To those of you who might still be reading my blog entries (all three of you, I'd wager,) you might have noticed that I haven't posted follow-ups regarding my Gama shows. Sorry about that! I would still like fatpixels to have a second life as kind of a "director's commentary" on producing the GDC Radio shows.

So in the interest of following up on that, here are some links referencing the panel on Next-Gen Console Development:

Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PS3 - A Hardware Discussion - an excellent discussion on Anandtech.com on how hardware might influence the kinds of titles on each console.

Cross-platform game development and the next generation of consoles - Jeremy Reimer's fascinating predictions regarding the impact of real-world pressures for third-parties to concurrently release on multiple consoles.

Waiting on a Revolution: a look ahead at the next-generation console wars - Jon Stokes' in-depth overview of the technical differences between each box.

A Gamers' Manifesto - a pseudo-serious rant from two fans really know what they want from the seventh generation of game consoles.

Wikipedia's History of Video Game Consoles - up to the seventh generation. But who's keeping count?

Next-Gen Consoles - The Real Deal - Megagames' low-down on next-gen tech. Guaranteed hype-free.

Gaming's Surprise Winner - read it to find out who... From TheStreet.com.

Are Big Budget Console Games Sustainable? - Analysis from the expert staff of GameDaily.biz.

At some point, I'd like to do a fatpixels podcast on how to put together a podcast. For those of you who might be curious... What do you think? Email me at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

-Tom

Hello Fatpixels Radio Faithful-

Here is our very first show under the aegis of CMP Media LLC. I will be using the fatpixels website and feed to mirror the gamacast for those of you who have been with us from the first show.

On fatpixels radio, this space will be changing into more of a personal and informal place for me to give you a behind the scenes look, not only at the process of producing the show, but for related topics as well. For example, I will be posting some advice to aspiring podcasters out there, and discussing my continuing process of evolving the production of the gamasutra podcast. Including the continuing learning I am acquiring on the technique and content of improving each show.

To get started, I am looking for your feedback on what I should name the new Gamasutra Podcast. Now, being the consumate working advertising professional, I am somehow not content to just call it the "Gamasutra Podcast" and be done with it. I'd like to throw out to all of you an opportunity to weigh in on renaming fatpixels.

Because Gamasutra is such a venerable game developers' online resource, I'd like to keep some of that equity. The thought is to come up with a show title, something like "Politically Incorrect," which works as a phrase in itself, but also points to the theme of the show.

Some of the ideas that my fatpixels, er, gamasutra podcast co-producers and I have come up with are:

Gamasutra Game Pad
Gamasutra Control Panel
Gamasutra Dialog Box
Infrequently Asked Questions
Gamasutra's Expert Positions

So far, the leaders seem to be Control Panel, Dialog Box and Infrequently Asked Questions... I rather like Expert Positions, but it has so far been voted down by the consensus. My new editor-in-chief, Simon Carless, prefers "Control Panel." But I'd like to get some sense of what you guys and gals have heart for.

By the way, if you have any better ideas, I'm all ears. Keep in mind, I'd like to design some logo and graphic identity to go along with the new show -- for the website, podcast graphic, and funny hats...

Also, stay tuned. Coming up this Friday, May 5th I have an interview with Dean Takahashi, the author of Opening The Xbox. He will be talking about his new book, The Xbox 360 Uncloaked. Are there any questions you'd like me to ask him? Send 'em to fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

-Tom

Hello Brave Listeners-

Sorry for the long hiatus. But as you can probably gather, we've been pretty busy here at fatpixels. Namely, in setting up our new home at Gamasutra.

We are still finalizing a few points, such as new music, show format, and the like. But all in all, Simon Carless and his intrepid staff have been really wonderful.

So to make up for the long break and to reward your patience, we'd are happy to provide you with a veritable flood of fatpixels-related content. Not only do we serve up the long-awaited Episode 7, but also for our loyal listeners, we're happy to present a special preview edition of our panel discussion on Gamer Demographics for the Gama podcast.

The total panel discussion runs for 45 minutes. I have only included the first 12 minutes because I'd like you to listen to the actual show when it comes out, hopefully at the end of this month. If that isn't enough, you can also check out my guest appearance on Videogame News Radio's April 9th show. The link to the download is here.

So, sorry about the long delay, but I hope you enjoy the heaping helping of content.

As usual, please email your thoughts to fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

-Tom

Hello Brave Listeners-

I thought I'd post an entry to promote the Video Game Voters Network and encourage you to sign up if you haven't already done so.

With the increasing proposals of state and federal level retail games regulation bills, this is exactly the kind of easy, relatively low impact, grass-roots mechanism that gamers need to at least make themselves heard to their local representatives.

Perhaps it's naive to look at the situation and wonder what's going on. The proponents of retail-level games legislation really don't care about the issues of First Amendment protections and speech. Nor are they genuinely concerned about the media effects debate. And it is apparent that they clearly aren't interested in a dialog with anyone on the developers' or publishers' side.

They merely find it convenient to bash on the game industry because it is an expedient way to shore up their family values cred -- to appear to be doing something to right a social ill without having to account for the hard solutions, such as funding education and addressing socioeconomic inequalities.

Our industry doesn't have a powerful lobby, like the film and music industries do, and as a whole, the gamer demographic doesn't tend to vote. But at least this is one way for all of us to do what we can.

To quote: "For over 30 years now, millions of Americans have played video and computer games, and this pastime has become an important part of American culture. Yet, as this entertainment medium grows it has also become a frequent target of criticism and legislation. The Video Game Voters Network working to protect the rights of Americans who play video games, and is first line of defense against legislative threats. The Network enables you to stay updated about issues and to voice your concerns to your elected officials.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What's Really At Stake?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government regulation based on games' content will stifle creativity, and inadvertently cause game publishers to dilute content due to the threat of government action and fines. Game content is constitutionally protected, just like movies, books, and cable TV, so why should games be subject to a higher level of scrutiny? These legislative threats would create a double standard for this innovative medium.

Join Today, and Take A Stand - Protect Your Games!"

You can learn more about how you can help, and sign up by clicking the VGVN icon in the sidebar to the right. Or, you can just click on this link.

Onto less pressing matters: As most of you know, the Game Developers Conference 2006 is taking place this week. Steve and I would've loved to have attended. But, alas, we both have commitments to our paying jobs that precluded our presence at this year's GDC.

Also, for better or for worse, most of the guests we would have liked to talk to for our show are in attendance. Heck, most of them are presenting or running seminars... But never fear: it's looking like our next panel show will be recorded on April 7th, and probably editing and released by the next week (I promise not to keep you waiting too long.)

That show will be on The Changing Face of Gamers. According to the ESA's Top 10 Industry Facts, 75% of U.S. households play video or computer games; the average player is 30 years old and has been playing for almost 10 years; the average game buyer is 37 years old, and in 2005, 95% of PC game buyers and 84% of console game buyers were over the age of 18; 43% of all game players are women; in 2004, 19% of Americans over the age of 50 have played video games -- an increase of 9% from '99.

Now, numbers such as these are met with much skepticism from game developers and the enthusiast press alike because they are inclusive of the so-called casual games space -- people playing lightweight fare on mobile phones and the mainstream public playing Hearts on Yahoo Games. Even garnering criticism from certain circles in the enthusiast press. But in my view, the distinction is a nebulous one. And I am curious about the game industry's resistance to the adoption of their product among a wider audience.

Surveys such as the ESA's go a long way toward countering the mainstream perception of gamers as a monoculture of pubescent males. Which I think, can only be a good thing for the forward progress of the medium. Now, the unfortunate truth is that most of the people making games are a monoculture. I think that it is particularly important to foster the discussion of the growing diversity of game players among those making and selling games.

In that for 2005, the industry never had a better year for overall volume and sales, this past holiday season downgrading of many of the game publishers' analyst numbers--according to Michael Pachter of Wedbush-Morgan, due to console transition and sequel-itis--indicates that perhaps the industry should seek to broaden their markets by diversifying their product. The numbers show that the people are out there. But most game developers make titles for, and influenced by a very small cultural profile; they mostly make stuff for themselves.

Now, one of my friends (and erstwhile fatpixels radio co-producer) sent me this reply to a query about this show topic:

I saw John Cleese's one-man show last night, and when asked about why Monty Python was such a success, he said (huge paraphrasing) that it was because they had "no pressure, no demographics; we just tried to make each other laugh." I have heard other entertainers and artists echo this sort of sentiment -- that the best, the most enduring work comes when creators are working to please themselves. It is not surprising, then, that the gamers tend to focus their energies on games for the hardcore audience.

The trap for the gaming industry is that the contrapositive is also true -- the worst work comes when the creators are working to please others. If a game producer creates a game that he/she would not play, no matter what the market research might say, the result will in all likelihood be a crappy game. Crappy games do not grab new audiences, and the inability to make/sell fun games to a wider audience becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The real breakout "non-traditional" hit will need some "non-traditional" creative forces behind it. It will happen (though probably not without some more failures); it is just a question of whether an outsider or some segment of the "monoculture" takes that first risk.

Good points, all. And I agree that a fair share of original and personally inspired excellent work comes from creators who hold themselves to their own vision -- the rest of society catching up when and if they can. I'm not suggesting that developers engage in a practice of making games by focus group. We all know that never works.

But I do think that very few of them seek to create any works of "high stakes." John Cleese and the Pythoners weren't seeking to feed the uroboros of genre hell -- serpentine metaphors completely intended. Instead, they broke molds and defined a certain flavour of humour, for better or worse, for decades to come.

In other words, I don't have a problem with gamers making games for themselves, so long as that crowd occasionally reaches further than insert-your-flavor-of-orc-demon-cyborg-from-space-hell here, or a blonde elven archer in a chainmail bikini. And I wish that if game developers continue to insist on relying on genre standards, that they would at least try to do something interesting or original with them.

The confirmed guest panelists on that show currently include Katie Salen, co-editor of The Rules of Play, and The Game Design Reader, and Heather Chaplin, co-author of SmartBomb. I'm trying to confirm a couple more panelists from the hard numbers and analysis side of things. Hopefully, I will be able to let you know who those people are, soon.

In the meanwhile, I have put out an all-call to my game developer friends to send me an email about how they got into the industry. Steve and I would like to record a show where we read these letters to you all. If you happen to be a game developer, please feel free to send in an email of your own to fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

Also, I will be guest hosting on the Videogame News Radio podcast this upcoming weekend (April 2, 2006.) If you haven't heard of the show, in their own words, "This ain't your normal gaming show. A truck driver, a brick layer, and an ex-cook talking video games. The working person's gaming show." They have a decidedly different tone than fatpixels, but Kevin Baird and crew run one of the most honest gaming podcasts out there. Check it out.

On that note, I'd like to mention several other excellent game podcasts out there who's hosts and producers I have corresponded with: The ChatterBox Video Game Radio Show, the Gaming Steve Podcast, and the 4ColorRebellion podcast. Check out their shows. All of them are labors of love. And although they don't quite need as much promotion, please check out the PCGamer Podcast and the 1UP Radio Podcasts. (Much thanks, again, to Dan Morris of PC Gamer and Sam Kennedy of 1up.com for participating in our Games Journalism panel discussion.)

-Tom

Better late than never... I finally got around to editing the second half of the Games Journalism panel. In this episode, we are joined by guest host, Kyle Orland of Video Game Media Watch. Thanks to Kyle for his expert moderating of the panel, and for sharing his time and expertise to record our pre-show.

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Kyle Orland's great article, It's Our Fault Videogames Aren't Considered Art. (Be sure to read the comments thread. There are some excellent, well-reasoned responses.)
1UP.com
1UP.com podcast
Sam Kennedy's blog entry on participating in the show
Dan Hsu's blog entry on Editorial Integrity
Dan Hsu's Peter Moore interview originally printed in EGM, and reposted on 1UP
Computer Gaming World
Matthew Sakey's Culture Clash column
Ankama Studios' free Flash-based MMORPG, Dofus. (To our French audience, je m'excuse.)
About.com's English lyrics for La Marseilles.
Vic Lucas' website for The Electric Playground
Electronic Gaming Monthly
EGM's collected Afterthoughts articles on 1UP
The Escapist
Gamasutra article, Difficulty and the Interstitial Gamer.
GameDaily BIZ's article, 7 Bad Mistakes that Good Game Journalists Make
GameDaily's Media Coverage page
Game Informer
The Gamer's Quarter
International Game Journalists Association
Joystiq
Joystiq's posting on Dofus
Kieron Gillen's Workblog posting on Games Journalism
Kotaku
The L.A. Times' recent reviews of film critic, Kenneth Turan
Official Playstation Magazine
PC Gamer
PC Gamer Podcast
Slashdot games
SlashDot Games reader comments on The Gamer's Quarter
Jordan Mechner entry on Wikipedia
Cahiers du Cinema entry on Wikipedia
W.H. Auden's Rules for Critics on the Wandering Ways blog page.
Sontag & Kael. An engaging, witty, and beautifully written critique on the process of critique by Craig Seligman.
Wizard Magazine
Esquire Magazine
David Jaffe's Modblog page
Hideo Kojima's HIDEOBLOG

I was going to write a 1,000-word critique on the game play experience of Tetris. But instead, I'll post some quick thoughts.

And already, it starts: I have received about a dozen alarmed reader emails expressing some concern over our comments on pithy, 100-word capsule reviews and numerical ratings of games. In case you weren't listening to the show, please allow me to restate: Kyle, Steve and I are not suggesting that all numerical scores be abolished outright. We merely want to see a broader range of how the press talks about games. We acknowledge that to many players, reviews serve a valuable purpose.

But while not everyone wants to read a wordy critique to help them decide whether or not they'd like to rent or purchase a game, it might help to validate the inherent worth of playing video and computer games if those who enjoy them were able to talk about their experiences in a way that might be appreciated by a non-gaming audience. Or even a hardcore gaming audience, though I suspect they are not the ones who need convincing...

I am finding that it is increasingly difficult to come to an experience with any freshness at all. Before anyone sees a movie, reads a novel, or plays a game, they've probably been exposed to much of the content through previews, news, or reviews already. At least in games, it is impossible to spoil the play experience simply by talking about it. Even if you read a cheat guide or FAQ, you still have to play the game to get the full experience. So that's at least one advantage we have over other media.

On games that are critical darlings that don't get the sales numbers: if I see a game that has something unique and good to offer, I put my money and time where my principles are. I buy that game and play it. There are lots of great games that didn't get the audience they deserved. Like Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Eternal Darkness, Rez, and Ico. My bet is, if your run-of-the-mill gamer would give any of these a try, they would not only enjoy them, but love them.

-Tom

Hello brave listeners.

So I should know better than to promise a new show in a week... In truth, Steve, Kyle Orland and I didn't get around to recording our pre-show until tonight (Monday, February 27th.) We had planned on conferencing this weekend, but schedules didn't work out for us. So... I now have all the raw content I need for Episode 6. I just need to get to editing it down to a listenable form.

A heads up on audio quality, or lack thereof: we ended up having to use the conference call system to get Steve, Kyle and I in on a recordable call. Steve and Kyle were on cell phones, so from time to time, you will hear that signature buzzing sound of a cellphone signal under the audio capture, of the type you might hear through your car's radio when your cellphone is sitting on your car dashboard as an incoming call is coming through. Kind of scary when you think about it. That sound is caused by a point microwave source beaming a signal to some distant tower. That powerful signal is coming from that cellphone that you stick up to your head... This is why I own an earpiece.

-Tom

Hello brave listeners (as Steve would say). Just a quick note to inform you that Episodes 5 and 6 are on their way. Sorry for the delay, but my day job has gotten in the way of the podcast.

