Unfettered Blather

The common complaint about games and movies alike is that there is no quicker way to get an age restricted rating (Adults Only for games and NC-17 for movies in the US) than to have strong sexual content. On the other hand, no matter how bloody your game or movie is you’re unlikely to get that top rating. From a profitability standpoint, getting an “AO” or “NC-17″ is a deathblow. The argument goes “Why is sexual content more objectionable than violence?”

Actually, I have an easy answer for this even though the underlying issue is complex. Violence at its core can be quite simple. Themes of good versus evil do not have to be particularly difficult and are even portrayed in children’s films without much fuss. On the other hand, sex is almost always complicated. There is simply so much to it. To some extent I think we make it an overly complex issue, but I will acknowledge that sex is not an easy topic to tackle. Sex is an act that often makes people feel vulnerable. You are doing something with someone in a setting that is not usual. Nakedness often does not make people feel comfortable and physical intimacy is also a time of vulnerability. Violence, on the other hand, is a show of strength and is often straightforward even if the themes surrounding it are not.

In other words, violence is a lot easier to explain to children than sex. If a robber runs out of a bank and shoots someone in the face for no good reason it’s easy to explain away. “He’s a bad man and the police will catch him and lock him up.” If the robber is shot and killed in the pursuit, then it’s seen as justice. In all fairness though, I do believe there is a limit to how much violence a child should be exposed to. In the same vein, I don’t believe it is healthy to shield children from sex. We want children to have a healthy attitude towards violence. We want them to understand right and wrong and why our first reaction to conflict resolution should not be our fists. Sex might be more complicated, but by trying to hide it away when it’s so often in our face is simply going to confuse children and make them think something is fundamentally wrong with sex. People tend to take an all or nothing stance about any issue. I believe this issue deserves nuance. I’m not saying you let your kindergartner watch porn, but at the same time you shouldn’t be embarrassed when you walk past Victoria’s Secret in the mall.

I think to some extent the critics of the ratings are right. We’re probably too sensitive to sexual content and not sensitive enough about violence. Quite honestly, if it’s not outright porn I don’t see the point of an “Adults Only” rating for a game. Even with the Hot Coffee fiasco from a couple of years back, we’re talking about a game called Grand Theft Auto which is already rated “Mature” due to sexual innuendo, violence, and language. This was never a game for children anyway and any parent who bought it for their kid was just not paying attention. As for kids getting the game? Let’s be honest here, parents were buying it for them. I just don’t know that many retailers that would go through the headache of selling this game to a minor and then dealing with the potential backlash from an angry parent and possibly even the local media. We should be taking parents to task for not taking a Mature rating seriously instead of over-compensating by upping the rating for games that really do have no place on a regular store’s shelves.

On the flip-side, violent games should not get a pass. A game that doesn’t show a lot of gore or blood can receive a “Teen” rating pretty easily. I think violence needs to be explored beyond graphic depiction though. While violence can be simple, it can also become quite complex and I think violent themes that go beyond mere good and evil need to be rated appropriately. Let’s take Oblivion as an example. Initially it received a “Teen” rating despite the violence in the game and how complex those violent acts could become. You could become an Assassin or a noble Knight. You could be a noble Knight and suddenly commit murder. You could be offered with a choice to commit murder and be convinced it somehow served the greater good. These are very adult themes in my opinion, complex choices that go beyond the usual battle of good versus evil. I wouldn’t call the storytelling in Oblivion “deep” by any means, but the choices it offered players in terms of the harm they could do went beyond simple black and white choices. An older game, Deus Ex, gave players the option of non-lethal force at the beginning of the game and as the plot unwound some players were dismayed to find out that they may have been killing the good guys all along. I don’t know I was convinced they were all that “good”, but it was thought provoking and entirely too difficult for a child to understand.

We need to be a lot less knee jerk about sex in games and demand a closer look at violence beyond how many internal organs are spilled in an evisceration. What I’m calling for is nuance in a ratings system that often looks for a simple way to apply their grade without bothering to delve into the real issues. I admit the ESRB has a tough job but they need to stick to their guns when they come under pressure, explain why they gave a rating, and quit giving a free pass to violent themes just because a game didn’t fill up three buckets of blood in the first act.

I always love the expression “The elephant in the room”. This usually refers to something everyone knows about, everyone sees, yet no one wants to talk about. Personally, I love to talk about the elephant in the room.

Most men look at, shall we say “romantic partners” in two lights. We love the sexy vixen in a one-night stand sort of way but most men aren’t looking for a long term relationship with that kind of woman. Then we have the good girl, the one who at least appears virtuous in public, who doesn’t play off her sexuality, and maybe demonstrates a skill other than being able to take off her clothes. Most men love the sexy vixen but want to end up with the good girl. Let’s be honest though, you could apply this to women as well with only minor alterations. We’re really not so different when talking about attraction. We might look for different qualities but both genders seeem to focus on different standards for long-term commitments versus an instant gratification relationship.

Maybe it’s just the games I’ve been playing lately, but it seems like I don’t get much of a choice anymore. I liked having a choice, but I wonder what the choice is for most gamers? Especially the male gamers. Sadly, the only option most women gamers get is a handsome but whiny pissant who is such an obvious projection of the developers that they might as well have just used their own picutre. Oops, except that would take away from the “handsome” most likely. (Disclaimer: I’m not exactly going to make the cover of GQ anytime soon myself). What we essentially have is “the good girl” and “the sexy vixen” and never much attempt to stray from that formula unless it is to aim somewhere in-between. Not exactly bold writing. On the other hand, I can live with it so long as my preferences are not assumed to be the sexy vixen. I’m not saying it never would be, but sometimes it just seems so out of place.

Personally, I think the more realistic approach is the girl next door. This might sound trite, and it probably is, but if the world is going to hell in a handbasket is it really going to be saved by a supermodel? One of the classic Campbellian themes is the everyman who ascends to be a hero. Maybe we feel more heroic if gorgeous women swoon and risk their lives in order to bear our children. In an age of strong women I actually would appreciate a useful partner though. Honestly, as much as everyone hates escort missions, what I do not need is a perpetual damsel in distress. At the very least, keep her locked in a tower until I can come rescue her. I’d rather be fighting alongside someone I can respect, someone I can count on, and someone who can challenge me to be a better person. Not mere eye candy or an arm decoration. Ok, fine, I’ll admit this may not be to everyone’s tastes, but again I’d like to see a choice.

Can we go outside these boundaries though? Could we accept a female supporting character who is not just a good girl or a sexy vixen? Can this romantic partner be the hero of the story? Will she maintain sexual attractiveness if she appears stronger than the player? Maybe it’s too soon to challenge players to go outside these boundaries. Good girl, sexy vixen, or somewhere in between. Anything else and we’re talking about story-telling skills that the gaming market does not yet have in abundance.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with the sexy vixen, it’s just that we’ve seen so much of her lately. Game publisher and developers alike have been blatantly pandering to their 13 year old male demographic. What we sometimes forget is how huge this demographic is since no matter how old we get men are always in touch with our inner 13 year old and sometimes we even let him out to play. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this necessarily, I think we’ve just been bombarded with these adolescent fantasies to the point where there is no longer a point.

In all fairness though, what I’m talking about applies to women as well. What do they really want in a long term romantic partners?

Hey, let’s face it, Conan is actually the male fantasy. We want to be all buff and scary looking, but women want the cute guy who could just as easily live next door. Granted, Brad Pitt with his shirt off is going to embarass most guys as well, but that’s not the point. Again, women aren’t usually given a choice.

