VGVN Releases Combat-themed Anti-Regulation Video

Submitted by zach on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 14:03

Borrowing the style of a cinematic or video game trailer, the new video released today by the Video Game Voter's Network tries to explain its cause by pitting video games and gamers in an epic battle against the forces of regulation. Using images of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in the background, the trailer (which I'll embed below) constructs a narrative in which the forces of freedom (i.e., free speech) such as novels, comics, violent movies, heavy metal and, now, video games are each in turn opposed by sinister forces. My problem is that there's no implication of why these things are worth protecting from regulation or what motivates the regulators other than sheer malevolence. Overall, it attempts to compress a complex issue into a violent metaphor, and I don't think that's a good idea.

I've occasionally wondered, if the VGVN exists to represent a specific voting demographic, then what are the political beliefs and voting patterns of that demographic? This video answers that by carving out an essentially Libertarian position, and I for one don't think that's the best idea both strategically (in terms of avoiding undue influence of outside parties) and politically (in terms of how best to understand the world in terms of video games). Follow me below the fold to see the video and why I came to that conclusion.

Here's the video itself:

First of all, the sabre-rattling tone and overall message of "it's us vs. them" seems to be a mistake. If the point is to educate non-gamers, then we should certainly emphasize the fact that we are not all adolescent males who enjoy heavy metal music, but this video actually seems to confirm that idea. If the point is to encourage gamers to get involved and take action, then it's disheartening that a combat metaphor was deemed most effective because that sort of undercuts the argument that games as speech deserve to be free. In other words, if a gamer can only relate to the political world through a gun-barrel, then maybe we really do have a problem. Of course, I don't think that's the case, or I wouldn't be a gamer myself, much less studying and writing about video games. Above all, the point that this video (and apparently the VGVN's overall new direction) misses is that if we want to defend game's freedoms of speech, we should be holding up the best examples of truth, beauty, and goodness that we can find in gaming. As I understand it, the freedom of speech written into the Constitution is meant to protect the little guy so he or she can speak out against the big guy and not fear reprisal. What we should be doing, then, is celebrating games that speak truth to power, regardless of if their content is violent, sexually explicit, etc. In other words, the message should be that video games are worth protecting, not that everyone who wants to regulate them is bad. Also, let's not forget that the video game industry is dominated by some huge corporations, so the fact that they back a push against regulation means that the present discussion is not simply about a gamer ideology of free expression, but also about investors' bottom lines.

I do understand, by the way, that this video is probably supposed to be funny, but as such, I don't think it's that easy to "get". At least, the people who do get it won't be that persuaded by it.

Someone (Julian Kücklich, I think) recently made an off-hand comment to the effect that game studies as a field is surprisingly apolitical. I think it could be political, but it worries me that a Libertarian philosophy appears to be the view most consistent with the gamer demographic. I'm worried that the political agnosticism of Libertarianism (is it correct to call that an -ism?) would translate to inefficacy for our burgeoning discipline. Now, even though my current political persuasion runs elsewhere, I have nothing against Libertarians or their ideas, and I've even voted that way in the past. What I do think, though, is that game studies can and should be progressive, but I need to save that discussion for another post.

For now, what do you think of this video? I hope I don't come across too snobbily when I say this, but I have to mention that the knock-off Carmina Burana really didn't work for me. I say get the real thing or get something else. Other than that the production values do seem a little hokey, but they're actually better than I expected. What do you say?

Not a big fan of this at all.

Submitted by Matthew M. White (not verified) on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 18:09.

I agree with you completely. The combat undertones in this only serve to further propagate the idea of video gamers as adolescent males with anger issues. Video games are nothing more, in my opinion than another medium by which meaningful communication can occur (and by far my favorite medium!). Take, for example, novels, which were indeed shunned as wasteful, corrupt, and irrelevant; novels have formed some of the greatest works of the English language, and indeed, of other languages. I think regulating video game content is as detrimental to free speech as regulating book content, or freedom of the press. The fact that Manhunt, for example, can turn the heads of critics around the world, while an equally sadistic, violent, and downright insane film, or even book (there are some -disgusting- books out there) seems to me hypocritical.

