ROUND ONE!

FIGHT!

Honestly though, I'm surprised that he believes the points you labeled as "Non Guilty". I very clearly knew you disliked Super Columbine and figured you didn't like V-Tech, and I tend to skim articles more than anything. Not to mention I've never gotten the vibe that you felt things should be completely pulled from the market.

Thanks for the detailed and considered reply, Dennis. I'll respond a bit here.

On poor taste: I wasn't suggesting it is a problem that you find V-Tech Rampage in poor taste. You'll note that my opinion of it is not dissimilar to yours. However, my opinion was also not driven by the very idea of a game on this topic, but what it had to say and how it said it.

On citing fringe games in legislative contexts: I think I was pretty careful to show how this concern has merit and that you're good at mounting evidence to support it. But I also think that having thoughtful counterpoints to games like V-Tech Rampage that do come from the industry would actually help demonstrate the medium's value in legislative contexts.

On the industry and the medium: by supporting the medium, I wouldn't suggest that you or anyone should support every individual videogame no matter its nature. Rather, I suggest supporting the idea of innovation in videogames of a variety of forms, not just the forms advanced by the mainstream marketplace. To be fair, you do indeed do some of this here (including having said very nice things about my work, which is way not the mainstream marketplace). But it's a very selective kind of support. Consider your dislike for SCMRPG. I'm not going to try to sway your opinion, you're entitled to it. But it's possible not to like a work and still support the vision and potential it represents.

On banishing games: I'll admit that you never used that word, but I also never accused you of doing so. Yet I think the rhetoric of the articles here on games like SCMRPG essentially amounts to banishment, even if it's shrouded in more euphemistic terms like "public distancing."

On making a different kind of VT game: are the hypothetical examples I cited in the article in bad taste? And I don't understand why such a game would be a bad idea from a business perspective, you'll have to explain that more.

On your challenge to me: It's indeed possible that we could make a game around this theme at Persuasive Games. I won't rule it out, and I do think our editor would consider it if done appropriately. But I'll also say that I have no plans to do so at present. My challenge was specifically directed at the mainstream games marketplace. It was meant as an example of what supporting the medium might look like. I believe that for games to grow in the way we all want, part of what we need are high-profile commercial examples that push the edges of the medium. Rhetorically, I think we also need some of this movement to come from the mainstream commercial industry. That's why I specified a "game in a box." And incidentally, there is clearly room for more than one game on this topic. It's big and complex and goes beyond the tragedy itself, as I tried to show. So even if I were to editorialize the issue in the NYT, my challenge to the big guys still stands.

I'll echo Dennis's sentiments about the spirit of debate and also note that I have a lot of respect for him and for this website.

I think one thing to remember here is that the 'industry' is just that, an industry. They're looking to make money. Which is one of the biggest reasons you'll never see a 'game in a box' on V-Tech. I will agree with Knight in saying that game developers do need to take a proactive stance on these issues much like what Microsoft has done. However, I don't know if we'll see anymore movements like this from the 'industry' for a while.

Ian, no time to reply in detail now (and I've probably said quite enough on the topic already - LOL)... But the day the NY Times runs a VA Tech game, I will wear a shirt that says "Jack Thompson Rules" for 24 hours.

I'm pretty confident I won't be needing that shirt...

A published, main-stream VA Tech game would bring about serious reprehensions on the gaming industry. Any reasonable person knows this.

Re: Ian's not understanding why putting out a VT game would be bad from a business perspective


1. Who'd buy it? You'd be targetting a small minority of people who'd want to have anything to do with subsidising a comparny capitalizing on a tragedy

2. Amid the predictbale storms of protests from public and private groups, the company publishing the game would suffer serious damage to their reputation, and ultimately their stock price. Can you explain to shareholders how you thought this would be a profitable idea that would benefit the company?

3. Marketing: can you imagine the ads? Even if the game is a survival/horror game from a student's perspective, I can't imagine any mainstream medium accepting the ad in their magazine or tv show, which would leave you with your own website ads, not very effective.

It's simply too soon. If Tragedy + Time = Comedy, then the same equation can result in = Entertainment if enough time passes, as the WWII Pearl Harbor, etc. type games demonstrate. But from a purely business perspective, I can't see how making a game like this now makes any sense.

