' vs. 'enjoyable'. I'm guessing you mean 'fun'='happy smiley good times' and 'enjoyable' means something more like 'rewarding' or 'enriching. If that's the case, I agree. However, I don't see how that's relevant to any of this.

You brought up the supposed irrelevant topic of fun back in the discussion, not I. If you think the enjoyment of watching a serious drama is best described as fun then I guess it is irrelevant.

I'd love to see more sophisticated and mature content in games too. However, I don't see the value in advocating for it in a way that puts down the games we have now.

The only reason we're talking about this is because Heather Chaplin demanded that the industry grow up. If she were agreeable about it, people would be ignoring this issue entirely.

One can consider the games we have now to be good and STILL call for sophisticated and mature games. One can even consider the games we have now to be as good as the games we are calling for, that we're calling for sophisticated and mature games not because we're sick of the games we have now, but because we simply want sophisticated and mature games.

But I want mature content because I am getting sick of the games we have now. If I don't make this known, how can people understand where I'm coming from? These supposed awesome displays of drama in video games are mostly laughable in comparison to what other mediums offer. I'm not going into detail about why most games are childish; I thought I was somewhat being respectful by labeling them childish and not dwelling on it.

People can agree with your goal without agreeing with your justifications for that goal--they might have ones of their own that conflict with yours. I think the criticism you're getting isn't about your goal of seeing more sophisticated and mature games, it's criticism about your justifications for that goal.

Well I'm glad we've cleared the air and identified the base of your argument. Apparently I'm overstepping some boundaries by saying most games are immature.

There was an interesting thread a day or so ago on this site about a guy who was going to class with a girl with dreadlocks. Apparently, you can't wash your hair for an extended period of time until they set and the smell was quite bad. The guy was asking how he should confront her. Simply put, there was no polite way of telling this girl that she smelled so bad that it was a distraction during class. The level of maturity shown in most of today's video games stink, put simply.

 

[Echolocating]

No, you just didn't understand my point, so instead of asking me 'hey--are you just criticizing the words I'm using, or am I missing something about your point' you, well, decided to be all difficult about it and act dismissive.

If you think someone is just 'arguing semantics' you don't just say 'meh--you're arguing semantics': you point out to them *how* all they are doing is arguing semantics if you actually want to advance the conversation. The best way to have a dialog is not just to tell someone they are wrong, but *why* you think they are wrong so they can respond in a meaningful manner.

And because if you force yourself to do the work to explain why it's just semantics...maybe you'll figure out why you're wrong and it actually *isn't* semantics, it's a flaw in your argument that you didn't see.

[...]

I think you misread what I said. That's the exact opposite of what I said there, and what I said there was me trying to guess what you mean by those words because you won't, um, clarify what you mean by them.

[...]

And people are still ignoring the issue. They're not ignoring *her* but they *are* ignoring the issue. Anyone talking about the actual issue now was probably talking about it before anyways, only now everyone has a harder time of it because people are on the defensive about the issue.

[...]

No, you're opening up your argument to attack because you're overstepping what you need to say to get your point across. You said:

"I want mature content because I am getting sick of the games we have now."

Why don't you just stop at that then? Just say "I am getting sick of the games we have now" without having to justify it as anything other than your personal preference? Why try and justify your distaste for the games we're getting now by making some point about how they are "childish"? Why can't you let your desire for mature games stand on its own like I do?

+++++

Why are you making the point that the reason to want mature content is because one is sick of the content you label childish? I'm attacking what you say because your logic is wrong: I love the content we have today and find value in it, but that doesn't stop me from also wanting mature content along side--as opposed to in place--of it.

In a way, you're devaluing mature content with what you say: you're saying that the reason we need mature content is because "childish" content is no longer satisfying. I think that's wrong. I think we need mature content because *mature content--like "childish" content--has value in and of itself*.

You clearly have way more energy for this sort of thing than I do. Thanks for your time and I did enjoy the debate. All this talk of mature content makes me want to do something proactive, like make a game with the type of content that I desire. I have a friend who once told me that you can either make video games or play them, but you can't really do both. Now that I'm hardly playing games anymore, I might as well do the latter since I'm still extremely interested in them.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Ah, good read. Someone above made the distinction between immature violence and handling the topic more productively and I do think it applies. But at the same time...I wonder if saying that a violent depiction is mature is kinda delusional. Someone getting shot in the face is still just someone getting shot in the face, no matter how you contextualize it.

And I let go of boxing years ago when I discovered UFC. Nothing comes close.

Do you think that there is a tone of classicism in the expectation for sex and violence to be "mature"? Is it possible that "mature" is just a euphemism for for upper middle-class sophistication as arbitrated by educated scholars and critics?

 

[Evan Waters]

How, exactly, is Hollywood that much different? A movie has a cast of unattainably beautiful people that are portrayed as not only perfect looking, but the idealization of the perfect character and moral fiber. "Milk" was a widely acclaimed piece of art that managed to make $2.6 million opening weekend, and $20.54 million in its theatrical run(http://www.boxofficereport.com/ybon/2008gross.shtml).

Ah, but the difference is, the movie MILK got made, and though it wasn't a big hit, it's not the last serious biopic that will ever be produced as a result. Studios are willing to release the occasional "prestige" picture that won't appeal to the widest possible audience- for whatever reason major game developers don't feel they can take the same risk.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Ah, good read. Someone above made the distinction between immature violence and handling the topic more productively and I do think it applies. But at the same time...I wonder if saying that a violent depiction is mature is kinda delusional. Someone getting shot in the face is still just someone getting shot in the face, no matter how you contextualize it.

And I let go of boxing years ago when I discovered UFC. Nothing comes close.

Do you think that there is a tone of classicism in the expectation for sex and violence to be "mature"? Is it possible that "mature" is just a euphemism for for upper middle-class sophistication as arbitrated by educated scholars and critics?

Hrm...I dunno about class, I think it's probably a buzz word some advertising company thought up to explain all the violence and sex in some movie or book. It's not "wrong" because it's "mature", that kind of nonsense.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Hrm...I dunno about class, I think it's probably a buzz word some advertising company thought up to explain all the violence and sex in some movie or book. It's not "wrong" because it's "mature", that kind of nonsense.

I sincerely ask because I'm a big Bukowski fan and some people would consider his observations as immature or lacking sophistication just because, in many ways, he works in the language of the common man.

Though I do not think that violence has been conveyed in a sophisticated or nuanced way in video games (save rarities like Shadow of the Colossus) there should be a delineation between games that inanely marginalize violence and those that represent it in a graphic non-sophisticated way. IE.. GTA4 VS Saints Row 2.... or Madworld VS Manhunt.