New Rule

A point Tracy Fullerton made during the same panel discussion (see previous post): to be a media-maker is to participate in the making of culture.

An often-forgotten but penetrating insight, I believe. It needs no reiteration how much games have contributed to our culture and vice versa, and I’m not talking just about the subculture of game players and enthusiasts. The industry very existence is, one could say, a byproduct of the success of games as a means of culture generation and manipulation, but the question seems to be a real chicken-and-egg proposition: are games popular and powerful because they are products of our culture, or are they popular and powerful because of their effects towards shaping that culture? Like art, like media, they imitate each other. Look in the dictionary now and you can find “woot.”

All this is known. Game makers are media makers, and by extension culture makers. What is less well-documented or considered, however, is the responsibility that accompanies the making of culture. When we read the news and see Jack Thompson at it again, or see mothers protesting GTA and the degradation of their kids at the controls of violent video games, what we are seeing is the symptom of irresponsible culture creation. These people are watching their culture being poisoned (or so they believe). Why shouldn’t they be upset? Why shouldn’t they protest?

In 2005 at the infamous GDC Game Developers Rant, Brenda Laurel delivered a speech that took many people by surprise — she made the case for changing the culture of game making. She told stories about San Andreas kids waiting to play the GTA expansion so they could drive by their house. She talked about the culture of hypermasculinity and childish gratification that defined the tenor of our games, and she called for change. Some of her remarks were in poor taste, some were demagogic, but some were profound… and all were imperative. To make games is to make culture… what kind of culture do we want to make?

Tags: The Industry //