Have no fear: some excellent programming is coming your way soon. Kyle Orland moderated a spirited panel on Games Journalism with Vic Lucas of G4TV's Electric Playground, Sam Kennedy of 1up.com, Julianne Greer of The Escapist, Matt Williamson of The Gamer's Quarter, and Dan Morris of PC Gamer.

Part One of that panel, along with opening commentary from myself and Steve should be up by this weekend. Part Two, with guest commentary from Kyle, along with me and Steve should be up very soon after.

Apologies for the delay, and thanks for your patience. Stay tuned.

-Tom

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Ernest Adams' homepage: The Designer's Notebook
James Gee's Games + Learning + Society page at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Henry Jenkins' website at MIT
Ernest Adams' Gamasutra article, "You Must Play Façade, Now!"
Henry Jenkins' article, "Games, the New Lively Art"
Kyle Orland's article, "It's Our Fault Video Games Aren't Considered Art"
Homepage for A Tale In The Desert
Next Generation's coverage of OPM's James Mielke interview with Hideo Kojima: "Games Are Not Art"
Jeremy Parish of ToastyFrog.com's case for games as art: "Wherefore art?"
Digital Eel's Weird Worlds: Strange Adventures in Infinite Space homepage and links.
Bethesda Softworks' The Elder Scrolls.

Merriam-Webster's definition of art is: "The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced."

-----

I recently read James Mielke's excellent interview with visionary game designer and producer, Hideo Kojima in the February issue of The Official U.S. Playstation Magazine. In the course of their conversation, Mielke and Kojima get into a brief discussion on Roger Ebert's assessment that videogames can never be viewed as art.

Before you all start flaming Hideo Kojima on the subject -- Roger Ebert has already received his share of irate rebuttal -- I believe it is instructive to understand his and Ebert's viewpoints. (By the way, I do not feel that flaming people who offer opinions that might be perceived to be anti-gaming, or that simply do not coincide with your own is productive. If you must lodge a complaint, for the sake of the industry you represent, please try to do so in a civil, well-reasoned, and even handed manner.)

Ebert says that: "...I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control...[T]he nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship [however elegant or sophisticated] to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers... for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

In typical Japanese fashion, Kojima is rather elliptical in his reply: "...art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Although I feel that Kojima's thesis differs in significant ways from Ebert's, they share a notion that art is an expression of an individual: an "artist." And that the intention of this expression is intrinsic to the definition of "art." It is unstated, but implied that the artist intends for his or her expression to be rather singular in intent and interpretation. In Ebert's case, this falls under the assertion of "authorial control." In Kojima's case, he explains that he is merely providing "a canvas and paint and the paintbrushes" as a "service" to the people who play the game; that the expression of the medium is not coming from the creator of the medium, but rather from its participants. But Ebert offers the additional claim that the act of playing games holds no inherent value.

My personal opinion is that Ebert and Kojima both advance a rather narrow definition of art. If you ask a bunch of academics, critics, or artists themselves to provide you with a pithy definition of art -- or perhaps more specifically, fine art -- you will probably get as many answers as respondents.

According to Henry Jenkins: "Let's be clear here. All games are art...In a superficial sense, we could point to examples (of in-game assets) which could be described as professionally competent and well-produced. In a higher sense, we look for works that create new expressive experiences or push a medium to places it hasn't gone before."

From Ebert and Kojima's perspective, perhaps these goals aren't possible without an artist's embedded intention or narrative. To simply hand over the medium, whether it be canvas and paint, or pixels and input device to an experiencer in their view, removes an essential component of what makes art, "art." Namely, the intrinsic, guiding hand of the artist. Rather than the extrinsic, emergent qualities found in interactive entertainment.

Personally, I acknowledge that we haven't yet seen many examples of the medium which could be generally described as "works of art," at least as understood by a consensus view of what is considered canonical art. But I would like to allow that video and computer games might start to define an emerging notion of a unique kind of commentary or experience, due to the very fact that a participant has more direct input on the experience itself. Particularly in the fields of emergent drama or storytelling or interactive performance with other people. Such as in the case of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games, like World of Warcraft.

And even in the case of single-player games, the craft and artistry of the game designer could define a rich and directed experience illuminating the general human condition, the creator's comment on his or her world, or reflective of the medium itself. Professor James Gee views games as being a particular kind of virtually-embodied performance art, where there is a unique interaction between the intention of the game designer providing "a trajectory of choices," and the game player.

In other words, James Gee and Henry Jenkins assert that the interactive experience in itself can be described as artistic, and games as a form of art wholly deserving of inherent value as an experience, in the same manner as film, or novels, or other works that are generally accepted as art. And, I would like to note, as deserving of First Amendment protections as any other form of expression. A point which obviously is lost on many politicians, moral reformers, and anti-game crusaders and special interest groups.

As far as the elements that comprise that experience, such as the visual components of 2D and 3D design, animation, music, sound, and storytelling can also be artistic, I do not separate the granular components of the medium from the overall interactive experience. Any more than I would separate the screenplay, cinematography, editorial, musical score, acting, set design, title design, or any other granular component from film. Nor would I make the same qualitative comparisons between, say the style and quality of writing in a screenplay and the prose of a novel.