Any company involved in a VT-Tech based game would be committing suicide, it wouldn't matter if it was done tastefully. All the Government and people like Jack Thompson would see is that company trying to cash in on a tragedy. They would beat their drums and automatically label it "murder simulator".

one of the few ways to treat this as a "game" would be to put the player in the role of the victims. But I notice that many games that try to pull off emotional elements just ring hollow, and most players (from my experience) don't respond much to those elements that are supposed to make them feel something, anything. I think my suggested approach would fail miserably because if you just drop the player into the role of a victim, there is nothing to build up emotion. In the classic examples of games that made gamers cry their was significant buildup and the players have time to get to know the characters. in my setup there isn't any of that so it would probably be lost.

hmmm, I have some time before work, maybe I'll try to figure something out.

At this point in time, making a commercial VTech massacre video game would be the worst idea. It strikes me as an unbelieveably stupid idea; I use "stupid" b/c there really isn't any other word to describe it . . . other than "dumb" perhaps. The industry has been doing a piss poor job rising to the occasion and defending games as art; it wouldn't be any different with this hypothetical VTech game. The media, gov't and public backlash would be too overwhelming to handle. If the industry can't defend Grand Theft Auto, what makes you think it could defend a VTech game?

Writing from the standpoint of a college student, I can basically assure you that at the very least, if the reaction on Facebook is any indication, no college student would support this game, let alone buy it. That includes myself.

@ Ian
Ok I've read your article. And here are some more thoughts. The Game Industry is not ready to tackle subjects like this. I know there are mainstream games out there that involve some touchy subjects but they are often over looked and are really only mentioned, implemented in passing.

The game industry (over all) right now is still more concerned about making things look more realistic that to have substance. Personally, even as someone who has a job in the industry, it is getting stagnant, and I can't wait till this faze is over. I want to play/make a game that has substance, in depth storylines, and if it looks pretty so much the better. I believe the that most game companies are still in an infancy stage, making games that are deemed cool, or that they can cash in on. Eventually they will be ready to make games of the caliber you describe. But first, we, as gamers and the game industry, must wait for our lifestyle, hobby, and careers to become more accepted.

If you’re offended by something, why not turn your head? If you don't like a game's content.... DONT PLAY IT. It’s a simple concept and it applies to other forms of art and literature as well. I don't like the Bible and I don't think it will do any good to society. But am I trying to prohibit others from enjoying its content? Absolutely not. I don't much care for many forms of art but do I believe they should be prohibited for all to see? Absolutely not. The same applies to video games. Sure I might not play a VTech massacre video game but I don't want to prohibit anyone else from making it or playing it.

I love freedom. Freedom is something I will NEVER receive enough of from my Government. Making a VTech massacre game is NOT "stupid" or "dumb". Sure it’s a bit extreme and it could possibly be done in poor taste but it hasn't even been made yet and everyone is putting it down. Just because YOU think something is a bit too out there doesn't mean it is. Just because YOU think something is offensive doesn't mean it is offensive to everyone. I personally enjoy being offended every once and a while. It reminds me that everyone has different tastes and desires and that variety should be preserved.

The only way to get freedom in this country is to take it. There are those who whine, cry then whine some more and get nothing done. And there are those who do what they want and do what they must to take their freedom. We as a whole must support all who wants the right to make a VTech massacre game even if you think its sick, irresponsible or in bad taste. Cowards.

Maybe if everyone weren’t so goddamn weak minded and cowardly the industry would have more respect. If you FEAR the government, public or media then they eat you alive. If you fear the government, public or media then you don't belong in an industry that is in any way shape or form related to art. So to be blunt... Kindly carry your weak, pathetic ass out and don't return until you've rid yourself of fear. At the very least stop getting in the way of progress.

@Lord Covamust

Actually I don't have to support a game such as VT Tech massacre, thats part of my freedom you are so busy rubbing our noses in.

Ok, a game based on the VA tragedy wouldn't go down well in any context right now. Be it due to ignorance of the general public towards games or the context being too sensitive or whatever, the industry wouldn't touch it. That ins't to say a good,thought-provoking game couldn't be made if it was done in good taste and appropriately explored the political and social aspects of the individual involved.

But what about an identical game based on a fictional, yet similar event in a fictional, yet similar enviroment? Common sense says that the 2 should be treated no different, but public reaction and common sense are rarely the same thing. I could honestly see something like this being succesfully released on one of the more edgy consoles like the DS, and before anyone publically criticises the obvious VA tech metaphor in this fictional game, it would already have enough exposure for people to recognise the art and provocation that a game can have in a sensitive context (whereas a flat out 'VA tech: the game' would simply never make shelf - and idustry releases do need to make shelf, virtual or otherwise).

Just a theory, of course.

@GP & Bogost, keep up the good debate, its great distraction from my raid :)

@ WolfStar76
I offer a couple of ideas in the column, but here's another approach. One of the more persuasive arguments to me about school shooters is that no one influence leads them to the actions they commit -- its a complex of factors, media, home life, friends, etc. Everyone who visits this site should read Gerard Jones' book _Killing Monsters_ for more on this. Anyway, that's an interesting theme for a game. The longevity of factors that create sociopathic behavior.

@Tiler
Yes, in my opinion a fictionalized game that dealt with the same issues would satisfy the challenge.

@Lord Covamust

Of course I want the Industry to progress, if you ready my other comments you would have seen that. But right now at this time it would be bad for the game industry to make a game such as this. A smaller independent game company might get away with it, but a large publisher with several developing houses underneath it would surely be destroyed by the amount of lawsuits and the government that would surely crush them under their ginormis legislative heel.

no one is willing to take that risk right now.

Sounds like a debate between art vs. commercialism.

From on art standpoint, games labout V-Tech and Columbine are edgy, invoke a strong emotional reaction, and can be argued that they needed to be made just to force people into dealing with these tragic stuations emotionally.

But we are also a business. As much a busness as People magazine. No one has demanded that People magazine elevate the art of photography. In fact, it's unnecessary as we have many fine photographic artists in the world.

"The Industry" has a responsibility to NOT make games like V-Tech unless they can be reasonably assured they will sell. They owe that responsibility to the company, the workers, and the shareholders.

However, there is nothing stopping individual artists from making such commentary, and using video games as a medium. An independant artist is responsible only to his art, and that is precisely where games like V-Tech and Columbine belong.

I also wanted to add how balance is nessicary to make progress. Before you go and bash me for saying this understand I'm only trying to illustrate a point. I think a good balance between conserative approach that Citizen_Snips illustrates(not right at this moment and time) and Lord Covamust's more strait forward get out of my way approach is needed. Kind of like how Malcom X and Martin Luthor King Jr. approached the equality issue. I know, I know that Malcom X and Martin Luthor King Jr were fighting a much, much more important battle but the fact that they had two different approaches was a good method. It was the right thing to do and things eventuallys started to move in the right direction.

Again I realize its silly and maybe offensive to compare the two movements but I was just trying to illustrate a point so please understand that.

The reason I say that I don't mind if large publishers suffer is because after the fall more small companies will spring up and I think that smaller companies can get away with more than large publishers. Especially if they are privately owned.

The film industry has been through it, so has the music industry. It seems all art is made the scapegoat until something else takes the spotlight away from it.

I apologize in advance for not having read the article just yet, as I don't have time, but the discussion here is very interesting. I never played either of the controversial games discussed here, because frankly I never saw any real artistic value to them. VTR in particular seems designed purely to offend people, with little regard for actual innovation or insight. To me, a game like that may as well be garbage.

But still, as WolfStar76 pointed out, games have a uniquely powerful ability to put the "viewer" directly into a role in the story. When that's done well, a highly immersive game...immersive in the sense of background or context, rather than graphical realism...could actually go a long way towards illuminating new perspectives and helping to understand why or how things happen, which would indeed be very worthwhile to me, especially in the context of something like the Virginia Tech incident.

Existing games don't aim to do that though. I think a huge part of the roadblock here is how we perceive what a video game means. After all, we refer to them as "games". The word itself evokes the idea that you're supposed to derive pleasure from whatever you do in them. And, so far, most games tend to put you directly in the role of the central character. Presumably, you are supposed to find pleasure in doing whatever that character does. So in the case of games like Super Columbine Massacre, I think the mainstream perception is that this "game" is created so people can gain pleasure by re-enacting the shooting.

