Xbox Live 360.com. Games and Games.

This week's LGJ address some possible alternate routes the government might use to regulate video games, rather than the typical violence argument.

Read on!

I'm sure many of you have been waiting for the video of my debate with Jack Thompson from SGC. Well, there's now both an unedited version and a 16 minute edited version available from ScrewAttack.

With that now up, some of my commentary from Late Nite JengaJam may make more sense in context.

It's been interesting to keep track of the comments and see what people take away from the video. It surprises me just how many people are taking unexpected points away from the debate, from stances I didn't think were represented, to contradictions that weren't stated, to issues with the formal debate style and issues with the format of responses (primarily responding to the question versus responding to the other party). I'm particularly confused as to why many people were critical of the fact that I didn't address the Saw game when it's basically impossible to comment on content of a game that isn't released yet. Certainly, it's interesting that the game is being released, but it's impossible to say whether the content there will be as graphic as the movies when the game isn't released yet.

In any event, enjoy the video.

This week's LGJ examines using 'censorship' as a ruse for protectionism. It's a fun trip down international trade lane with a stop at freedom of speech road.

Read on!

This week's LGJ looks at the right of publicity vs. free speech in the context of Flash games.

Read on!

On this week's Law of the Game on Joystiq, we discuss the ever-popular 'freedom of speech' argument with respect to Xbox Live trash talking and forum posts.

Read on!

I'm certain many of you, the readers, have seen the latest Jack Thompson coverage on Game Politics found here and here. Dennis was quick to point out the FTC provision about credit card ownership being adequate proof of age for online transactions, and the FoxNews contributor was quick to play the free speech card. However, there's an elephant in the room I'd like to address.

Everything Mr. Thompson has said about games applies to movies on DVD.

Anyone with a credit card can go to Amazon.com and pick up Saw I, II, or III (unrated, meaning the more violent cut than the theatrical one) just as easily as you can order Manhunt 2. The same applies to Best Buy, Circuit City, or whatever other entertainment online store you'd like to site. To the same ends, in-store id checks are equally lacking on these (and other) movie titles. While I haven't played Manhunt 2, I can only imagine the graphic content is probably on par with the Saw series, which is exceptionally brutal if you haven't seen the movies. Given that the research on the impact of media is mixed, and that movies have been found to affect young people like games by some studies, why ignore the movie industry?

There can only be a few answers:
1. Mr. Thompson is afraid of the people in the movie industry, as they would likely be viewed as "more powerful" than the game industry.
2. Mr. Thompson is giving undue weight to the unproven link between interactivity and a heightened impact.
3. Mr. Thompson has an unhealthy fixation on and unequivocal bias toward games, which cannot easily be explained.
4. Mr. Thompson's logic is flawed, for some other unexplained reason, so that he either ignores or actually favors violent movies. (Perhaps he is a Saw fan.)

The simple point being: If you would like to go on a crusade against the media, go on a crusade against the media, not one medium.

Ultimately, the decision should still be left to the parents, and the tools are in place for the parents to make those decisions. It is not up to the government, or Mr. Thompson, to make those decisions for society, parents who are failing to perform their duties as parents, or parents who are actively monitoring their child's media consumption. And if anyone is to be held responsible, it should be the inadequate parents, not the game manufacturers, game retailers, or game raters. I can only hope that the news media will tire of this issue soon, or that the American people will begin to realize that playing the "For the Children" card has reached a point where it should be accompanied by automatic scrutiny, as it is rarely actually being used to help the children anymore.

I had rather hoped that this story would not become the darling of the gaming blog universe, but much to my disappointment, it has become "big news." And so I feel, at this point, that I need to don my editorial hat once again.

To summarize the series of events so far, for those who haven't been keeping up:
The Resident Evil 5 trailer was released at E3, and it depicts the new game taking place in a locale where the residents have a dark complection, which may be Africa or some part of the Caribbean, and based additionally on the background scenery, it appears to be somewhere hot and relatively arid. Fast forward from E3 to two days ago when the Black Looks blog complains of "racism," additionally pointing the game as "being marketed toward children." At which time the story is picked up by most of the gaming blog-o-sphere, and the typical mix of rash, crude remarks and intelligent commentary ensue. From there, a number of blogs "respond" to the response, with such responses appearing here, here, and here, many of which have chosen to take cheap shots at the gaming community as a whole. I can only imagine if things continue at this pace, the mainstream media and the politicos who love cheap shots will be on board shortly.

