Parents: Read the damn box

Okay, I guess I am still capable of being surprised. I didn’t really expect that there would be any major blowback to my last piece, about the controversy-filled several days Electronic Arts experienced last week, when Consumerist named it the Worst Company in America and it was revealed that it’s been under attack for its depiction of homosexual relationships in Star Wars: The Old Republic and Mass Effect 3. And yet, so soon after it posted, it seemed as if at least one commenter was already trying to ensure that this week turned out to be a bad one for me!

Here’s what that commenter, Happeh, said(I’ve left this completely unedited, by the way):

“Don’t let your children play them. Take responsibility for your own decisions about what is or is not appropriate for your family.”

I really hate smug people with this smug argument.

Did Bioware advertise Mass Effect 3 by saying “Buy Mass Effect 3 where your child can have fun shooting aliens and learning all about homosexuality?”

NO. THEY. DID. NOT!

The parent who bought that game for their child was not given the opportunity to put that filth back on the shelf where it belongs, because Bioware knows that they will not be able to sell a game that teaches children about homosexuality.

Those parents should sue Bioware for not placing a warning on the Mass Effect 3 box that says in large capital letters “CONTAINS HOMOSEXUAL CONTENT. DO NOT BUY THIS GAME IF HOMOSEXUAL CONTENT OFFENDS YOU”.

I must admit a bit of confusion about one thing. The relevant part of my post concerned my standing up for individual rights, and advocating making your own decisions, rather than thinking that I (or anyone else) knows what’s right for you and the people who are close to you. How does that make me “smug”? I assumed — or maybe “hoped” is the better word — that my showing respect for others’ abilities to make for themselves the choices that work best for them and their families would be seen as the fairest and least restrictive option. Certainly not smug, which was in neither my heart nor my words.

And, for the record, I would not say that Mass Effect 3 “teaches children about homosexuality.” (I haven’t played Star Wars: The Old Republic, so maybe it does, though I’d wager it’s more concerned with instructing in the proper care and feeding of lightsabers.) The gay relationships — like the straight ones — are fairly well buried; you actually have to be looking for them to find them. One male character makes a passing comment about having a husband, one female character remarks that she finds the computer’s female voice attractive. Those aren’t lessons, those are references, and oblique ones at best. Perhaps Mass Effect 3 acknowledges that homosexuality exists, but that’s where it stops — it doesn’t “teach” anyone anything about it any more than it teaches anyone anything about straight relationships. This is a game about fighting violent aliens, not interstellar sexual politics. (And, if I may interject an editorial comment about that: Thank goodness.)

I guess I do owe you all a mea culpa about something Happeh brought up, however. No, neither developer BioWare nor publisher EA advertised the game with references to its sexual content (or much more than the barest suggestion of the rest of what it contained). And, for that matter, theMass Effect 3 package does not indicate anywhere that it contains “homosexual content.” So if advertising and packaging are all you’re going by, then Happeh is technically correct.

But implicit in my original argument — and, it seems to me, pretty much the entire home video game industry — is that the information about potentially objectionable material is out there if you want to find it. And, in fact, it can be found even on the Mass Effect 3 box.

Look at the bottom-left corner of the front cover (pictured above) and you’ll see a label stating that it has been rated M by theEntertainment Software Ratings Board, which means that organization has determined it’s most appropriate for ages 17 and up (this is printed there, too). Turn the box over and you can learn even more (pictured right). Listed right next to the “M” is a description of what comprises that rating: “Blood, Partial Nudity, Sexual Content, Strong Language, Violence.”

Nope, there’s no “homosexuality” there, but as I suggested last time — in about the only sentence I would say could potentially maybe almost be considered bordering on being smug — one would think the presence of any sexual content at all (to say nothing of “partial nudity”) would convince most parents that Mass Effect 3 isn’t right for their children, regardless of whether it’s between humans and other species or between the same or opposite genders.

But I stand by everything else I wrote. Just as I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to censor games or other entertainment products of any sort, I don’t believe it’s other adults’ role to dictate what your child should or should not watch or play (or, for that matter, eat). What works for one family doesn’t always work for another, and kids — like their parents — have different levels of tolerance, maturity, and morality that need to be respected, tolerated, and addressed. I guess I have strong feelings about whether homosexual and heterosexual sex should be treated as equivalent within video games. But I’m not going to get into them here, because they don’t matter. They affect only the choices I make for myself and my children (or, er, would if I had children); there’s no earthly reason why they should affect yours. For me to assume otherwise would be… smug.

Happeh was wrong about something else, too. Parents were given the opportunity to pass up “that filth” — but some initiative was required on their part. If they didn’t want to read either the front or the back of the box (or if they purchasing the game via digital download), the information, in even more thorough a form, was and is waiting for those who know where to look and are willing to take the time to uncover it. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if there are dozens of websites on which similar content rundowns can be found, off the top of my head I am aware of two.

The first is the official ESRB website, which is potentially more convenient (and goes into greater depth) than the labels on game boxes. All you have to do is go to the site, type the game’s title in the “Search Game Ratings” field, and hit the Search button. You’ll be presented with a brief summary of the game’s contents, but click the “[More]” link to get the full story. These ratings are voluntary, so not every game will have them, but huge numbers of them do. Such as, for example, Mass Effect 3.Its entry goes into even deeper detail about exactly what players can expect in terms of the violence and sexual content (though it avoids any mention of homosexuality).

You may have heard about Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian organization; among other things, it made headlines two years ago when NFL quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother made a commercial for it that ran during the Super Bowl. It describes its mission as providing “help and resources for couples to build healthy marriages that reflect God’s design, and for parents to raise their children according to morals and values grounded in biblical principles.” But you might not know that it also publishes a website called Plugged In, which is devoted exclusively to reviewing movies, TV shows, videos, music, and video games through that same kind of lens. (You can probably guess how seriously its reviewers take what they do.) Yes, Mass Effect 3 is covered there, too — and, unlike the ESRB site, the Plugged In reviewer does mention the gay angle.

Resources like these exist to help you take control over the entertainment options you and your family are exposed to. Take advantage of them! And by all means do additional research to discover if you’re being well served by the movies, TV shows, and video games you’re planning on partaking of. Everything you need to know is out there. But the ball is in your court and no one else’s. If you don’t make the most of the wealth of information available, and end up disappointed or even enraged by what you discover — sorry, but you have no one to blame but yourself. The up side is that, when your children grow up and demonstrate — and, just maybe, pass on to their own children — the values and beliefs that you hold most dear, you yourself might have something legitimately worth feeling smug about.

Source

Whose game is it anyway?

No sooner had BioWare released Mass Effect 3 than the fast-selling video game was embroiled in controversy. Fans who had followed the adventures of Commander Shepard since the first Mass Effect in 2007 were outraged at the final minutes of the concluding chapter of the trilogy, which they felt disrespected — or at least disregarded — the years they had put into fighting the Reapers. So they did what anyone these days might: they banded together.

The fans started a Facebook group and aTwitter feed. They launched a petition drive, and has so far raised more than $50,000 for Child’s Play. Both sides of the issue got plenty of media attention. The game’s director came out as “unapologetic” about the ending. Finally, mainstream media outlets couldn’t ignore the story, and reported that BioWare is listening to the fans’ concerns. So fervent was the discussion on all sides, it could be difficult at times to remember that there was only one developer involved in the struggle.

Meanwhile, over at Kickstarter, Double Fine completed its not-so-quiet attempt to raise funds for a new point-and-click adventure game, earning more than $3.3 million on an original asking amount of $400,000. And inXile Entertainment fired up its bid for $900,000 to make a sequel to the landmark 1988 computer game Wasteland — a goal it surpassed in just a couple of days. (As of this writing, the project has amassed more than $1.2 million, and still has a month to go.)

Let’s review. In one instance, gamers are revolting because they didn’t get the game to which they felt they were entitled. On the other, thousands of gamers are putting up money — in some cases hundreds of dollars or more — to ensure that they’ll get exactly the game they want.

There can be no doubt about it: The gamers are now in control. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is far less certain.

In the case of Mass Effect 3, I’m particularly torn. I liked the game (but didn’t love it), although I don’t have the deep-running affection for the series that others do. For me, it’s always been “just another” collection of games that puts the focus on places I prefer to see it (player decisions, role-playing) rather than those I don’t (endless, mindless combat); fine, but nothing I’ve felt overwhelmingly emotionally connected to. When I reached the ending, I cocked my head for a few moments in a “That’s it?” way, but more because the uproar had led me to expect something truly offensive, not merely an odd (yet, in its way, effective) combination of violence and serenity. (I’m staying away from spoilers here, but they’re out there on the Web to be found if you’re curious.)

I understand what bothers people about it, but for me getting to the ending was, as it almost always is, more than half the fun — so I can’t get too worked up. For me, a couple of minutes at the end of the game seldom automatically negate the 15-20 hours that precede them (or more, if you count all the Mass Effect games together).

Then there’s the Kickstarter question. Although I appreciate the Double Fine and inXile model, I do have qualms about it. These cases are a bit different, because backers are contributing based on the creators’ past performance and have good reason to believe that the upcoming products will be to their liking. But doesn’t this set up an even more powerful ownership concern? What happens if the games are released and don’t match many backers’ expectations? Nearly 13,000 people pledged $100 or more on Double Fine Adventure (and, so far, more than 3,600 have done so for Wasteland 2) — considerably more than the average game costs. Sure, they understand what they’re in for, and they get other rewards for their contributions, but they’re invested in the final products in more ways than just through money. It’s not hard to see how disappointment within those ranks could dwarf what we’ve already seen from the “retake Mass Effect 3” crowd.

All this is establishing an exciting, but potentially dangerous, paradigm in which there is no longer such a thing as a passive consumer of content. The instant gratification of the Internet has made it possible for people all over the world to connect with programmers, designers, and other players immediately, and make their voices heard en masse. And because little gets people as riled up as their favorite form of entertainment — whether TV show, movie, book, play, or sport — this could lead to vituperative behavior that’s beyond what most of us can imagine. We’ve already seen it with the likes of the Star Wars movies and now Mass Effect 3… What’s next?

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as the creators’ artistic wishes are maintained. Even when, or perhaps especially when, there’s blowback from the public, that’s crucial. In crafting a product — any product — the designers might misjudge their audience and turn it off, they might not and keep it engaged, or they might succeed so well that the ranks of their audience swell beyond what they imagined. But developers must feel they can tell the stories they want in the way they want, without fear of reprisal. Without that creative freedom, the entire exercise is meaningless — and, nine times out of ten, the ultimate output will be as well.

It boils down to this: As much as gamers may feel that they have some ownership of the final product, they really don’t. Their role today is the same it’s always been: to try it, like it or not like it, and then respond to it. Their attempting to force a company to change something they don’t like goes beyond “responding” and almost into “controlling.” If BioWare, or any company in its position, agrees, it’s essentially admitting that everything subsequent game it produces may be subject to the same pressures.

The creators’ bowing to groupthink at any point, rather than worrying about how they can best communicate their story and their vision to the public, is the surest way I know of to guarantee games that aren’t worth playing — or donating to. Once a game has been completed, it’s incumbent on the creators to let it go, and let the players take over. They dispense their feedback, the company learns from its successes or failures as described therein, and the next product is even better. Art is preserved and art is furthered.

We’re just at the threshold of this strange new world, and all of these early tests of the boundaries on all sides are important. Even so, there are plenty of challenges awaiting we can’t yet foresee. Game companies, big or small, will have to work extra hard to maintain their artistic integrity, even when it comes under attack. And players will need to discover the boundaries of what they can and cannot (and should and should not) do to voice their displeasure when they don’t get their way. It’s an opportunity that has never before existed on this scale throughout human history, and that could have enormous benefits and risks if it’s not managed properly. Both Mass Effect 3 and Double Fine Adventure are showing us the future of gaming. All that remains to be seen is what we make of it — and whether we like the way it ends.

Source