lowenstein
Latest
Joystiq interviews Brenda Brathwaite about sex and games
One could say Brenda Brathwaite wrote the book on sex in games -- and they'd be right. She is the author of Sex in Video Games, lead designer on Playboy: The Mansion, founder and chair of IGDA's Sex Special Interest Group and professor of game design at the Savannah College of Art and Design. Brathwaite spoke with Joystiq about next week's Game Developer's Conference, how to keep sexual content under control and the story of the year that really got her blood pressure elevated.At the Game Developers Conference this year you'll be talking about the business end of designing erotic games. What does that mean?We're doing two roundtables this year at the request of previous attendees: designing erotic games and, second, the business end of erotic games. This will give attendees a chance to really get into each issue deeply. When it comes to designing erotic games, I expect we will probably cover such things as appealing to a diverse sexual audience, incorporating fetish play, MMO design, and pitching games to existing adult stars and publishing powerhouses. There's also interest from many people in solving that M-rated issue: how can we maturely incorporate mature themes into the narrative of the play – the same stuff you'd see in an R-rated movie – without being locked out of retail? Games have certainly done it, and as our ability to tell stories in games increases, figuring out how to do it well is becoming more an more an issue. The average gamer is a guy in his 30's, you know. Shows from Lost to Grey's Anatomy feature mature storylines that we, in games, feel at risk to take.
Is the industry betraying its games?
In his final speech as president of the ESA, an inspired Doug Lowenstein took to the D.I.C.E. podium and called on industry professionals in attendance and beyond to join the 'fight' to defend games from unconstitutional censorship. Lowenstein reprimanded the unnamed publishers and developers who "cut and run" when their games become media and political targets; and he criticized the overwhelming tide of apathy, epitomized by a lack of support for the Video Game Voters Network. "No one has bothered to take the time to do that, and it makes me sick," barked Lowenstein. "No matter how good we are, and we're good, we can't win the war without an army. And you're the army. And most of the people in this room who have the most at stake are too lazy to join this army ... Don't let others fight the fight for you, because in the end we won't have enough soldiers to succeed."In considering these grave remarks, Gamasutra posed the following question to professional game developers: "Is Doug Lowenstein fair in his farewell speech comments that game professionals are failing to stand up for their freedom? If he is, what should we each be doing to ensure that censorship is not an issue in the game industry?"Replies have since been posted, revealing some predictably polarized comments. But the respondents all seem to share a fundamental adoration of games; there's a sense that each has been deeply touched by the medium. It's difficult enough to protect those things which bleed and suffer, but it's the duty of us gamers (not just the professionals) to provide the freedom for our beloved to grow. [Via /.]
Lowenstein chastises 'cut-and-run' developers
In his final speech as head of the ESA, Doug Lowenstein told those attending his D.I.C.E. keynote that he was proud of the ESA and ESRB but saddened by the developer's unwillingness to stand up for their work.Describing them as "cut and run developers," Lowenstein lamented about game makers who create controversial content and then refuse to defend it. "If you want to be controversial, that's great," Lowenstein remarks, "but then don't duck and cover when the shit hits the fan. Stand up and defend what you make." Lowenstein also blasted what he called a "Greek chorus" of those criticizing the ESA but not offering any suggestions or solutions.Other targets in Lowenstein's crosshairs include those who didn't take the time to join the Video Game Voters Network ("You go to a website, click a few keystrokes and that's it. No one has bothered to take the time to do that, and it makes me sick.") and the gaming press for a lack of maturity and professionalism relative to the film and music industry press.Lowenstein has always been open, albeit a bit careful, with his words, so it's certainly interesting to see him let loose before leaving the industry. He has always been effective and lobbying and has a heap of accomplishments; imagine how things might have been different, for better and worse, if this Fire and Brimstone Lowenstein had been running the ESA.
It's official: Lowenstein leaving ESA
It's been widely reported since late last week, but now it's official -- longtime ESA president Doug Lowenstein will be stepping down early next year, as soon as a replacement can be found.In a press release, Lowenstein said he was "honored to represent the amazing companies of the ESA, to serve as their advocate and to be part of an industry which is having such a profound and positive effect on our culture and the world of entertainment."Lowenstein's departure truly marks the end of an era. When Lowenstein joined the ESA back in 1994, the two-person organization was called the Interactive Digital Software Association and oversaw a $3 billion a year industry. Today, the ESA has 32 employees and helps support the $10 billion video game industry with a wide variety of educational and legal programs.All of us here at Joystiq are sorry to see one of the game industry's longest-serving defenders move on, and we wish him great success in his future endeavors.[Via Kotaku]
Clinton and Lieberman make nice with ESRB ... why?
GamePolitics reports that Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in a press conference today at 3PM will announce, with ESA President Doug Lowenstein and ESRB president Patricia Vance, a national campaign to raise awareness about video game ratings. Clinton and Lieberman have both been outspoken critics of the game industry and this certainly shows that a change is in the air.Now is certainly a convenient time for Clinton and Lieberman to bury the hatchet with the gaming industry. Nobody can deny that the political winds in the United States have shifted since the last election and these two have grander ambitions. Lieberman, who originally lost his party nomination in Connecticut, rallied during the election as an Independent to get his seat back -- although he's still a pseudo Democrat at heart. With the House and Senate under Democratic control perhaps he feels he can actually focus on issues that matter, rather than trying to pander to some bizarre wing of his constituency that believes the best way to protect America's youth is by going after the gaming industry. Sen. Hillary Clinton ... well, for you non-Americans out there, she is gearing up to run for President of the United States. However you may feel about this, the point is, the last thing Senator Clinton needs is the youth of America telling their parents that the crazy lady hates video games and not to vote for her. Also, with the average gamer being 30 years-old according to the ESA, there are a lot of gamers out there with the right to vote. People have voted for and against candidates for stupider things and the Democrats want the White House, so it's time to make friends, build bridges in the 21st century and start using the village to raise the children -- that sounds oddly familiar. We'll get more answers about what's going on today at 3PM Eastern.
ESA head doesn't like term "video game"
Doug Lowenstein, head of the ESA, is unhappy with the term "video game" being used to describe the industry. Say what? He thinks that by calling them games, the industry can't be taken seriously; whereas, if the terminology were changed, the industry as a whole wouldn't be as susceptible to negativity. Alright, we're with you so far ... what's it gotta be? The suggested changes are "interactive entertainment" or "entertainment software." Interactive entertainment doesn't make much sense, since board games and outdoor sports are also interactive; entertainment software, however, is a better choice. There is a bigger question at hand, though; will a simple name change really work? Gaming has a terrible public face and political presence. Without serious political lobbying and PR pushes within more traditional media outlets, gaming may never get any respect. Will a name change make gaming more acceptable (err, rather ... make software entertaining more acceptable), or will the politicos simply play the name game as well, and call it the Entertainment Software Decency Act instead? See also:The ECA, a consumer advocacy group for gamers