Other art forms are also frequently designed for entertainment, but it is widely understood that, often, they are meant to make you think and not simply to provide a fun romp. That makes it possible for those mediums to explore such sensitive issues as school shootings or, say, the holocaust. If a new movie comes out about a troubled teenager who eventually cracks and shoots a number of classmates, people will say "Oh, that looks like an interesting issue to explore." Because they assume, from previous experiences with movies, that it will look at that teenager's life in and out of school, and provide some valuable insight into why such things happen.

Video games, on the other hand, are still largely judged in terms of *which children's age group should be getting pleasure from them*. Even among the gaming community, we are constantly talking about parents, children, and "playing". If the same school shooting concept is made in the form of a video game, the initial public reaction will be something like "What kind of sick people want our teenage children to have fun shooting up a high school?" I suspect this perception is largely the basis of Dennis' belief that such a game would be a bad idea.

Honestly, though, I think Mr. Bogost is probably right in this matter. We need more mainstream games that are designed to make you think, rather than to simply entertain. Unfortunately, big companies are notoriously resistant to stepping outside what they're already doing. I doubt they will invest in such games until they have already been proven to be profitable. EA will not publish a serious, thought-provoking Columbine game until they know the public majority will find that acceptable and, more importantly, worth buying. At the same time, public perception is based on past experience - those conditions will never exist if no one creates such games to begin with.

Because of that, I really hope some of the bigger independent developers, including Persuasive Games with their now immense public visibility (Congrats by the way), will be bold enough to create some shining examples of how much value games can provide with regard to such sensitive topics as real-world tragedies. Someday games can have the same level of esteem given to other arts, and the world will be better for it. But it won't happen if no one is willing to put their neck out there to begin with.

I agree completely with Ryusage's deconstruction of the word "game" and how that's a major roadblock. Although the term "serious game" I believe is gaining some traction.

Comic books may be going through a similar kind of struggle for acceptance as a serious artistic medium, I'm not sure. They have developed new terms to help the public understand their nature, though, like "sequential art" and "graphic novel."

@ Ian Bogost

In regards to the creepy comments in the game you think are the creator's call for help... You might want to go read the two creepy plays cho wrote and were released by his english teacher post-shooting. They include the same kind of creepy comments, and it's very likely they were included in the game to represent Cho's F'd-up viewpoint of the world.

@ Silent,
That is a very good premise for a game; and it does lead it self to be expanded greatly.
However, I get a vision of something similar to Sim City, except you control the safety of the city. That's just what I see just reading your statements above.

For a game like V-tech, I was actually thinking on something similar to SCM-RPG.
Follow Cho's life via a series of mini games. Shooting hoops alone, a mini game following one of his plays. a mini game of Cho at the shooting range. a mini game focusing on avoiding traffic to get the package to the post office. I would stop short of shooting victims and have those elements just for the story portion. and after the package mini game, just story board of what happens ending the game.
Of course commentary on his life.

@Ian
Could you provide an example please.

Don't get me started on the "call for help" issue. Thats bogus. It actually makes me feel ill. I can't count how many times in high school a teacher or administrated was on my back because of my taste in music or my artwork. Everytime someone marches to the beat of their own drum in a way that people find to be offensive they automatically think they just want help. What a load of crap.

Ian,

I'm sorry, but I've to disagree with you here. VTR has no redeeming qualities (being little more than comparable to an average snuff film) and your "challenge to the industry," is wasted net-space. The main stream industry isn't ready for the "Schindler's List," of video games - not yet. Mostly because I believe video game industry hasn't found it's Spielberg. Perhaps our Spielberg hasn't been born yet. Perhaps he/she is reading these comments right now. Personally, I hope the latter, but my head tells me that we have a long way to go before your challenge can realistically be put into practice - and I'm talking years. Maybe decades.

Anyway, good point/counter-point between GP and yourself. I like a hearty video game discussion after a bout with Montezuma's Revenge. OK, back to relaxing after my honeymoon ...

@Ian

Well, read through your article, and my thoughts on the matter is that the mainstream game industry is just not in a position to make such a controversial game, no matter how good the merits are. The Problem the game instry faces right now is that it is currently in the crosshairs of those in the mainstream media, Pundits, politicians and all their like. Many of them are a "shoot now, ask questions never" kind of bunch. Couple that with the lack of respect the game industry gets from being seen as child's playthings (even though it's very untrue), and you get a situation where the industry would get seriously scarred for such a game, no matter how good it is.

The Merits of the game can only be seen IF, poeple play the game and actually listen to reveiwers of the game. As seen with SCMRPG, there are many poeple who condemn the game on just the subject matter alone without even bothering to really listen to what the reviewers have to say, or trying to play the game themselves (to them, the reviewers are probably seen as baised gamers who like it just because its a game)... the majority of these would be politicans and pundits in the media. The Merits of the game become ignored by their pure ignornat and/or agenda pushing ways. Furtharmore, because games are an often talked about issue these days, the pundits won't forget the controversal game, and everytime something bad is being said about video games, the controversal game would be brought up as an example of what's wrong with them (no matter how un true the statment may be); they just simply would never let it go.

The Movie industry however does not have this same problem. They won their fight for free speech a long time ago and pratically ignored by those who would attack it. (The Movie indsutry shares many of the same "problems" the game industry, but only the game industry is attacked) Movies have gained respect as an artisitc medium which has an audiaence of all different age groups. The poeple who review films are well reguarded as being unbaised poeple worth listening to... When a Controversal movie hits the screens, the press make sure to see what reviewers of the film have to say, and if the movie reviews are good, then the media will roll with it; unlike with video games where the media won't mention reveiws, but will only talk about what the ignorant pundits say. Since attacking movies is not an issue (unlike video games) and there are so many good things being said about the controversal movie, politicans and Pundits in the media will be a bit more hesitent to touch the movie... sure, some of the more extreme poeple will still condemn the movie, but others will watch the movie and give an educated opinion, or they simply stay quite... With positive news outweighing the negative news, the negative news will die out with time and only the good stuff will be remembered.

That's how i see that Movies can make controversal stuff while Video games can not... Games would get condemned from every angle with only the outspoken groups to actully realize the merits of the game, while Movies would get mostly ignored and forgotten by attackers with the Merits being praised...

Basically, i think if the mainstream game industry wants to make such games, it's got to first win its cultural war just as the movies had to do a few decades back. Once those poeple who currently attack games ignore games just as much as they ignore the Movies, then Video games can start making their way as a respected medium that can tackle such issues... right now, a game company would be commiting Suicide by touching those issues

After thinking about it, that's more or less how i see things... i'd love for a video game to try a tackle such things, but realisitcally, it ain't gonna happen in the current politcan media weather.

regardless of how you approach the subject matter at hand, there are people out there who would see this as a stepping stone. they would sensationalize any game content and lie to create sound bites. the gaming industry has a hard enough time supporting originality as it is, even if someone would be able to create a game that could merge playability, enjoyment, respect and sensitivity for the subject matter, it would be left up to the independent publishers because the majors would see it as a liability and would pass. the only publisher i could even see at this point in time contemplating it would be rockstar. and with as much flack as they catch now, releasing a game like this would be seen as nothing more then an attempt at cashing in.

so lets say someone does manage to create the game and a major publishes it, the reaction would be the same as both SCMRPG and the Vtech game are currently receiving. there are people who would judge it before playing it and their judgment wouldn't even be about taste or content. it would be knee jerk reactions and a feeling that something like this concretes their view of the world. thats all the talking heads and jack thompsons of the world need. cooler heads will not prevail as they come up with whatever lies they want. even if a majority of the victims families do not feel offended by it, the gaming opponents will find one group who are outraged and then they'll be pasted all over the news. there would be no real room for debate, as there are enough people out there that would be sympathetic to them and join an uproar aginst, and the would be wavied infront of every other view point as some sort of victim trump card as if to say that you dont understand because your not them. news stations would give this side of the argument more air time because tradgedy+emotion+fear=ratings. game developers don't have the same face recognition as its detractors, leaving us wishing for a frank zappa like figure against these people. we don't have a lobby as strong the MPAA in washington to defend us, so the conservative bases will have more pull on the political workings. more and more states would follow in new york's footsteps because politicians know that its the people who want the children protected by censorship are the ones getting them elected. then they will finally of found a way to word a violent game ban to where it wouldn't be in breach of the first amendment, and then the battle would be even harder.