Games as an interactive experience should be giving us options. Especially when sex is involved. I don’t expect much here, after all we don’t usually see many games where they give you a non-violent option to conflict resolution. If you’re going to introduce sex into the equation, even if we’re just talking innuendo, then I want a choice or at the very least I want someone believable. I want an approximation of a real world woman. I don’t mean this in a cruel way, but if I’m off saving the world I don’t want a bikini model for my sidekick.

If you could indulge me a moment, I’d like to kick off Sex Week with this YouTube video from Daniel Floyd who has some excellent information. Please clear off the next 9 minutes and 17 seconds of your day for his presentation.

All done? Good, we can resume. Mr. Floyd’s conclusion is that videogames need more sex. Not just more sex, but they need to handle sex in a more mature fashion. I disagree that we need more sex but I am fully onboard with the notion that sex is rarely handled in a mature fashion. At the same time, if gaming is an interactive medium, unlike movies which are merely observed, then we also have to resign ourselves to the fact that no matter how mature you handle sex someone is going to take the route of immaturity.

Let me just establish this right now. I don’t want to get into “What If” scenarios about how gamers will ultimately behave. I am only interested in the intentions of developers and the presentation of the subject matter. We all know that the gamer community is full of man children who will not be able to handle any sexual content in a mature fashion.

In general I don’t understand how we get so hung up on sex or the fascination with it. If you don’t have access to sex in some form then you’re clearly not trying. The insistence that we are constantly bombarded with sexual imagery, thought, and innuendo actually gets old after awhile. I really don’t enjoy having to swiftly change the channel because I’m not quite ready to have a birds and the bees talk with my 6 year old child. The idea that we need more sex in order to de-sensitize the masses is more likely to backfire then have the intended results that Mr. Floyd supports. As I start to see a slow shift in the public consciousness about who plays games I believe we can achieve the idea that videogames are not just for children without also causing a moral outrage. Ironically, I think the Wii will do more to advance the notion of games for adults then more mature content. Those that are familiar with the Wii library will notice a distinct lack of games rated “Mature”. Regardless, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a console that was able to pull in such a broad demographic despite an almost obnoxious focus on “family friendly” fare.

Aside from the perception of videogames as a child’s past time, I also don’t look for sex in my interactive experiences. I have read stories and seen movies where sex is an integral part of the plot. Sometimes it is handled maturely and sometimes I’m reading a Heinlein novel. Cheap shots aside, the voyeuristic qualities of observing sex whether reading a book or watching a movie, do not bother me as much so long as there is a purpose and the subject matter is handled at a higher level then a high school boy’s locker room discussion. While sex in videogames can be anywhere from merely implied to full-on virtual participation the very thought that my actions in the game could trigger a sexual encounter really does change everything. I have a personal moral code that I live by and even before I was a Fundamentalist Christian I didn’t make it my mission to hump every decent looking girl in sight. I’m not so old that I don’t remember hormones but I also remember having female friends who I had no sexual intentions towards. I don’t think you have to be religious to experience fidelity or emotional intimacy. See, I’m not demanding that games remove any depiction of pre-marital sex, but I do see some real pitfalls with having sex at all. I don’t see the point of interactive sex because while I feel like I have some involvement shooting a gun, driving a car, or having a conversation (or whatever approximation you can get from a dialogue tree) I don’t play games because I need something that gives me anything like a sexual experience. I can have sex in the real world and much prefer it!

Furthermore, I don’t think we need sex to advance a story. Most classic stories are about conflict, and games just don’t have the story-telling chops to include sex in the same way that Shakespeare so often did. Most of our conflict revolves around violence or driving really fast. Even then, story in videogames is largely optional. You can have a game without a story and still enjoy yourself. I’m not saying that games shouldn’t have stories, but the overall lack of quality storytelling in games combined with the questionable necessity of story at all means that an increase of sexual content will merely be bungled and likely earn gamers increased ire from the public at large.

All that said, I would like to see sexual themes handled in a more mature matter. In the above video Mr. Floyd talks about intimacy. I like the thought of an actual relationship with another character. Something beyond mere physical attraction. In the Half-Life 2 and subsequent episodes there is a glimmer of this. Sadly, that is the most I’ve ever seen. Most relationships are horribly contrived and even attempts to develop true intimacy seem to head all too quickly to a bedroom encounter as some kind of culmination of a relationship. Intimacy is not sex, though sex can become a part of being intimate. I think the problem is that game developers are by and large a bunch of nerds. That may sound harsh but I feel like I’m in a good position to criticize. Having long been part of the software development industry and having known more than a few developers who decided for a career in games I think I can accurately state that they are not a group you’d quickly label “normal”. For the socially awkward who may get most of their notions of intimacy from what you see on primetime television they may only make the association that intimacy means you take off your clothes and lie down naked next to someone else. I would daresay that true intimacy involves more than mere physical contact.

My challenge to game studios (aside from doing something silly like hiring real writers) would be to make me care about my virtual romantic partner. One of my greatest annoyances with contemporary game story-telling is that the contrived relationships tend to be more of a burden than a benefit. I suppose this may again go hand-in-hand with how your average game developer may perceive an actual relationship. In truth, a real healthy relationship is one where everyone benefits in some way. I want to feel attached to my prospective mate, not wish to throw them in harm’s way.

I can remember many games where a partner, wingman, or squad mate was such an obvious help that I wanted to be at their side and would risk the success of the mission to help them. These were just comrades in arms, but it’s a good start on how you could take it a step further. The question I would ask the game industry is why can you make me feel genuine camaraderie with virtual buddies but somehow you cannot take that extra step and create convincing relationships? Does some kind of intimacy uncanny valley exist or does this just further expose how badly the videogame industry needs writers to tell compelling stories?

With the ham-fisted approach that most game studios take towards sex, would more really be better? Even if there is a consensus to handle sex in a more mature fashion I think history would show that most attempts would flop. Games would either not sell or generate too much controversy. Once any title gets the dreaded “Adults Only” rating that would be the end of the ball-game and Mr. Floyd’s gambit would fail. Instead, I would like to see story-tellers tackle this issue head-on and give us some real relationships for a change. Genuine friendships, true emotional attachment, and a motivation to do something for the other gender that goes deeper than seeing their naughty bits. Not only does this advance the hobby as something that goes beyond children but would appeal to both men and women. In the current world, we seem to target sex only to 13 year old boys. Surely we can do better.

I always said that if I got into management I would not do certain things. One of those activities was status reports. Why? Because I hate them.

Basically, if I’m going to do a real status report, one that actually means something, I’m going to spend at least an hour compiling it. That is assuming I haven’t been updating status all week, which would probably add up to an hour of effort anyway. Then the manager, project manager, technical lead, or whoever has to take my status report, read it, and compile it into some other kind of report. Let’s assume that effort is maybe another 15 minutes of effort per employee on their part. Possibly more. This is not counting time spent hounding employees for status, tracking down people who never get around to it (Hello, Boss!), or revising reports that were missing information.

Hey, I respect that managers have to manage and doing so without information is a bear. I’m not unsympathetic, but is this really efficient?

One of the best managers I ever had just did weekly meetings. He would bring a project plan or spreadsheet with him that had everyone’s known tasks on it. Then he would go around the room and get a quick update. Any issues would be talked about outside the meeting. This allowed him to not only get everyone’s status at once, but this was a good time to bring up issues so that he could address them quickly. Even though this was a fair size team, about a dozen people, these meetings could be done easily in half-an-hour. Realistically though you plan to lose an hour of time.

I’ve tried this approach on a team of a similar size and by scheduling a known meeting time every week then no one loses more than an hour of their time for status. I keep track of everything myself and it takes me maybe an hour, tops, to update every week. There is no hounding, missing status reports, or incomplete information. Getting status reports does not become a job unto itself and creating status reports does not become an additional task for employees. I admit, it’s not a perfect system. People get sick or go on vacation, and then I have to put in some extra effort, but really not that much.

