Maintaining Creative Integrity and Expression in Video Games
As the 21st century progresses, video games have steadily increased their prominence in the entertainment industry. It became one of the few economic sectors that have withstood the fiscal effects of the pandemic and have led to more than two-thirds of adults and three-quarters of children in America playing video games. However, as with any mass form of media and entertainment, governments seek to limit their influence through regulation and even censorship. Foreign markets, specifically China, have had much heavier content restrictions in regard to video games. With Beijing passing recent laws limiting gaming time for minors to less than 3 hours a week, it is clear that the direction they are headed towards is fundamentally at a crossroads with Western video game developers. Therefore, video games should be addressed through national laws and regulations as opposed to a global governing body, as it allows both video game developers and players a greater degree of artistic expression.
Gaming was a growing way people were connecting with each other before the pandemic, and the pandemic was the fertile ground for these relationships to fully blossom. Every day, my friends and I would spend countless hours playing video games with each other as a way to stay in touch. One of the games we picked up, Rainbow Six Siege, enchanted us due to its initial hyper-realism and parallels to the books. But at the same time, Ubisoft announced that they were preparing for launch in Asia, which meant changing specific aesthetics in accordance with Chinese censors. They eventually canceled these plans due to widespread community backlash. In this, they displayed a national approach towards video game regulation that doesn’t cater to Chinese markets because it allows their Western players a greater degree of expression.
This brief case study highlights the push and pull dynamic between video game developers and their corporate overlords. It has been well documented that developers themselves detest the censorship of their ideas, which reflect their own core beliefs. However, they begrudgingly agree, usually in fear of losing their job. Corporations today only care to maximize shareholder profits and throw out their entire moral compass in order to achieve this one goal. So if publishers don’t recognize the freedom and creativity that video games bring to the table, then consumers surely will. Many first-person shooters, for example, thrive off of the vibrant community interaction and feedback from players and developers. The intent of both parties is the same: to maintain the competitive and creative integrity of the game. A national approach towards video game regulation that doesn’t bend to foreign censors will increase relations between everyone involved in video games.
Admittedly, leaving foreign markets out of the equation will lead to the isolation of certain player bases. Global eSports competitions such as the Six Invitational (for the aforementioned title Rainbow Six Siege), an event similar to the World Cup in which the best teams from each region compete, bring in huge streams of revenue across multiple regions (North America, Latin America, Asian-Pacific, etc.). Invitationals such as these are the pinnacle of competitive gaming and reflect the love for the game that is shared by people all around the world. However, there often is not even a Chinese team represented in the competition of these titles. This, along with the lack of an audience for the game, are a self-reinforcing loop that establishes how Chinese audiences actually don’t have as great of a perceived appetite for Western video games as many believe. Language, cultural, and social barriers already lead to fundamentally different preferences between the player bases. Corporations currying favor with foregin markets will directly lead to less player positivity and engagement with the community in Western ones. Investing in Chinese audiences for the majority of titles is inherently a sunk cost and one that is too idealistic to undergo. A global set of video game standards is simply put, too idealistic today. With the trend that the Chinese government is headed towards, they are placing a clear emphasis on limiting the sphere of influence that not only video games, but any form of mass media and entertainment has on the Chinese media.
Video games have become an increasingly prominent way in which younger generations express themselves. Players and developers should have the liberty to do this without anything holding them back. Although national regulations and policies threaten to alienate a subset of the gaming population, their perceived influence is greatly overexaggerated. Moreso, decisions should be driven by what is best for the majority of consumers, not what is best for a company’s bottom line. The industry’s current trajectory is headed towards a dangerous path that is heavily moderated and doesn’t exercise the free will of its constituents. As one of the last forms of entertainment with a high degree of autonomy and agency, it is more vital than ever that it remains this way.