Before I begin, I want everyone on both sides of this debate to stop, take a deep breath, and at least try to think about this rationally.

First, this video is a trailer. Would you deride a movie based on its trailer? Would you lambaste a book based on the summary on the back cover? Would you demand action against a CD if you heard 4 words from 4 tracks strung together in a random order? Of course not. Attacking an incomplete game based on a promotional trailer that shows a disjointed pseudo-summary of elements of the plot shows nothing but a true and complete ignorance of the medium. It is the very same level of ignorance that fuels the racism you detest.

Moreover, the categorical stereotyping of the gaming community is more akin to racism than you would like to accept. If I said that all African Americans were drug dealing thugs who shot people, you would be offended, correct? That is no different than claiming the gaming community is all young, immature, uneducated white males or saying things like "Many of these folks seem like the type who would try to reenact scenes from Resident Evil 5. Can you say Columbine?" Gamers span the gamut from every age, race, religion, nationality, education level, and profession. I am well past my "teen" years and have two graduate degrees. According to your stereotype, I should be the last person playing video games or involving myself in this debate. This fundamental misunderstanding of the gaming community and the gaming culture may also be the groundwork for the repeated, ill-conceived attempts at regulating the industry.

As has been pointed out many, many times, the Resident Evil series is part of the larger zombie genre, in which the zombies are typically white. Resident Evil 4 took the traditional zombie concept in a new direction by crafting a storyline where the traditional "zombie" was replaced by a faster, smarter zombie-like infected human. That game was set in Spain, and all of the enemies spoke Spanish. The driver behind their language and appearance was the setting, not a secret racist agenda. In fact, I can imagine that is Resident Evil 6 were set in India, the zombies would be Indian, or in China the zombies would be Chinese, or in Iran the zombies would be Persian. It is a function of setting, not of ulterior motives. And as has been further mentioned, the Resident Evil 5 development team is Japanese, not American, and their cultural sensitivities
are tuned to far different issues than ours.

Finally, there is still the issue of free speech. Short of inciting a riot, the content of the game cannot be restricted other than by virtue of the ratings system. Except for the absurdist reference to Columbine, which was obviously used for shock value, no one has alleged that this sort of harm will occur. Many works are published in many mediums every year which are far more damaging, but have drawn far less ire. Video games are just a target of convenience. In fact, the depiction of other races in certain games has been, arguably, as bad as or worse than the racist interpretation of the RE5 trailer, and yet there was no public outcry. Racially based gangs have appeared in dozens of games, depicting Hispanics and Asians and various Eurpoean nationalities as nothing but violent criminals. However, as works of fiction, albeit in a new medium, they are protected by the First Amendment.

I would like to close by quoting Justice Harlan. "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. " The more we draw lines among ourselves, the further we move from being a colorblind society. I can only continue to hope that people will realize that if they desire socio-political change, attacking the game industry is likely the least effective way to accomplish their goals. In fact, it will only serve to alienate an ever growing, immensely diverse group of voters.

[Via Game Politics]
[Via Joystiq]
[Via Kotaku]

It is being reported that the EU is considering stricter restrictions on the sale of "killer" video games. The restrictions would create a common set of penalties for retailers, but leave the classification of games up to the member states.

I hardly need to mention that similar laws in the United States have been repeatedly struck down. However, it's also readily apparent to most people with even the slightest legal background that the US and the EU are very different legal animals.

The EU (as a collective body) does not guarantee free speech, as such. (For those unfamiliar with the workings of the EU, each of the member states still retains their own laws. It would be quite time consuming for me to look for a free speech mandate in each, so I am only going to speak to the EU overall.) The closest they come is Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, which reads:

Article 11

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

This does sound much like freedom of speech, but even a small amount of research into the state of affairs in the EU shows that it is not as broadly applied as the First Amendment in the US.

It will be interesting to see if these new regulations are put into force in the EU, and if the industry challenges them if they do.

[Update: It appears this issue has been abandoned for the time being. We can only hope it stays that way.]