All parts work in complete communication of an experience unique to the medium they service. In this way, my personal thesis of games as art differs from Kojima's. Kojima makes the analogy of a videogame as being comparable to a museum: "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum -- how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

It is my opinion that Mr. Kojima sorely understates the importance of his role. In my view, he is not a mere curator. He is an artist. And not just of "the art that's displayed in the museum," but of the holistic experience itself. He is a wonderful game designer, and should acknowledge the significance of his accomplishments as far as he is clearly embracing the weight of his role in creating compelling experiences. I also feel that a very public assertion that games are not art coming from one of our most visionary game designers only serves to hurt the medium. I am sorry he feels that way. I am even sorrier that he broadcasts these feelings to the enthusiast press, his fans, and by extension, the non-gaming world.

This might get to a notion of his humility. Earlier in the interview, he explained that most of the Japanese press call into question the title that most of his fans confer on him. The adoring otaku refer to him as, "Kojima-kantoku." The word, kantoku loosely translates to "director," as in film director. In Japan, film directors such as Akira Kurosawa are revered as bona-fide artists. So the question is intended to ask if Kojima, himself thinks of himself as being in the same league as a film director. And by extension, videogames as being in the same league as film. In Japan, as in America, the public consensus is that videogames are an inferior medium compared to film. So I wonder how much of his assertion is deferring to the general view, so as not to appear unduly arrogant.

In games, I propose that developers and game designers have an obligation to explore the medium's unique interactive elements, and to strive to understand the aesthetics and push the limits of those components. And apply what they learn toward the question of why they are creating the game in the first place. If the medium is to move forward, developers and designers should start to ask themselves these questions of intent, and regard what they are creating as worthy of the effort.

Kojima himself comes up with an interesting example: an unbeatable videogame: "Maybe let's say there's a game out there where there's a boss that you cannot defeat. It's made that way. Normally, when you beat the boss in a game, there's a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, but if you can't beat the boss at all, if what you're left with is a sense of loss, then maybe that could be defined as art." But, he goes on to caveat his example by saying: "That's why you want to think about art and videogames. I think the lousiest videogames can be considered art. Because bad games with no fun aren't really games, by definition."

Again, I would disagree. For now, our notion of games might require that they perform as consumer artifacts; as lightweight, escapist pieces of entertainment; as toys. But if we were to expand the range of what is considered a worthwhile experience in playing a game, the measure of mere commercial success as a defining precondition of "quality" for a game may no longer need apply. People might not aesthetically appreciate the atonal music of Philip Glass, but few would say that atonal music is completely without merit simply because the experience itself isn't widely accessible.

Don't get me wrong. I still understand that we're talking about games, here. But that might be part of the problem. Right now, almost any interactive piece that runs with the assistance of a computer or console is called a "game." With that moniker comes the assumption that the work is merely a trifle -- an amusement.

I don't propose that we add a new description to the lexicon which would only serve to confuse people and make the game industry appear overly full of itself. (Maybe I have a little empathy for Kojima's humility, after all.) Witness the comic book industry trying to rebrand their work as "sequential art" in the "graphic novel" format. Though I have the highest respect for the fine artists who have contributed to that field such as Will Eisner and Frank Miller, their PR efforts didn't work. And comics remain a niche medium in the States. It is my opinion that the video and computer game industry have already achieved more mainstream status than the comic book industry, anyway. But we still have a ways to go. Cultural awareness does not equal respect.

For now, we might as well keep the appellation and strive to improve the inherent worth of the experiences. After all, the term, "rock and roll" was originally a pejorative description of the form.

As in rock music, film, or other forms of popular mass media that are generally accepted as art, it is my opinion that it may be much more difficult to create a work that has universal appeal, and that can also be generally regarded as having high artistic merit. As opposed to creating something that is a fascinating piece of art, but that only appeals to a limited set of individuals. I'm just saying that I might play a game -- experience an interactive work of art -- and "get something out of it" that is worthy of the experience, but that might not be described purely in terms of "fun factor." Just like I might find it difficult to read the prose of James Joyce's Ulysses, but still find the experience valuable enough to re-read the novel in spite of my initial discomfort.

New York artist, Cory Arcangel has already mounted a few interactive exhibits, one of which fits Kojima's bill. By changing a few bits of GameBoy code, Archangel created the agonizing, nearly unplayable, "Super Slow Tetris." Archangel's pieces rely on the penetration of Nintendo's classic 8-bit era properties into cultural consciousness to create a referential kind of art that comments on the fact that videogames have officially entered Postmodernity. Even if one isn't a gamer, some of Arcangel's pieces, such as "Super Mario Clouds" have a certain aesthetic elegance and an almost impressionistic effect on the viewer.

Incidentally, this, and other interesting topics are covered in the December 9, 2005 episode of WNYC's Studio 360 which explores the topic of videogames.

One segment of the show highlights the use of games as military training simulators. These simulators elicited highly emotional responses from their participants. If that reaction could be directed to an intention of exploring unique and significant experiences, we might start to explore and expand the range of the medium's capabilities. To quote segment producer, Rachel McCarthy: "Perhaps the one big difference may be the intent of the player: a game is only just a game when the person using it chooses to see it that way."

-Tom

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Dennis McCauley's GamePolitics.com
International Game Developers Association
The IGDA's key points on anti-censorship
Jason Della Rocca's article, "Regulation Is Everyone's Business"
Matthew Sakey's Culture Clash column
Kyle Orland's Video Game Media Watch
Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB)
Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA)
The IEMA's Government Advocacy page
National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF)
The NIMF's 10th Annual Media Report Card on the video and computer game industry
Henry Jenkin's article at PBS.org, "Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked"
GameDaily.biz's article on FEPA, and the industry response.
The Onion article, "New Video Game Designed To Have No Influence On Kids' Behavior"

In this episode, Steve and I get to riff a little on our take on the legislation issue.

It is Steve's opinion that an addition of brief descriptions of action to the ESRB's summary of representational content would be helpful to parents, and possibly toward allaying some of the criticisms of the ratings system from politicians and special interest groups. Also, that such a listing of interactions would serve to point out the differences between games and other more "passive" media such as movies.

It is my opinion that this might be a dangerous move, especially if it proves to play into the political agenda of groups such as the National Institute for Media and the Family, who have proposed to replace the ESRB ratings with just such a system. The question becomes, who is doing the rating, and how is that rating listed? Steve contends that this should be the ESRB. But consider that if the MPAA listed out all of the actions taken by the lead characters in most popular movies, one might think that the only people who watch movies are voyeristic sociopaths.

My point is, detached from the context of the experience, even the most objective interactive ratings system loses a lot of accuracy, and thus utility.

I do think he raises a valid issue in terms of assessing the difference between games and other media. However, I don't necessarily classify other media as being "non-interactive." All media requires some participation from the reader or viewer or listener, in that we all interpret our exposure to media differently. Two people could watch the same movie and have completely different impressions and interpretations of the same material.

Scott McCloud contends that most of the interaction between a reader of comics and sequential art takes place between the panels of the page, as the mind fills in the actions that aren't explicitly displayed. Or, for a more simple example, Hollywood directors always have the problem of adapting written works to the screen because every audience member already has an internal subjective view or expectation of what they have read in the novel.

So in this sense, although games are more interactive in that they require direct real-time feedback and response from and to the system, they are not the only medium that requires participation from the experiencer. I also do not believe it would be productive to get into a debate over who's medium is better than who's.

I don't think it is the ESRB's place to devise such a system, seeing as the parents who are concerned about the ratings are mostly thinking about the representational, rather than the interactive content of games in the first place. The difficulty is that coming up with succinct descriptions of such actions can be highly subjective. As I have already stated, such a ratings system would present those actions out of context of a person playing the game. Also, much of this information can already be gathered simply by looking at the screen captures and copy on the back of the game packaging, where such information takes up far more space than the ESRB rating. And lastly, parents already aren't interpreting the existing rating that's already prominently displayed on posters, brochures, and counter cards, as well as the front and back of the packaging itself. So the probable answer is not to make that ratings system even more complex.

The real answer, I feel, is public awareness. The reason the MPAA ratings have been generally accepted is because they have the momentum of over 30 years of being in the public's mindshare. So although it can be argued that the MPAA ratings are equally subjective, there is a general understanding that it may be inappropriate to bring a minor to an R-rated movie. Also, as Jason Della Rocca pointed out, the public assumes the film ratings work because the retail and distribution chain of motion pictures -- movie theaters -- has a much higher incidence of compliance to enforcing their ratings system. A system which is, by the way, put out by a subsidiary of the film industry whose enforcement is completely voluntary.

I invite our listeners to weigh in with their points on the issue. In the meanwhile, we hope you enjoy the second part of our panel.

-Tom

Steve Replies: My Turn to Weigh In...

Games :Are: Interaction

My suggestion that the ESRB include information related to the interactive content of the games they review is the most relevant facet of a larger desire I have regarding gaming in general: the perception of games as influential on the minds of young players -- the same concerns that brought about the founding of the ESRB in the first place.

The ESRB currently assays games for graphical and audio content. Profanity, provocative imagery, and of course violent themes are singled out and detailed on the package for the ease of understanding of people who might not get that information from the screenshots or feature descriptions on the box (or who don't read them in the first place). I believe it is just as, if not more important to detail similar information about the interactive content of the game in question, to help the consumer understand the kinds of activities depicted by the interaction between player and game.

Many WW2 shooters have descriptions on the ESRB label like "Violence and Gore," "Blood," or "Adult Themes." But a game about Emergency Room medicine could have similar descriptors, though the interactive content is completely different. The packaging could be identical to the eyes of a parent purchasing a product, but a game where the player is a battlefield medic attempting to save lives on the beaches of the Normandy invasion has very different messages than one where the goal is to create casualties.

I think the language used to create these descriptors already exists; it is very similar to the language already in use by the ESRB. "Lifelike Violence" is different from "Animated Violence," but the difference between violence enacted on humans or humanoid fictional characters (like zombies or robots) is as important as the distinction on player vs. environment violence and player vs. player violence. I'd also like to know, if I were a parent, if the violence is enacted with fists, guns, swords, or cars, and if any sexual themes in a game were interactive or passive. This is the only real distinction between small niche "blue" titles and others like the Leisure Suit Larry series.

I'm not suggesting that every possible interaction be spelled out to the letter. Listing a 720 triple flip with a nosegrab as an interaction on the back of SSX would be as unnecessarily descriptive as the spelling out of evisceration and decapitations would be on the back of a Mortal Kombat title. Simply listing "Trick Snowboarding" or "Extreme Player vs. Player Unarmed Combat" would be informative enough to satisfy the concerns of the public.

The root of this argument comes from my desire to see gaming progress as an intelligent medium. The reason that Baby Boomers fear Doom is because they have no idea of what it represents to their kids. Politicians propose legislation against games because they have never played them and have to take the slanted research and worst fears of activists as truth. The public still doesn't accept games as an equivalent media to TV or cinema because they still see Frogger or Pac-Man as representative of the entire industry. And, most importantly, developers continue to make FragFest 200X because it's what they know will sell to the limited audience that pays attention to their work.

The answer to all of these ills is education. If games worthy of merit and accessible to a larger audience were billed as such by the media (including the enthusiast media), more people would learn about the possibilities for learning, expression, and entertainment offered by games. This would allow more game developers to innovate in areas other than poly-counts and frames-per-second.

If the ESRB started using descriptions of interactive content, it would send a message to parents and other consumers that games are different than movies or television. After all, while the listener to a song has to mentally interact with the tune and lyrics to interpret a message, that song would play without any input from the listener. On the other hand, start up most games and provide no input, and they many might be mistaken for a still image - there is no content without interaction from the user. Many non-gamers, parents and politicians among them, don't get that.

This message needs to get out to society at large if the medium and the industry that produces it are ever going to expand past the monoculture it has built. My argument about the ESRB is only one step that I think can advance that goal.

-Steve

Happy Holidays listeners-

For Episode 2, Steve moderated a panel discussion between Jason Della Rocca, Executive Director of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA), Dennis McCauley of GamePolitics.com, Matthew Sakey, writer of the IGDA's monthly Culture Clash column, and Kyle Orland of Videogame Media Watch.com. The subject of the discussion was the Family Entertainment Protection Act, the first bill introduced on the federal level intended to regulate the sales of M-rated titles to minors. There are some important distinctions to this bill that distinguish it from the various state-level laws that have been proposed, enacted, and overturned.

I think the issue of game commerce legislation is a timely and important one for the game industry. And, it touches on other points that are of importance to the continuing development of games as an accepted medium of critical and creative expression. Particularly in light of the general public's perception of games as entertainment only suitable for children.

To be fair to the non-gamer's perception, there is little common ground for discussion. On the surface, most popular games are rather unsophisticated in their thematic presentation. It is hard to discuss what makes Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto series such great games to a non-gamer. Like GTA, there have been big, popular movies where the protagonists were amoral criminal misogynists. Scarface comes to mind.

But in 1983 when the movie came out, few would argue that film as a medium had no artistic merit, that Pacino as an actor had no talent, that DePalma as a director had no creative vision, or that Universal Pictures had no business releasing the movie. Or even, to a more subtle degree that Oliver Stone didn't craft an effective screenplay or that the movie didn't touch on larger issues that resonated with the audience. That I can justify these points with most people -- aside from the perception and presentation of the content of the movie -- speaks to a lack of shared dialog and terminology with artistic themes in games.

Movies did not crack that serious crust until people who loved movies began to dissect them seriously for a broader audience. Most movies are still rubbish, but Pauline Kael was still able to comment seriously upon the artistic choices in Rambo, and connect the film to a larger historical and artistic context. No Pauline Kael of video game criticism has stepped up to the plate. Is that the game press' fault for poor journalism, or gamers' fault, since product previews and reviews are apparently all they buy? If there is no critical mass of serious game journalism within the industry, there is no reason for anybody outside the industry to think games are anything but barren, and, more to the point, those outside the industry will always set the agenda. If you have not already seen it, take a look at Kyle Orland's article "It's Our Fault Video Games Aren't Considered Art."

Henry Jenkins has cited the fact that media messages are most effective when they tend to reinforce the values, beliefs and preconceptions of the reader, listener or viewer. Conversely, we are remarkably resistant to media messages which do not resonate with us. Which is, in no small part, why a well-adjusted teen is highly unlikely to go out and gun down the neighborhood after playing Grand Theft Auto. By the way, in light of the fact that media messages can be reinforcing of beliefs and behavior, my belief is that game designers and publishers should exercise some restraint on the content they put in their games. I can accept the pushing of limits of taste or execution if they are done in service of a message or theme. However, in my opinion, wanton violence and shocking subject matter shouldn't be employed indesciminately. I am somewhat conflicted, as a gamer, about my enjoyment of the play experience of the Grand Theft Auto series and Rockstar's irresponsible behavior. I feel their lying to the ESRB about the Hot Coffee content was unprofessional and damaging to gaming. But market forces and game sales introduce a ripe target.

Rockstar purposefully releases titles with controversial content. These tend to sell well for the same reasons that kids listened to rock and roll in the fifties and rap music in the aughties. And also because some of that music is pretty good, and some of Rockstar's games are pretty fun (the point that Rockstar's less well-designed games do not sell is kind of lost on suburban moms.) So as long as controversy produces profits, some developers will try to take advantage of that fact. And publishers have to decide with the bottom line. Both with little regard to the possible long-term effects on the industry. What bothers me about Rockstar is that they purposefully push the limits of what is admissible or generally acceptable in other media, and then resort to the First Amendment defense. The problem is that this erodes Constitutional protections. Because other media have been around for longer and enjoy more general public acceptance, the subject matter tends to be self-correcting. You probably wouldn't see a movie with big box office numbers that was essentially a snuff film (Manhunt).

When relevant to the story/theme at hand, violence and shocking subjects pack a lot of power. The problem in all media is when the artist uses them as their only theme, or as a lazy way to cover up a lack of original craft. The market will correct for a snuff film. It will not punish a Scarface that does something with its shock and violence. The problem specific to video games is that, for some reason, the violence either sells or is perceived to sell, on its own. The market does not correct against a game that advertises itself as having "more blood" -- it sometimes even rewards it, and the game press chirps along happily, focusing on the realism of limb severings instead of the theme -- or, sometimes, even the fun factor -- of a game.

But bad public perception and short term legislation might limit the choices we have as consumers. At least to the point where it might become a liability for publishers to distribute certain kinds of content in an already narrow and risk-averse retail channel. I don't want to see the marketplace shrunk in general. Nor do I want the public at large to continue in a self-perpetuating perception that games are, as Jason Della Rocca says, "just toys for children." Or worse, for sociopaths.

The good news is that retailers, merchants' associations and the courts are on the side of consumers. Also, I believe that efforts should be put toward educating parents and consumers rather than harassing retailers. But if senators Clinton and Lieberman start gaining public and political traction on their proposed legislation, things could start looking very ugly for the game industry. The press won't be good. What's more likely to get aired and resonate more with mainstream America: an earnest advocate for the game industry with a sound-bite to get across his or her points, or a ten second montage of violent game footage? Where are outlets in the press or points of public contact where we could address these issues in a more proactive way? Also, what would happen if there is another prominent incident of youth violence? How long do you think it would take before activist groups found a "prominent link" to video games?

Part of the reason press about games won't be good is that press by gamers is so bad. Why should mainstream media credit video games as art or even simply a legitimate medium, deserving First Amendment protection, if the publications by and for gamers consist primarily of blurbs covering graphics, blood, and cleavage? No ten-second soundbite can stand against what the rest of the industry is saying about itself. It is no wonder that those with an agenda find games such easy pickings; these are all self-inflicted wounds. If the game community wants to be taken seriously, it has to take itself seriously, first.

I am very interested to hear our listeners' opinions on these matters.

-Tom

Here is a list of some of the resources and sites referenced in the show:

Dark Horizons Lore
GameDaily.com's November 23rd article on Wedbush Morgan Securities' "The Nightmare Before Xmas"
GameDaily.com's article on Tips for the Independent Developer.
The Independent Games Festival
Kai Backman's Shorthike
Kieron Gillen's "How To Use And Abuse The Gaming Press And How The Gaming Press Wants To Use and Abuse You."
Marble Blast Ultra page on Xbox Live Arcade
Nethack
Popcap Games
RuneScape

Also, check out Greg Costikyan's excellent articles on "Death to the Games Industry" in issue 8 and issue 9 of The Escapist.

On December 1st, fatpixels radio co-host, Steve McLaughlin interviewed Greg Costikyan of Manifesto Games and Jay Moore of GarageGames on their respective roles in promoting independent game development. In an increasingly risk-averse retail environment, it is difficult to find games that aren't sequels, tie-ins to licensed properties, or re-treads of market-proven styles of game play. A look at Amazon.com's top selling game titles for this week demonstrates the point: Madden 2006, Mario Party 7, Age of Empires 3, Star Wars Battlefront II (sometimes, all three in one...), Civ IV...

Is this a problem? According to Michael Pachter, analyst for Wedbush Morgan Securities, the full-year growth of the games industry may be in jeopardy, due in no small part to "sequelitis." Pachter notes, "In particular, consumers appear to be indifferent to the proliferation of sequels, indicating a slow start to holiday sales and risk of continuing weakness." And it appears that Mr. Pachter's fears were justified. The NPD Group, one of the premier sources of market information for the video game industry, recently retracted its November figures due to an unprecedented mis-prediction of actual sales numbers. The revised data wasn't pretty.

Of course, this doesn't mean that every sequel necessarily sucks. Sometimes successive iterations of a franchise allow the developer to more finely tune the play experience. However, as much as I have enjoyed the latest Mario Kart on the DS and throwing down with my buddies playing Madden, I long for the days of original, creative play experiences. Besides, am I the only one who is feeling more than a little indifferent about the latest Tony Hawk game?

But with so many titles competing for our time and money, any new release has only two weeks' shelf time before it is cleared to make room for the next cycle of games. And the next generation of hardware only promises greater time and expense to create assets, with correspondingly higher risk for game publishers. But Bigger-Faster-More doesn't necessarily lead to better game play or innovation. On the contrary, with 9 out of 10 titles failing to recoup their development costs, is it any wonder that publishers are wary about backing new properties or novel styles of play?

So where does this leave the you and me -- not to mention the developer? Is there any solution on the horizon?

There are people out there who are trying to do something about the problem. Some developers such as Wideload Games are seeking different studio and production models in an effort to maximize efficiencies and lower costs. BioWare|Pandemic is seeking development funding from venture capital, rather than exclusively relying on the backing of a traditional game publisher. I am pulling for their efforts to secure a better development environment for themselves. But both of these companies are still trying to create games firmly within the existing market and retail channel.

Our panelists are attempting to skirt the traditional game publishing model altogether. Their rationale: it is nearly impossible to sustainably release games under the current model without profits ultimately driving the development process. If a developer seeks to create unique experiences without these pressures, they have to resort to a different path to market. Also, our panelists would argue that there is a creative, as well as a commercial need for independent development.

We welcome your feedback. It is the only way we'll make the show better. I would request that the comments on the page stick to the theme of indie game development. For any other issues, please email us at fatpixelsradio@gmail.com.

-Tom