In works of film, we can stray into blatant, outright depictions of human fornication, simulated rape, murder, genocide, racial profiling, and beyond; very few people will bat a lash, with the exception of some gung-ho super-liberals who want to censor everything and anything that could potentially offend anyone. Furthermore, there is no limitation to the violence or sadism a human mind can create given a good violent novel to read - then, why so much attention on video games?

I think the root of this problem comes both from the misconception that the largest portion of people playing video games that have violent or sexual content are children, and from the patronizing attitude we as a society still hold over our children themselves. This all branches out to individual accountability, and common sense. A parent who is going to let a 5-year-old boy play "The Darkness" (Great great game) and eat human hearts, hear dialogue about oral sex with prostitutes, and devastate human skulls with shotguns is the same parent who would let their child see "Scream" or "Debbie does Dallas" in theatre - it's not the responsibility of the government to regulate video games at all.

Also, in reference to your political comment - I have mixed feelings. While you are correct that it certainly can have a political edge (denoted perhaps by the staunch conservatism displayed in my message... haha), I think the medium itself is without politics, or a predominant political presence - the players are the true political element of video games, and I think they can be as diverse as the video games themselves.

-- One last quick sidenote: Being a staunch loyalist Canadian, I also don't feel that the "Britain as the Opressor" Red-Coat reference was really all that fair (but that's a long debate) - furthermore, I would like to do more reading on how this regulatory issue pans out globally.

Cheers,

Matthew M. White

Re: Not a big fan of this at all.

Submitted by zach on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 22:13.

Thanks for the comment, a few responses:

Matthew M. White wrote:

I think regulating video game content is as detrimental to free speech as regulating book content, or freedom of the press.

I agree, but let me re-emphasize that we make this argument best by informing skeptics about the best examples of video game "speech." We can't simply assert that game producers have an inherent right to produce whatever they want (though you may believe that). That's why I'm looking forward to reading Ian Bogost's new book, if we can better understand how video games can communicate important ideas, then we can make a better case for their being equivalent to protected speech -- not so we can make it easier for anyone to play Manhunt 2, but so we can make this a better world to live in through the power of this new medium.

Quote:

I actually have to disagree with you here. I think there are still plenty of lashes batted over violent movies and TV, and I see it more from the right than the left. I'm thinking of groups like Focus on the Family who campaign against current movies and TV. To their credit, I can't think of a specific example when Dobson et al. specifically advocated censorship, but the assumption in their educational materials is clearly that these games, films, TV shows should not under any circumstances be watched by anyone except sinners. It's also worth asking whether a call for boycott sponsors is as equally chilling on speech as government regulation or censorship might be. I don't know the answer, but it's worth asking in this context.

Quote:

I disagree with you here too, but perhaps I should just clarify that I do agree with you that the political beliefs of those who play games is a separate question from whether or not games themselves are political. In the latter case, I mean "political" in the sense that they communicate an idea about how the world should be, and because games are unique in that their fundamental mechanics are based on relationships of power among constituent parts (think managing units in an RTS or just playing to a particular team strategy in Call of Duty), games are uniquely and profoundly political -- at least, in their potential.

Matthew M. White wrote:

There was some discussion of this topic (international regulation) in the similarly critical comment thread at Kotaku, where a commenter brought up the much more restrictive situation in Germany. Some (apparently English) participants also objected to the Revolutionary War imagery.

In general, the ideas of media censorship and protecting children from the bad stuff make for a strange political arena. It's really pretty hard to reconcile the fact that you've got Jack Thompson and (recently) Mitt Romney on the right talking about violent games in the context of a culture war, while Hilary Clinton has also spoken out on games as part of a culture of violence. Then you have the whole gun control thing, which I think must be related. So you have some politicians who say you should have guns, but not games, and others who say you should have neither. Maybe this is why Libertarianism is an attractive alternative to some gamers?

the VGVN ad

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 07/26/2007 - 22:17.

Interesting comments, Ed. As you point out, the ad is supposed to be funny--whether it succeeds is debatable.

I don't think it's intended to make an complete coherent argument about the debates over video game legislation; rather, it's to do just enough to get you to click over to the web site, where the issue is framed more coherently. And the more people that see it and talk about it, the better. In fact, in doing viral campaigns, it always helps to tick a few people off, since that leads to argument, more views, etc--it keeps the campaign going.