Tom Watson MP Debates: What’s the Point of Video Games?
SPOnG attends a debate on the subject starring Lord David Puttnam and Tom Watson MP
The Nottingham GameCityPrize organised a debate on the point of video games in modern society. Held at the British Film Insititute (BFI) on the Southbank, London the great and good of the video game industry as well as those who are critical of the medium debated the impact video games have had on culture.
The following text is a transcript of what was said during the debate. Note that there is no editorialising within it, as I wish the reader to make their own views on what was said.
The panellists were Lord David Puttnam, comedian and author Charlie Higson, industry luminary Ian Livingstone OBE, Financial Times columnist Lucy Kellaway, broadcaster and former director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts Ekow Eshun, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, and MP Tom Watson.
Lord Puttnam (DP) opened up the proceedings by declaring that the debate was not to be about video games being an art form, but instead its impact on society. Clearly it is having an effect on modern culture due to its persuasiveness, but what is that effect? He then passed along the panel to ask each panellist their views on video games as how they could answer the above question.
Charlie Higson, (CH) he of The Fast Show fame and latterly of his novels, spoke about how would have been far more prolific as a writer if he didn’t spend so much time playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. He then described how games as a medium is a lot older than many people think, with it stretching back to almost 40 years.
Finally he made that point that video games are in many respects the current youngest generation’s rock and roll. They get more excited about a new video game much more than a new album, thanks to the fact that their parents also listen to popular music as well and are therefore not rebellious.
Ekow Eshun (EE) confessed to not being someone who plays video games yet appreciated them as an entertainment medium. He expressed the view that we live in a privileged time. Video games seem to straddle the line between mainstream and cult.
Video games are are still in this gestation period with regards to their development. They now have had a follow on into other mediums with film being a good example of this. It is clearly apparent that we now live in a world where one of the primary motors in modern culture is video games.
Helen Lewis (HL) of the New Statesman declared herself to a lifelong video game fan since she first encountered the SNES as a child. She has grown up with them and continues to engage with them, be it on the Xbox 360 or on mobile devices. She expressed the view that the concept of gamers being isolated is outdated. Video games need to be taken seriously and we should avoid the discussion on art as it is not relevant.
Lucy Kellaway (LK) explained that she didn’t play video games, but many of her family members did. She expressed concern over the amount of time people play video games and raised the issue of addiction to them as being a serious concern.
Finally Ian Livingstone (IL) stated that games are all persuasive now thanks to the devices people have in their pockets. They have being so intertwined into modern culture it has become very difficult to ignore them.
The debate at this point became free flowing between panellists as they reacted to the statements made by each member. The following text is a transcript of the discussion:
DP: It took films 20 years to be recognised as an art form. People did not believe a 90 minute film is a valid method delivery. Yet that is the defacto standard for film length we have today. Video games are at the 1930’s stage of development if we equate them to film and we must understand that there is a long way to go for them.
IL: Games can be educational as people can make games and thus learn from them.
CH: Book writing has been affected by games as they have to compete against other forms of entertainment, and video games are part of that.
EE: Video games are not in a siege position, unlike other forms of entertainment. They are the ones that are in a position of power as they are at the top of the heap and therefore can set the agenda.
HL: Does the change of other mediums make them better because of video games?
LK: Attention spans, have they decreased?
EE: Well games can keep people entertained for 30 hours, so how can this be a reduction in attention span?
CH: Books can keep people gripped just as much as a good video game.
HL: So what if people have shorter attention spans? Doesn't that mean people's thinking is more plastic?
LK: Are not games addictive and therefore bad?
CH: It is not games that are addictive more than interaction with screens. It is screens and how people are spending hours on Facebook that are the concern, video games are a very small part of that.
After this exchange of views the floor was thrown open to questions:
#1 Why do we have to defend video games over and over again? Can’t we just talk about their impact on culture?
In response to this the topic of education rose up as a prominent case of video games’ impact on culture:
CH: Games made for education tend to be bad, games that happen to be educational are better with Age of Empires being a case in point.
IL: The Raspberry Pi will do much to improve children’s exposure to technology and let them learn how computers work and not simply how to run applications.
#2 Are games too violent? Do we have to accept our inner demon in order to enjoy them?
IL: No, as most games are not violent. Only a tiny percentage of video games are rated 18, the rest are very family orientated. Video games come in many forms and to say video games are too violent is a bit like saying are films too violent. Both mediums have extreme examples of violence, but they are not representative of the medium.
DP: What are games doing to help society or do they let people escape it? Films historically were pro social. Are games promoting a similar ideal or are they promoting anti-social behaviour?
#3 Murder tv shows have a high body count as much as video games, yet we focus on video games being violent, why?
EE: There is a disconnect with video games because of the worlds that are set in. This is not the case with TV and film. That is why so much emphasis is placed on violence within video games.
EE: There is no cultural discussion about games, why not? In other forms of entertainment it’s the creators that are interviewed and they are asked about the creative process. Only in video games does the game become the focus of attention and not its creators.
HL: It's because PR wants to control how video games are covered in media. They therefore shield all contact from the creators of games and force the game into the spotlight at the expense of everything else.
TW: Video games are a cultural iceberg. My daughter who is three and half years old and yet can read and write thanks to an app on my iPhone!
IL: Teachers do not see it as a valid career path and dissuade children from it. Children need to skill up in order to be the creative types we need for video game development. The UK has a history of being innovative and creative in all forms of media, yet we have squandered our chance at being the best in the world thanks to the moribund state the teaching of computer science has been in schools.
DP: Is there anyone in the audience that is or has been at some point a teacher? [no hands were raised]. This is very unusual! Normally in a diverse crowd such as this one, there should be at least a handful. Why is this the case? Why is there an apparent disconnect between educators and video games?
#4 What does the panel think about public money being used to make games?
TW: It depends on how the money is spent. The BBC did have some games as part of its online strategy, but they were not very good. Conversely Free All Monsters is an iOS app made in Huddersfield that was funded from the government. This is a very successful game and is an excellent example of how government money can be spent within the video game industry to encourage growth.
#5 If the panel had to choose, what games should be on the national curriculum?
CH: Age of Empires
EE: Games that are open ended, that is what should be on there as it gives a sense of exploration.
HL: Civilization and Minecraft
TW: Games should be used as a reward, so they are offered once certain tasks are completed. One teacher for example used Guitar Hero to teach children basic maths and planning for the band as they toured the world. The reward was to play Guitar Hero once the tour plan was created.
Lord Puttnam signed off the debate with this statement:
"Video games in the vast majority of cases appear to be about doing what you can get away with in order to win. This is not something that be encouraged as it can lead to selfish and irresponsible behaviour."
More official Info here.
The following text is a transcript of what was said during the debate. Note that there is no editorialising within it, as I wish the reader to make their own views on what was said.
The panellists were Lord David Puttnam, comedian and author Charlie Higson, industry luminary Ian Livingstone OBE, Financial Times columnist Lucy Kellaway, broadcaster and former director of the Institute of Contemporary Arts Ekow Eshun, Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, and MP Tom Watson.
Lord Puttnam (DP) opened up the proceedings by declaring that the debate was not to be about video games being an art form, but instead its impact on society. Clearly it is having an effect on modern culture due to its persuasiveness, but what is that effect? He then passed along the panel to ask each panellist their views on video games as how they could answer the above question.
Charlie Higson, (CH) he of The Fast Show fame and latterly of his novels, spoke about how would have been far more prolific as a writer if he didn’t spend so much time playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. He then described how games as a medium is a lot older than many people think, with it stretching back to almost 40 years.
Finally he made that point that video games are in many respects the current youngest generation’s rock and roll. They get more excited about a new video game much more than a new album, thanks to the fact that their parents also listen to popular music as well and are therefore not rebellious.
Ekow Eshun (EE) confessed to not being someone who plays video games yet appreciated them as an entertainment medium. He expressed the view that we live in a privileged time. Video games seem to straddle the line between mainstream and cult.
Video games are are still in this gestation period with regards to their development. They now have had a follow on into other mediums with film being a good example of this. It is clearly apparent that we now live in a world where one of the primary motors in modern culture is video games.
Helen Lewis (HL) of the New Statesman declared herself to a lifelong video game fan since she first encountered the SNES as a child. She has grown up with them and continues to engage with them, be it on the Xbox 360 or on mobile devices. She expressed the view that the concept of gamers being isolated is outdated. Video games need to be taken seriously and we should avoid the discussion on art as it is not relevant.
Lucy Kellaway (LK) explained that she didn’t play video games, but many of her family members did. She expressed concern over the amount of time people play video games and raised the issue of addiction to them as being a serious concern.
Finally Ian Livingstone (IL) stated that games are all persuasive now thanks to the devices people have in their pockets. They have being so intertwined into modern culture it has become very difficult to ignore them.
The debate at this point became free flowing between panellists as they reacted to the statements made by each member. The following text is a transcript of the discussion:
DP: It took films 20 years to be recognised as an art form. People did not believe a 90 minute film is a valid method delivery. Yet that is the defacto standard for film length we have today. Video games are at the 1930’s stage of development if we equate them to film and we must understand that there is a long way to go for them.
IL: Games can be educational as people can make games and thus learn from them.
CH: Book writing has been affected by games as they have to compete against other forms of entertainment, and video games are part of that.
EE: Video games are not in a siege position, unlike other forms of entertainment. They are the ones that are in a position of power as they are at the top of the heap and therefore can set the agenda.
HL: Does the change of other mediums make them better because of video games?
LK: Attention spans, have they decreased?
EE: Well games can keep people entertained for 30 hours, so how can this be a reduction in attention span?
CH: Books can keep people gripped just as much as a good video game.
HL: So what if people have shorter attention spans? Doesn't that mean people's thinking is more plastic?
LK: Are not games addictive and therefore bad?
CH: It is not games that are addictive more than interaction with screens. It is screens and how people are spending hours on Facebook that are the concern, video games are a very small part of that.
After this exchange of views the floor was thrown open to questions:
#1 Why do we have to defend video games over and over again? Can’t we just talk about their impact on culture?
In response to this the topic of education rose up as a prominent case of video games’ impact on culture:
CH: Games made for education tend to be bad, games that happen to be educational are better with Age of Empires being a case in point.
IL: The Raspberry Pi will do much to improve children’s exposure to technology and let them learn how computers work and not simply how to run applications.
#2 Are games too violent? Do we have to accept our inner demon in order to enjoy them?
IL: No, as most games are not violent. Only a tiny percentage of video games are rated 18, the rest are very family orientated. Video games come in many forms and to say video games are too violent is a bit like saying are films too violent. Both mediums have extreme examples of violence, but they are not representative of the medium.
DP: What are games doing to help society or do they let people escape it? Films historically were pro social. Are games promoting a similar ideal or are they promoting anti-social behaviour?
#3 Murder tv shows have a high body count as much as video games, yet we focus on video games being violent, why?
EE: There is a disconnect with video games because of the worlds that are set in. This is not the case with TV and film. That is why so much emphasis is placed on violence within video games.
EE: There is no cultural discussion about games, why not? In other forms of entertainment it’s the creators that are interviewed and they are asked about the creative process. Only in video games does the game become the focus of attention and not its creators.
HL: It's because PR wants to control how video games are covered in media. They therefore shield all contact from the creators of games and force the game into the spotlight at the expense of everything else.
TW: Video games are a cultural iceberg. My daughter who is three and half years old and yet can read and write thanks to an app on my iPhone!
IL: Teachers do not see it as a valid career path and dissuade children from it. Children need to skill up in order to be the creative types we need for video game development. The UK has a history of being innovative and creative in all forms of media, yet we have squandered our chance at being the best in the world thanks to the moribund state the teaching of computer science has been in schools.
DP: Is there anyone in the audience that is or has been at some point a teacher? [no hands were raised]. This is very unusual! Normally in a diverse crowd such as this one, there should be at least a handful. Why is this the case? Why is there an apparent disconnect between educators and video games?
#4 What does the panel think about public money being used to make games?
TW: It depends on how the money is spent. The BBC did have some games as part of its online strategy, but they were not very good. Conversely Free All Monsters is an iOS app made in Huddersfield that was funded from the government. This is a very successful game and is an excellent example of how government money can be spent within the video game industry to encourage growth.
#5 If the panel had to choose, what games should be on the national curriculum?
CH: Age of Empires
EE: Games that are open ended, that is what should be on there as it gives a sense of exploration.
HL: Civilization and Minecraft
TW: Games should be used as a reward, so they are offered once certain tasks are completed. One teacher for example used Guitar Hero to teach children basic maths and planning for the band as they toured the world. The reward was to play Guitar Hero once the tour plan was created.
Lord Puttnam signed off the debate with this statement:
"Video games in the vast majority of cases appear to be about doing what you can get away with in order to win. This is not something that be encouraged as it can lead to selfish and irresponsible behaviour."
More official Info here.
Comments
DrkStr 17 May 2012 13:02
1/2
After all that reasonable debate the summary is "fear games they make you evil"?
What a joke!
What a joke!
Doradan 18 May 2012 02:43
2/2
@DrkStr I'd say LP was a little upset that his fellows were so positive (or neutral, at least) that they drowned out his negative view of the medium. He probably just signed out at that time so he could get his point across.