@monte', @random j03:

First of all, monte', we don't have to win our right for free speech. It is very, very important that you, as a gamer, understand this. We have a right to free speech but we need to ensure that it is defended. The bill pending in NY would deny free speech protection from games so it needs to be defeated. Other similar laws in other states have been knocked down because they violate free speech, but it is important for us, as gamers, to be as active as the lawyers of game developers.

There will always be knee-jerk reactions to controversial media whatever the medium. Controversial movies get the same reactions from the same ignorant nut jobs as controversial games. I don't suppose either of you remember when the original Exorcist came out, but the reaction wasn't pretty.

The thing is that there are more people who are ignorant about gaming then there are people who are ignorant about movies and therefore they are more likely to believe the vocal minority. As time passes the numbers will shift in our favor but for the moment we, as gamers, need to arm ourselves with information and communication. When someone you know tosses out a piece of mis-information about the effect of gaming on society you should politely correct them. When one of the anti-game nutjobs is spewing their rancid vitriol over the news networks call your local affiliate and inform them of the other side of story or possibly even request an interview to present it.

The reason why the Jack Thompsons of the world are getting the airtime isn't because they're crazy and knee-jerk, it's because they know how to work the system. Remember, you're a voter as well as a gamer. You're a viewer as well as a gamer. You're a consumer as well as a gamer. Remind the world of that and you'll find the tide begin to change.

Reading your posts it seems as though you've both resigned yourselves to a losing battle but the fight, so to speak, hasn't even begun.

@ Tom:

There already is a Dark-Horse Comics of the games industry. It's called Running With Scissors. You guys seem to have forgotten about the Postal series. Almost everyone who knows about games knows about Postal, and if they haven't played it, regard it as the most crude form of games entertainment conceived. However, if you've actually taken the time to check out the company statement and website, and played through the game a bit (OK, the gameplay is pretty bad so you probably won't get too far) you'll realise that the vast majority of the game is satirising what was, at the time, the most controversial subjects. Postal 2 was a successful commercial game.

Not only do Running With Scissors tackle really controversial subjects, they push the boundaries on what's considered normally acceptable. Joints that increase your health, excessive violence, a wild sect of crazy Bin-Ladens etc. I would class that as edgy. Here's there company statement, direct from their site. Please forgive the crudeness, it's their style.

"We are Running With Scissors, notorious video game developers despised by Senator Lieberman, the United States Post Office and the Australian legislature (to name but three), for daring to produce the tasteless and insensitive videogames POSTAL and POSTAL 2.

Contrary to the "fear-enema" that some politicians and religious organizations would like to spray up the collective ass of the entire planet, we believe that the vast majority of people are, in fact, NOT inbred zombie murder-bots just waiting for some entertainment product to finish their "programming". We also do not believe that ANY creative industry should ever have to castrate itself under politically-motivated censorship guidelines designed around the imagined needs of six year-olds or clinically psychotic persons (unless that is their intended target audience, of course).

We believe that violence belongs in entertainment products - not in the streets.

But what do we know, we're just ignorant videogame developers."

SO, they're not the most articulate and subtle designers, but here is a company that constantly pushes the boundaries on the limits of commercial games.

As to creating a commercial VT games, what you must realise is that most publishers and developers are privately funded. What the investors care about is money, not agenda. And saying you can make a commercial game like a documentary is ridiculous. Documentaries can be filmed on a 10 year old camcorder, AAA titles require teams of 50+ people, huge advertising campaigns and localisation teams. We're talking millions of dollars for some pretty small I.P.

My point is, IF games are to push social agendas and politics it is going to be delivered via well constructed story and game elements not just pimping the latest controversial world event. A good example is the Fahrenheit 451-esque Half-Life 2 atmosphere, or the introspective musings of the incredibly unappreciated Psychonauts. Games about world events such as the VT massacre should never be made into commercial games, although the emotions and circumstances may be used succesfully as a factor into a larger game design.

Commercial games are about interacting with alternate worlds and particular events that happen in the world are not large enough in scope to make a fun, full-featured game. Silent has the right idea. If this issue was to be explored as a commercial game, it would need to be expanded and probably not use any of the actual settings and names involved in the tragedy. If you want to explore these particular events, the only outlet will be smaller teams creating indie games and possibly the XNA/XBL/PSN networks which are a haven for smaller developers.

