The recent announcement of Gamespot producing its own television shows on the Voom HD network made me think of the current state of video game related programming.  I would like to believe there is a market out there for this kind of programming, but another part of me believes otherwise.  Video game players are more likely to read about new and available games, consoles, and pc specs on the Internet at such sites like Gamespot or magazines like Game Informer.  Also, G4 already has two shows very similar to the shows that Gamespot has in the works.  These shows that are already on the air are barely viewable in their own right..

            The Internet is today’s preferred avenue of obtaining information.  People browsing the net have total control of what content he or she is looking for.  Web surfers can chose which stories to read, which games to track, and interact a variety of ways such as writing reviews or posting comments.  This total control and interaction is not possible watching the early evening edition of the news on T.V.  People can’t post a blog about a news story on the tube.  A television show about video games would suffer the same drawbacks.  A video game review program with a thirty-minute time slot with intermittent commercial breaks might have five or six game reviews and maybe one of those reviewed video games might be one someone was actually interested hearing in the first place.  Also, if one completely disagrees with the review, then there is no way available on the television to make a counter-statement like writing your own review for the world to see.

            The two shows that Gamespot is planning sound pretty similar to G4’s X-Play and Cinematech.  I have mixed feelings about these shows on G4 in the first place, and I am interested in seeing Gamespot’s attempts at these formats.   X-Play, a video game review program, does provide some good information and reviews of games I agree with, but its presentation bugs me.  The two reviewers, whose names I could care less to remember, are rather annoying in that they pepper their reviews with jokes as if they were on ESPN’s Sports Center.  I have a credibility issue with the female reviewer.  There is little chance that a girl THAT attractive is genuinely interested in video games.  That is not to say that there are no good looking females who enjoy video games at all, but I have the feeling that she is either just wanting to be on T.V. or trying to get some use out of her mass media communications degree while waiting for better offers to come along.  I will probably never believe that she is actually interested in games until I see her play a marathon session of “Knights of the Old Republic”.  Cinematech is a curious show on G4 that does interest me.  No annoying T.V. hosts, just short preview clips of current and future release video games with an occasional showing of classic titles intermixed.  This is something that sounds like Gamespot could compete with very well and have ideas on improving the formula.

            I personally think G4 is currently blowing it from a viewer’s point of view.  The network is seemingly trying to salvage itself for its target audience of nerds, like me for instance, by showing syndicated shows like Star Trek: TNG (the definition of syndication) and The Man Show.  There were many shows with potential that G4 aired that have already disappeared from its programming block.  Icons showcased anything from the video game industry from famous video game mascots to developers.  Cheat was G4’s answer to Nintendo Power’s Classified Information section.  Arena was a broadcast of two teams of players going at each other in different multiplayer games.  Arena had a good premise and fit well into G4’s video game themed programming block, but was very difficult and disconcerting to watch due mostly to a lack of objective camera angles.  Most video games and PC games lack the ability to have free-flowing camera during play.  The competitions could only be viewed from one player’s point of view, but this greatly limits spectators overall view of the game being played out.  Jumping between different players of the different teams didn’t help the situation at all.  Maybe if they started the show off with one-on-one death matches, then viewers would get a better idea of who is supposed to be better.

            I would leave my T.V. on G4 when all these shows are on and glance at it occasionally when something showed that peaked my interest while I was doing something else.  However, video game themed television programming just does not work when most gamers would rather be doing than watching.

Author’s Note:  The first three paragraphs were part of a comment I posted on the news story about government officials with an agenda on imposing fines to retailers for selling violent/sexually explicit video games to under age gamers.

     Video game content once again finds itself in the news.  This reoccurring issue is an indication that the video game industry is moving more into the mainstream society.  It is joining the ranks of other mediums such as motion pictures, print, and music.  I find it to be an interesting topic of discussion and open to debate.  All opinions and personal view points should be welcomed and encouraged even if those said beliefs are not congruent with our own.

