• 18Feb 07

  In regards to a post on the GS Newsfeed

  "Finally, there's the admonishment of people who sit on the sidelines and don't lend their voice to the industry. This is where I have a big problem with Lowenstein's speech. If you're inspired to do so, taking political action to defend the gaming industry is indeed admirable. But it's not mandatory."
  
  Mr. Sinclair! (My, what an esteemed name you have.)
  
  People aren't politically active enough in almost every area that affects them, not just electronic gaming. In a country where decisions are made based on what representatives think their voters want, speaking up and giving personal accounts about matters important to us isn't mandatory, but it's essential. Your distaste with his comments portrays an irony that I see a lot when potential voices are called out. People who fail to publicly represent causes they claim to support get criticized by those who are acting, and suddenly develop the energy to defend their omission. They will stand up and defend their right to not stand up, and they will defend it with fervor. Funny, no?
  
  The reason why ridiculous, uneducated agendas against video game media get so much coverage is because those who would represent the industry (those who are patrons of it) offer little voice in the matter. In a time when video games could be expanding into a household brand of interactive media, representatives of the industry shy away from refuting a dominant mainstream message that completely neglects the reality of things. We sit back because we know how absurd and incorrect these assumptions are. We know that the average video game player is in her or (typically) his thirties. Even still, we know that protecting the children who do make use of these products isn't done through censorship and denial, but education, and cooperation. And yet we do nothing to correct these inaccuracies. Correction: we do in fact do something; we hope for the best.
  
  As the industry expands, as technology improves and new generations of creative concept are fulfilled, the more exposure it will get. The more realistic, and the more captivating the experience becomes, the more eyebrows will be raised on those who may not be so pleased with this evolution. Expansion of the industry means the bigger of an undertaking each project becomes. Ultimately, a game gets made if it's a game that can sell. When oppositional voices start affecting that measure of success, they effectively affect the evolution of the industry itself. Everyone in the industry is forced to walk a tightrope of what is acceptable or not according to those who won't be affected by the conclusion. Those who are actually informed about the nature of the industry could have used their voice to bridge the gap that this problem has created, a problem that has not merely "inconvenienced" retailers who now have to put up an ESRB sign, but stunted the growth of the industry. They were too busy playing an updated version of Pong.
  
  As widespread as video game entertainment is, as mainstream as company profits would have us believe, it's falling far short of being credible. Video games have been framed as being "just for kids," and so fit the category of things that must be regulated. Perhaps this distinction, although false, is fitting. Those who would represent their right to choose their experiences as adults instead fear a scolding. Afraid we'll be sent to bed without dinner, we fail to realize that we're the ones who put our food on the table. The image of the industry as "for grown ups" isn't going to change until we act like "grown ups" ourselves.

   

  (Edit: typo.) 

  • Posted Feb 18, 2007 1:32 am PT
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »