Greetings IGDA Members!
Mindshare is the commodity of the information age, and influence is the medium in which that mindshare flows between various parties who are keen to control it. The questions surrounding control and influence, especially as applied to forms of media like games, have been a key debate for decades. But they’re a backdrop to the broader issue of freedom of speech and expression. While the Supreme Court of the United States secured that freedom for video games in 2012, the battle for the public perception continues – not only within the U.S. but in many countries around the world where various standards of freedom are applied (or not). Some believe it’s in the best interest of game developers to be silent and enjoy our artistic status, but until the public mindshare is swayed from the misperception of games as agents of chaos, we all need to remain vocal advocates of our craft.
Sincerely,
Kate Edwards
Executive Director
—–
Just before this issue reappeared, I was discussing the influence of gameplay with a colleague Josh Tanenbaum. Josh pointed out an irony—on the one hand, we as game industry and academia want to say that games aren’t responsible when something unhealthy happens, while on the other, we seek to prove how games can educate and even change players. Personally, I believe that we as human beings shape our realities and our dreams by the content we surround ourselves with day-to-day. I also believe that this is each individual’s choice and responsibility (understanding parental responsibility as well).
On my end, I just can’t touch anything with overt violence. I spend too much time thinking about the larger social, economic, cultural, and political contexts that the game mechanics, characters, and storyline exist within. That and I just have nightmares. Really. And hey, I appreciate scary games done well, like BioShock, thanks to Susan O’Connor’s writing. Mostly, I long for those early Ultima Online days where we as players created stories for live events and I filled my dreams with great adventures.
Games can be outlets just as much as they can be immersive, rewarding experiences. If someone who does something violent also plays violent video games, it’s not necessarily that games “made them that way,” it’s that they had existing issues that fed into their preference of games and went beyond into the world. Having said that, games do have real elements with real physiological impacts on the human mind and body that need to be explored further.
I see encounters like this as an opportunity. It’s a call for each of us to look closely at the games we are designing, what we are putting out into the world, and for what purposes. Censorship on this scale is an ugly beastie. It’s on everyone to understand the differences between fighting against mass censorship and defending specific games. Policies set in place will affect all.
Elizabeth LaPensée
Editor in Chief
–
Table of Contents
- A Brief History of your IGDA Anti-Censorship and Social Issues Committee, Daniel Greenberg
- A History of Control in Japanese Game Industry: Kenji Ono
- IndieSpective: Games and Guns, Robert Madsen
- Game Design Aspect of the Month: Ambiguous Morality, Kohlberg, and The Witcher: Mark Chen
- Student Beat: The Media Scapegoat, Luke Dicken
- IGDA Release: Statement on Senator Grassley: IGDA Anti-Censorship and Social Issues Committee
- IGDA Release: Response to Mike Bowersock: IGDA Anti-Censorship and Social Issues Committee
- Planes, Games and Facebook Appeals: How Love and Appreciation Sent an IGDA Director to the Other Side of the Planet: Drew Taylor
- Events
- E-Reader version
Editor in Chief – Elizabeth LaPensée; Art Director – Cat Wendt; Copy Editor – Brian Kung; Events Editor – Heather M. Decker-Davis