With the White House making an appearance at the 2010 Game Developers Conference and First Lady Michelle Obama unveiling a health-oriented game design challenge, we're starting to see the rise of the public interest game developer. Who are these people, and how do they feel about government involvement in game development?
Let's take public interest game development to mean any game that is created with the goal of benefiting the public. With that definition, we already know what a public interest game developer is because we've seen games developed with this purpose in mind – stuff like Bumrise, which makes players aware of the issue of homelessness, or the classic arcade game Missile Command, which drives home the meaning of "mutually assured destruction."
Take the definition of "public interest" one step farther by adding government funding, though, and the line becomes less clear. If the government commissions or otherwise encourages developers to make a certain kind of game through financial incentive, would the game that gets made still be a "game" – or just interactive propaganda?
Propaganda as a bad thing for games
On the surface, the First Lady's "Apps for Healthy Kids" Challenge doesn't seem like government funding. Participants are invited to submit games or applications that somehow encourage children to eat healthily or be active; a voting process determines which apps are the best and cash prizes are awarded to the winners. It's not an endowment for the arts or even a private contract game developers can bid on – it's a contest.
Ian Bogost
Where's the harm in that? Ian Bogost, founding partner at Persuasive Games and Independent Games Festival nominee, sees harm on several levels – the first being that it's demeaning to the medium of video games.
"I'm not sure we can yet conclude that the government really wants to make games," he said. "This contest reads as PR more than politics. Look we're hip! We <3 Apps! Contests R kewl!"
Even without the contest angle to the Apps for Healthy Kids Challenge, Bogost is still concerned that government involvement with game development could create a negative environment for games. For example, he discussed the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) game design program where the White House partnered with major publisher/developers like Sony to use LittleBigPlanet as a math learning tool for kids. He called it "embarrassing" because it suggests government endorsement of developers – like you should buy Sony products because Uncle Sam trusts Sony.
The only way government involvement with game design would benefit the public, he said, was if they took the medium seriously enough to let game developers do their job.
"If the government is making games," Bogost said, "let's do it the way the government contracts anything else."
Games as a good thing for propaganda
On the other side of the issue are game developers who are excited about government involvement with game design because it gives them more of a chance to help the public. At the GDC 2010 keynote speech, Grand Challenges for Game Developers, the IGDA Education Summit organizer who introduced speaker Kumar Garg couldn't stress enough how thrilling it was to have a representative of the White House at GDC for the first time in the conference's history and what it could bode for the future relationship between government and game developers.
The excitement extended to many game developers as Garg announced First Lady Obama's Apps challenge. Just one day after the keynote, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) announced that their president and CEO Mike Gallagher would serve as a contest judge. Though he could not be reached for comment on this story, a press release sent out by the ESA quotes him as saying, "The use of games to promote healthy living is a true testament to the increasingly important role that computer and video games are playing in our society. I am proud that the entertainment software industry was selected to participate in this competition."
His pride is shared by KingsIsle Entertainment, developer of kid-friendly online game, Wizard101. Fred Howard, Vice President of Marketing at KingsIsle spoke with GamePro about the potential behind the government's first tentative steps toward public interest game development.
"I think the contest is great," Howard said. "And we absolutely support what Michelle Obama is doing."
Though not participating in the Apps for Healthy Kids Challenge themselves due to development cycle constraints, Howard sees the contest not as unwanted government interference in game design, but as an extension of the government's long-standing concern with childhood obesity.
"Computer gaming is at the forefront [of this issue] because it's the fastest-growing [platform]," he said. From that perspective, it makes sense for the government to reach out to game developers to combat this specific issue. The contest angle doesn't strike Howard as demeaning in any way, and the thought of government-branded game developers didn't even cross his mind when he first heard about the project.
His only real concern is where video games are painted by the government as an enemy of public health. With regard to the childhood obesity topic, the Apps contest is an opportunity for PC game developers – whose products can be associated with keeping kids indoors and inactive for long periods of time – to make their product part of the solution instead of a scapegoat for the problem.
The law of unintended consequences
The Apps for Healthy Kids Challenge kicks off judging submissions July 14. Between now and then, it's unlikely we'll see any grand, sweeping motions on the part of the government to seduce game developers into public interest game development. It also remains to be seen whether or not those developers already serving the public interest evolve a new definition of themselves to distinguish between games that the government endorses and games that came from within their own initiative – between "propaganda" and "public service."
Bumrise, 'making young people aware of the issue of homelessness and the current debate about the increasing income gap in the US.'
"We misuse the word propaganda," Bogost said. "Really, it's only propaganda if you have to consume it for some other reason, [like] 'play this game to get your bread.'"
The bottom line is that the government itself cannot make games – not on the level an experienced game designer can. The White House presence at GDC this year, the STEM contest and the Apps for Healthy Kids Challenge are all honest attempts at reaching out to a community ripe with professionals who know how to make a game. We can hope, then, that the games these government initiatives produce – propaganda, though they may be – will at least be well-made.
"[W]e've not heard much from the White House that's positive or empowering about gaming generally," Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin told GamePro. "[However], since the government has efforts in many departments and agencies in which other forms of entertainment are similarly funded and supported, we can look at the move as a step in the right direction. The broad goals of the [Apps contest] are certainly admirable and the unintended consequences are likely to be more positive than detrimental, for all involved."
Further Reading:
Bogost, Ian. "Playing Political Games: On the White House and Videogames" Posted March 18, 2010.
View the Original article
No comments:
Post a Comment