The cynical side of me wonders if some past managers didn’t insist on status reports because it helped them do less face-to-face management while also generating work for themselves. After all, if I had to spend 4 hours compiling status reports every week I could look busy while maintaining a facade of importance. Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but all I really know is that the last thing I want to do is harass the people who ultimately support me.

Yesterday I talked about the value of employees and was all business. Today I want to talk about the need to earn money by offering products and services that people actually want to pay for. Bill Harris had a great write-up on the brand destruction of Guitar Hero and he accurately nails the core problem. Guitar Hero has been on a steady decline since it came under new management, and Activision is desperately playing catch-up to EA’s Rock Band. The quality of Rock Band’s peripheral’s have kept me at bay, but I won’t deny that the software foundation of Rock Band is superior to Guitar Hero simply because of the difference in approach. Even if you ignore that you can move beyond just the guitarist, the main focus of Rock Band is a platform for interactive music games where every Guitar Hero iteration is purely a stand-alone release with some downloadable content to augment the experience. However, downloadable content in Guitar Hero has no effect on the actual gameplay.

I’ve worked in software for over 9 years now and I’m keenly aware that your products are your lifeblood. When quality drops then the focus of a smart company is to do everything to improve it. Do you need more people? Do you need more time? Do you need more funding? Whatever it is, do it and get the quality back because unless your name starts with “Mic” and ends in “oft” you cannot continue to release shoddy software and expect to remain profitable.

Ever since Activision took over the brand they’ve seemed unsure of what to do with it. Guitar Hero II was amazing, clearly the best release in the series, yet that did not mean there was nowhere to go but down. With real competition from Rock Band, made by the people who brought you Guitar Hero II, what Activision needed to do was knock the next release out of the park. Instead they handed off this important brand to Neversoft, a company whose only focus is creating games that appeal to 13 year olds with over-active hormones. Guitar Hero II was a blast, Guitar Hero III was punishing. Guitar Hero III was the kind of game some hardcore uber-gamer would brag about beating, but the masses aren’t going to enjoy that kind of game. I always felt like Harmonix’s focus was a game for everyone and if you’re really hardcore nutty they had the Expert difficulty. Frankly, if you can coast through Expert, why don’t you learn to play for real? I digress, the direction of the brand took a much different turn. Women became hyper-sexualized just like in every other game, the gameplay punishing, and they introduced ridiculous ideas like boss battles that no one wanted.

When I read the reviews and comments about Guitar Hero: Aerosmith I sense a team that has not learned their lesson. Only one boss battle and its skippable? That’s a step in the right direction but it smacks of “We refuse to admit we were wrong”. Cashing in on the brand is just going to weaken it. Especially if you’ve got a band like Aerosmith. The next expansion rumored is Metallica, which just seems silly to me. Yeah, I know, Metallica is big but they’re really only known for being one of the few Heavy Metal bands to hit mainstream. Even then, I can’t think of a single song that stuck with me. Most of the classic acts like Aerosmith, Van Halen, or the Rolling Stones have an entire stable of songs in the public consciousness. I never hear anyone walking down the hallways humming a tune from Master of Puppets.

Rock Band was a huge success, and Rock Band 2 seems poised to fix some mistakes while riding good public sentiment. Guitar Hero World Tour is going to have a rough go not only competing with Rock Band but has made matters worse by deviating from a winning formula, changing things for the sake of changing them, and showing absolutely no real improvements. Flashier graphics and annoying light shows are not “enhancements”.

I’m an avid fan of Guitar Hero and I will be getting this latest release. I need the extra guitar if nothing else and I might as well get a game out of it to. That said, this is it. I don’t care enough about Metallica to want another game, it’s not a real Guitar Hero release, and they’ve done enough to shatter my confidence that I’m going to be leery of any future releases. I’m just one fanboy, but if you can’t get me excited about World Tour then it’s time to start rebuilding goodwill with the fans.