Weekender XLBS: Exploring Gaming’s Deeper Topics
September 16, 2018 by crew
For some website features, you will need a FREE account and for some others, you will need to join the Cult of Games.
Or if you have already joined the Cult of Games Log in now
What difference will having a FREE account make?
Setting up a Free account with OnTableTop unlocks a load of additional features and content (see below). You can then get involved with our Tabletop Gaming community, we are very helpful and keen to hear what you have to say. So Join Us Now!
Free Account Includes
- Creating your own project blogs.
- Rating and reviewing games using our innovative system.
- Commenting and ability to upvote.
- Posting in the forums.
- Unlocking of Achivments and collectin hobby xp
- Ability to add places like clubs and stores to our gaming database.
- Follow games, recommend games, use wishlist and mark what games you own.
- You will be able to add friends to your account.
What's the Cult of Games?
Once you have made a free account you can support the community by joing the Cult of Games. