The Sandbox

CBS will, at noon today, be broadcasting the 2007 World Series of Video Games. Featured games will include Guitar Hero II and Fight Night Round 3, games that can be simply watched as if they were musical performances or traditional boxing matches respectively. I would go so far as to say that some folks would reasonably be able to tune in to see FNR3 and not immediately know it was a video game, the graphics being as good as they are.

But what does this mean for games? Or CBS? Anything?

Thanks to the intrepid reporters over at GamePolitics.com, we have new reason to fear the people who love to hate videogames. I've been following the violent vidgame debates for years, but I'd never come across Susan Bartell, a shrink who apparently has been making the games-are-evil rounds on morning talk shows. Surprise surprise: she carted out the dusty Indiana University brain scan study that allegedly links the playing of gory games to real-life acts of aggression. As I've reported myself, the studies are often flawed and misrepresented. But even more amazing is when some crusader admits that she has no idea what she's talking about - usually they at least try to play the part. Not so, according to her interview with GamePolitics.

So my basement is an absolute wreck. Stuff everywhere. Boxes. Junk. And I hate to admit it, but in some of those junky old boxes are a bunch of really old games. Like Redneck Rampage era stuff. And try as I might, I can't part with them. Even if I don't play them anymore, they're part of my history, hard-wired memories, everlasting DNA.

The harsh reality is that getting old sucks if you're a videogame. No one wants to play you. You're outdated. You're lucky if you can even run on the new machines. No other medium is so ageist. We still read old books, watch old films, view old art. But what will happen to the art of videogames if the history is forgotten? Down at the University of Texas at Austin, they're trying to build a videogame archive for just this reason. To me, this is more than just an exercise in nostalgia. It's a pretty serious problem that more people - including those leaders in the industry - need to address.

The Salem witch hunt over videogames never ceases to amaze me. Don't the critics understand that videogames - even the violent ones - aren't real? That two players shooting each other in multiplayer Call of Duty 4 are just engaged in a 21st century version of cops 'n robbers? Other expressions of youth culture - rock 'n roll, comics, Dungeons and Dragons - were once scapegoated for corrupting kiddies, but now of course those fears seem absurd. But the moral crusade against game wages on - on, at least, until Generation Pong takes over.

In the meantime, word comes this week of politicians calling for more transparency in how the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, the vidgame industry's voluntary group, assigns ratings to games. Why aren't they making the same request of film and TV ratings boards? Why should the government be involved in this at all? For an ever-erudite view on this trend, keep tabs on the high-quality blog: GamePolitics.com Also, the documentary history on videogames continues tonight on the Discovery channel at 8pm EST (I think I'm in this episode that covers violent games and Doom, but I may be wrong).

With Grand Theft Auto IV coming soon, get ready for another onslaught of bad press about violent vidgames. But the concern is often overblown.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board, the industry's voluntary ratings group, reports that while there were 22% more games rated last year, only 6% of those games earned a Mature or M rating (doled out according to violence and gore). The drop in M titles is down from 8% in 2006 and 12% in 2005.

More categories for this article than I thought possible... it's about everything.

Leigh Alexander is very much worth reading, when you're in search of thoughts on the game industry. Two recent articles are the case For and the case Against this new world of entertainment media convergence. Is this intertwining of games, web, movies, television, cell phones, GPS, fresh baked bread, and the fat pipe connecting your checking account to media producers' coffers, is this good for games?

Leigh gives the definitive maybe. I mostly agree.

Found this on Metafilter: Steve Gaynor, a level designer at TimeGate Studios (a guy I don't know at a company I've never heard of), doubts that video games will ever become as culturally relevant as novels or film. His thoughts are good, but the wager is silly. Fifty years, games will achieve the acceptance of comic books, that's the supposition. Of course, he has already conflated "acceptance" with "relevance", so you see my problem with the wager right off the bat.

Most game movies are nothing to blog about, but the prospects of a Bioshock film are tantalizing - given the potential for atmospherics and City of Lost Children style underwater flair.

[via Raph's blog] Dmitri Williams has just published his mammoth study of MMO players, specifically EQ2 players, by analyzing terabytes of data provided by SOE. Some of the results aren't what I would have expected.