One step forward, two steps back

In its struggle to be taken seriously as a form of entertainment, the games industry has weathered many fire storms of controversy. Often criticism of computer games – for example they lead to antisocial, immoral, violent or illegal behaviour – seem to be fuelled by ignorance and fanned by people with irretrievable biases. Members and supporters of the industry have spent considerable time fighting the fires of criticism. Making headway on this issue in the face of well-publicised, media-friendly sensationalism posing as logical criticism has been difficult, but some ground has been made. After a great deal of effort, the general perception of the games industry takes one step forward, then a completely avoidable controversy like “Hot Coffee” strikes and it is time to take two steps back!

I don’t want to elaborate on the nature of “Hot Coffee” except to say that it is a mini-game that is supposedly hidden in a product which has already drawn a lot of criticism for its content. The developer of the game denied they were responsible for “Hot Coffee”, suggesting that unknown parties had hacked and recompiled the code to create the mini-game. Reliable sources have argued that “Hot Coffee” was part of the original code because it can be found in the PS2 version of the game, which is, apparently, not modifiable like the PC version.

Computer games, like movies, are published for specfic segments of a diverse market. Supporters of the industry have emphasised that games are not meant solely for children. It seems to me that a significant proportion of games are developed for adults. Unfortunately, the misconception that games are meant for children has lead to problems of people playing games that are unsuitable. Ratings systems have been implemented to allow consumers to make reasonable judgements about the suitability of games. Therefore, consumers need to be able to trust rating systems.

The presence of “Hot Coffee”, if known by the ESRB (or its equivalent in other countries), may well have resulted in a higher rating. Assuming that the mini-game was part of the original code and the ERSB was not advised, the developer/publisher has acted very irresponsibly, to put it mildly.

Developers/publishers must accept their responsibility to consumers and declare or remove questionable content from their games. If a company wants to include confronting or explicit content in their games, they must be prepared to accept a higher-rating. I suspect that an “adult” rating has a negative impact on off-the-shelf sales, so most developers/publishers would try to avoid that rating. It is, however, highly irresponsible to hide confronting or explicit content in the game where ratings boards can’t find nor access it.

Try as I might, I can’t avoid the mental image of a design meeting where a staff member suggests, like a giggling, hormone-ravaged teenager, the inclusion a hidden mini-game about @*#$*# (insert smutty or immature idea here). This would be followed by equally immature laughter and testosterone-driven calls of agreement. The only problem is, the room is full of mid twenty- to early thirty-something men who should know better!

The games industry needs to stop being its own worst enemy.