Commentary: Is It Time to Change the Name of the Game?
Video game ratings, video game violence, video game sex, Hot Coffee - their political and cultural impact are debated endlessly by politicians, gamers, parents, media pundits, activists and the video game industry itself. It's a battle that rages on but never seems to get anywhere, in large part due to the irreconcilable disconnect between those who "get" games and those who don't.
Thoughtful observers have long realized that, in the minds of many, games are inherently a form of child's play. It's not hard to understand why. When video games came along a quarter-century ago, even their creators saw them as children's entertainment. They were marketed to kids in retail toy stores - still are, in fact.
Such critics will always equate "games" with "toys" - and thus with children. And it's not just the nay-sayers. Too many parents either don't understand game content and ESRB ratings or simply can't say no to when their kids ask for age-inappropriate games. And, although the retailers, publishers and ESRB have made great strides, there will still be a certain amount of games sold or rented to kids who aren't old enough for its content. No system is perfect - not voluntary compliance systems like the one currently in place or legislated systems such as those currently under review by the federal judiciary in California and Michigan.
Things have changed, of course. Video game content now runs the gamut from kid-friendly titles like Curious George and LEGO Star Wars to adult-themed offerings such as GTA San Andreas and Black to the highly socialized online communities of World of Warcraft and Second Life or the largely adult-populated casual game scene of Pogo.
Over the years, gamers and game designers have recognized the artistic and expressive potential of video games, along with their power to enlighten and entertain players from four to ninety-four. But there are also millions who missed that particular cultural bus. Perhaps they had no gamer children. Or they weren't into technology. Or they simply just don't hold with video games. No one says - or should say - that video games are for everyone.
So there will always be people - adult people, voting people, influential people - who either don't understand or don't care to understand video games. Thus the video game industry finds itself in a Vietnam-style stalemate: an endless culture war it probably can't win, but can't lose, either - thanks to a series of successful First Amendment holding actions.
So it may be time to change the name of the game.
A two-tiered system that used terminology to differentiate "M" (17 and older) and "AO" (adults only) games from those meant for younger players would give parents another "tool" - a term of which which game-legislating politicians are so fond. It would show the industry's commitment to keeping mature content away from underage players, and might even convince legislators that they needn't invest time and tax dollars into constitutionally-doomed video game legislation.
How might such a system work?
It's all in a name, really. For starters, the word "game" has to go, at least for the 17-plus titles. Not an easy task, certainly, given nearly three decades of "gaming." But the industry could differentiate these products by calling them "adult interactive" or whatever catchy name its marketing pros can dream up. An aggressive ad campaign would be needed, of course, to promote the distinction between games meant for younger and older players. Perhaps a new packaging style for the M and AO games would help consumers, parents and store clerks tell the difference as well.
In the end, redefining adult titles as something other than "games" could show the world that the industry recognizes and wants to deal with the issues involved.
Thoughts, GP readers?
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
gamepolitics) wrote,