And that's my two cents.

"I will cop to believing that Bogost’s suggestion:
“I hereby issue a challenge to the videogame industry: to create a videogame about the Virginia Tech tragedy…”…is a really, really bad idea from any standpoint, including those of business and taste."

It is true that none of the key game publishers will ever take on this subject matter. As of current, the majority of the public views video games as merely a form of entertainment. While video games may be very entertaining, many overlook their legitimacy as a valuable media source. Video games, while providing entertainment, can also convey messages…such as how/why the Virginia Tech massacre occurred and how to prevent it. Unfortunately the game publishers themselves contribute to the belief that video games’ sole purpose is providing entertainment by creating new games with the exclusive purpose of generating profits. It is much like films and music. Yes, they are entertaining, but they can also provide insight into issues and convey powerful messages. We need people like Danny L. and others to challenge the way people view video games and continue to use video games as not only entertainment, but as a legitimate media source.

Ryno M. VPO, Gamers, Inc.

@ Juggernautz

I didn't forget Running With Scissors. I was a big fan of Postal in theory when it first came out - it just wasn't much fun. Postal 2 is still a guilty pleasure of mine even though it did run like crap when it was released :)

The thing that they didn't do and couldn't do was bring the Postal series to the mainstream. It remained a talking point for the Jack Thompsons of the world who wanted to get more airtime on Fox News.

Postal III, with its eminent release on the XBox 360 as well as the PC, may develop the momentum into the mainstream that Postal II missed and become the kick in the pants that gaming needs. If it doesn't sell well, though, it'll just go down in history as another reason to legislate our favorite medium.

My gut tells me that society isn't at that point yet, though. Even if it does sell well it still won't crack the "games as mindless entertainment" barrier. I just hope that it's smart and witty rather then juvenile.

@ tom

i haven't accepted any form of defeat. all forms of entertainment have hit the same snag, the difference is the way that the others have to get out their message. one of the major setbacks for this type of game and discussion was when SCMRPG was pulled from competition. if it was left alone and win or lose, it would of made a larger statement and would of been a true stepping stone to get people talking. it brought attention to the question of if gaming is an art form and if it can be capable of telling the same stories as other forms of medium. by pulling it, the argument goes back to intellectual gamers and talk of it in the mainstream died down. no story to get ratings means they didn't need to continue coverage.

the other thing that's hurting is the way that games are delivered to the masses, and i think where we really should point our attention in this argument. PC gaming hands down has and will continue to have the capability to evolve and tell these stories. the real issue is with console gaming. thats where the most growth and evolution is required right now for the public and mainstream media to be able to accept these types of games. with the way that all 3 console makers handle content, they are only willing to push the envelope so far. i had hoped that the 360 would be more open and a free type of market for independents to do things like this, but at the end of the day all three would rather go with something safe then to take a chance on a game like that. if the only stamp of approval you needed was game testing and they wouldn't judge on content, then there would be a way for these stories to get told. these games will get passed on because to them content also matters. look at microsoft's choice for their contest. how many other social issues that a quality game could shine the light on and get people talking about it? they choose something that was safe, because its an easier route then the harder issues. if there was a way for independent console games to be distributed in the same way that independent books, movies, and music, then there would be a greater chance that all gamers would be having some of the same conversations as intellectual gamers.

there is also the issue with gamers themselves. if there was ever a studio that pushed games as art it was clover. but gamers didn't put their money where their mouths were, and rarely do they go for unfamiliar territory and originality will be pushed to the wayside because of it. if you look at the lists that always come up for most underrated games or ones that people miss, most of those weren't even looked at until it was too late. they make the lists because just now they come across them, because at the time they weren't willing to take the chance on something new. if those same people would of took the chance in the beginning, word of mouth could of pushed them along. instead they play them to late and suggest purchase when the numbers no longer matter.

i cut a lot out of the earlier post, and i didn't mean for it to sound defeatist. conversations like this one are a step forward in the right direction, but more and more people need to have this out in the open. with non-gamers and gamers a like. thats one way a gamer can help with the situation. but until we as gamers and the industry itself start to make changes, its only going to get harder and harder for gaming to become the respected art form that it should be.