Greetings Everyone!
This week's discussion is on "Racism in Games" and, much like the topic of racism in other entertainment and artistic venues, it is a very divisive subject which can be, and is, hotly debated.
The following is a list of websites which editorialize this topic:
-A Pacific Citizen article titled "In Video Games the Bad Guys Come in All Shades of Stereotypes" and focuses upon Robert Parungao and his honors paper discussing research and his opinionated conclusions.
-A small blog post from Gamasutra about GTA Chinatown Wars.
-A Demographics Report on diversity within game developing companies.
-Lastly, a Gamasutra News editorial about racism in Resident Evil 5.
I would like to counter all of the above articles with a video by Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation:
(NOTE: Yahtzee talks about racism toward the end of the video and there's also some swearing).
While his video is supposed to be a humorous roast on games and everything within those games, I feel that he does have a valid point.
But above and beyond what others have to say let me make a very strong, compelling point which I feel is the clincher when it comes to the topic of racism in games:
In mainstream, games are considered to be entertaining "toys". Until they become recognized as something more than toys (such as works of art, methods of communication & instruction, a way to express the freedom of speech) then games will be constantly relegated or thought of as simple amusements. This prevents serious debate or discussion because then people will simply say "but it's only a game and shouldn't be taken seriously".
Additionally, once they are taken seriously, then games move into the realm of 'protected' under the laws of freedom of speech/freedom and therefore game creators now have a constitutional right to express such freedoms through games even if, or especially if, the content is offensive to some individuals. A good example of this is movies: many movies are created with intense racism/ageism/sexism yet are protected and often times encouraged because it creates points of views and opinions which are not of the norm.
It is vitally important to remember that when examining concepts of racism/sexism/ageism, these concepts can become social norms by widespread cultural acceptance. These stereotypical 'isms, though often times misleading and false, can become true by justifying said stereotypes through action and/or behavior. Once this happens, instead of being derogatory and demeaning, these 'isms become merely the truth told in a perhaps hurtful and crass way but truth nonetheless.
If games gain constitutional rights under "art" and "freedom of speech/expression" then new questions are raised such as where to draw the line on limits of expression/speech...as much as we hate to admit it, limits are placed upon our freedom of expression/speech all the time (i.e "do I have a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater?").
I think that our wonderful capitalist market will determine whether such material becomes mainstream acceptable or not. It's quite a simple economic fact that if a game is not acceptable to the market, it will be rejected and therefore a financial flop. This alone dictates a limit as to how far a company will invest in $100 million dollar projects
This week's discussion is on "Racism in Games" and, much like the topic of racism in other entertainment and artistic venues, it is a very divisive subject which can be, and is, hotly debated.
The following is a list of websites which editorialize this topic:
-A Pacific Citizen article titled "In Video Games the Bad Guys Come in All Shades of Stereotypes" and focuses upon Robert Parungao and his honors paper discussing research and his opinionated conclusions.
-A small blog post from Gamasutra about GTA Chinatown Wars.
-A Demographics Report on diversity within game developing companies.
-Lastly, a Gamasutra News editorial about racism in Resident Evil 5.
I would like to counter all of the above articles with a video by Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation:
(NOTE: Yahtzee talks about racism toward the end of the video and there's also some swearing).
While his video is supposed to be a humorous roast on games and everything within those games, I feel that he does have a valid point.
But above and beyond what others have to say let me make a very strong, compelling point which I feel is the clincher when it comes to the topic of racism in games:
In mainstream, games are considered to be entertaining "toys". Until they become recognized as something more than toys (such as works of art, methods of communication & instruction, a way to express the freedom of speech) then games will be constantly relegated or thought of as simple amusements. This prevents serious debate or discussion because then people will simply say "but it's only a game and shouldn't be taken seriously".
Additionally, once they are taken seriously, then games move into the realm of 'protected' under the laws of freedom of speech/freedom and therefore game creators now have a constitutional right to express such freedoms through games even if, or especially if, the content is offensive to some individuals. A good example of this is movies: many movies are created with intense racism/ageism/sexism yet are protected and often times encouraged because it creates points of views and opinions which are not of the norm.
It is vitally important to remember that when examining concepts of racism/sexism/ageism, these concepts can become social norms by widespread cultural acceptance. These stereotypical 'isms, though often times misleading and false, can become true by justifying said stereotypes through action and/or behavior. Once this happens, instead of being derogatory and demeaning, these 'isms become merely the truth told in a perhaps hurtful and crass way but truth nonetheless.
If games gain constitutional rights under "art" and "freedom of speech/expression" then new questions are raised such as where to draw the line on limits of expression/speech...as much as we hate to admit it, limits are placed upon our freedom of expression/speech all the time (i.e "do I have a right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater?").
I think that our wonderful capitalist market will determine whether such material becomes mainstream acceptable or not. It's quite a simple economic fact that if a game is not acceptable to the market, it will be rejected and therefore a financial flop. This alone dictates a limit as to how far a company will invest in $100 million dollar projects
Is this bad taste or really good marketing? I can't tell....I think though that the blog post from Gamasutra summarizes the issue at stake relatively well:
"I'm a proponent of mature content in games, but I don't see the difference between trading drugs and trading vegetables. GTA is famous/infamous for its depictions of illicit activities, but I've developed an indifferent attitude towards games of its nature, because I don't see them as particularly new experiences. Call it insensitivity towards violence or drugs, but if you shoot someone or trade a bag of coke in a game, I don't find that shocking." - Jaime Kuroiwa
This is the problem and benefit inherit with games and movies in general: It can sensitize or desensitize the individual/s participating. Bottom line, games do have an influence but what sort of influence do they exercise? We the consumers decide that and not the game developer companies.
Peace!
"I'm a proponent of mature content in games, but I don't see the difference between trading drugs and trading vegetables. GTA is famous/infamous for its depictions of illicit activities, but I've developed an indifferent attitude towards games of its nature, because I don't see them as particularly new experiences. Call it insensitivity towards violence or drugs, but if you shoot someone or trade a bag of coke in a game, I don't find that shocking." - Jaime Kuroiwa
This is the problem and benefit inherit with games and movies in general: It can sensitize or desensitize the individual/s participating. Bottom line, games do have an influence but what sort of influence do they exercise? We the consumers decide that and not the game developer companies.
Peace!
You make a point about games needing to be perceived differently in the public consciousness -- ie taken more seriously -- before there can be any conversation about them. Yet, academics are clearly already talking about them in a more serious way since they are cultural artifacts that are making meaning. So what exactly do you mean here? Do you mean that, in class, we need to take them more seriously?
ReplyDeleteYou discuss them as if they are not already covered under freedom of speech. Why do you think that is? Do you see a ratings system as counter-intuitive when it comes to freedom of speech via games? To be clear, games ARE text -- that was the premise of the first two weeks of readings.
Be sure to chunk your info differently. The next-to-last paragrah is simply a quote, with no explanation and no seamless inclusion of the author tag, ie "As Kuroiwa writes..."
Thanks, Craig, for your comments and for posing questions to ensure that I'm clear in my thinking and understanding!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to your comments/questions:
First, I would like to point out that there is a fairly large difference between mainstream and academics. The two often have differing perspectives and points of view. Academics are taking a serious point of view on gaming and it's influences (perhaps maybe even too much of a serious point of view) but often mainstream doesn't.
Please note that I am not suggesting that we should or should not take gaming and it's effects more seriously. I am simply pointing out that if there is to be a serious dialogue in mainstream about the effect of gaming, then games can no longer be simply considered "toys" which is the current perspective for the most part.
Second, I'm kind of unsure as to what your second paragraph has in relationship to what I posted. My purpose of pointing out that games would/should be protected as "freedom of speech" and as "freedom of expression" would then allow games to have as much anti-feminism, pro-racism, or sexism as the developers wanted to put in their games.
There of course has been many attempts to create legislature to curtail what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to games for the mainstream.
But if games are protected under "freedom of...." then there would be (or should be) no legislation allowed and games could have any content that the developers decided to include.
The rating system is simply a nice way to help parents decide whether a game is allowable for their child but I don't think that has a bearing on our freedom of speech/expression (besides appeasing a very vocal group of slightly ignorant individuals).
Furthermore, if games are already protected under "freedom of speech/expression" then why is it that there are so many attempt to eliminate that freedom or why is it that games cannot have sexism/racism included? To the best of my memory, in our last two weeks of class we never once discussed why there should be sexism/racism included.
Cheers!