     I am of the opinion that certain games may not be appropriate for our younger gamers, just as certain movies or songs are not intended for all audiences.  I also believe though that this is entirely a social issue and should not be legislated by our government.  There are more pressing issues of state that require our attention.  Lawmakers should focus their attention on other solutions for crime prevention until there is indisputable proof of children being influenced by inappropriate material found in their chosen platform of entertainment.

  Responsibility of a child's influences and behaviors rest with said child's parents/guardians.  They must take an active role in their lives and treat video games just as they treat TV shows or songs.  If a parent allows their children to view Quentin Tarantino movies, then that is their choice and responsibility; however, it is also the responsibility of the parent to know if this is having a negative impact on his/her child's social awareness.

     We all need to see this from the point of all parties involved with the purpose being to try and understand what each side really wants.  First, let us take into account the viewpoint of the gamers who are around the early teen years and younger.  On average, this demographic of gamers are just looking to have fun and usually view violence in games as make believe as Daffy Duck getting his beak shot off by Elmer Fudd's double-barrel shotgun.  I make this parallel because of an example I have.  A co-worker once told me of letting his children play GTA:III who are about this age and they find it funny when someone is shot in the leg with the sniper rifle and hobble about in pain.  In their mind, no one "really" got hurt such as when someone one points a finger and says "Bang" with the response of somebody clutching their chest and saying "You got me!”  They may know that it is wrong to hurt or kill someone, but they more than likely to have not grasped the entire concept and consequences.  Daffy is always unharmed, and that person always re-spawns somewhere else.

         The older teens are more complicated.  It can be argued that teenage years are the more formative years in a person’s life.  This is when they start taking interest in social issues, form their own opinions, and make their own outlook on life.  There are instances where these beliefs differ from what they were taught by parents just to start seeking independence, which I believe parents interpret as being rebellious. They start to play video games for different reasons now.  Some may play for competition against their friends or unknown antagonists from across the world through online multiplayer, others for cooperation against AI or real opponents, and in some instances escapism.  The worlds that exist in these video games offer an opportunity for some to forget about the bully at school, or even better imagine a school bully as the villain.  Now imagine being someone who is just forming an opinion on politics and is told everyday that this person can do this, but not that.  Teenagers are bound to get this from just about everywhere: home, school, and other settings public and private.  Suddenly, government officials who teens had no voice in whether or not this person was elected start to regulate what they can or cannot buy, and the worst thing about the situation is said officials are ignorant about the issue they are trying to regulate!  This is made worse by the fact that adults seemingly do not want to listen to what teens have to say and apparently are forgetting that teens are voters in the next few years.  Teens seemingly have no recourse but to either just get angry by these proceedings or choose a course of apathy.  It comes down to them not having a choice in the matter and feeling, “I am not responsible.”

     Here is the secret catch to all this: politicians are just as baffled and frustrated as the teenagers.  They think they know something is wrong, but they are not sure what it is.  The only recourse a good politician has when all other researchable data is exhausted is to listen to his or her constituents.  If voting public says there is a problem with video game content, then the politician voices it for them.  Granted, there are elected officials out there with their own agendas such as: making a government more money by imposing penalties against retailers, receiving kickbacks, and so forth.  This has always been the case though the history of elected governments, and younger game players should not feel jaded by the presence of this self-serving attitude.  This is when one of the principles of democracy comes into action.  You can change what you don’t like is happening.  It is very difficult to see the fruits of these endeavors come to bare, but not impossible.

     Once we try to find what each side is actually trying to accomplish, we find that what we want and what we do not want are actually very similar.  Game players want the choice and responsibility to be theirs and not have their rights infringed upon by someone who has no knowledge of the issue.  Officials want socials problems such as violence in all forms to be minimal and do not want violence to increase on their watch.

     This is when both sides need to come together and reach their goals.  This would not be a compromise, because in a compromise, each side loses a little.  There needs to be a win/win situation for everyone to achieve. That should be our goal, to find this win/win situation everyone can benefit from.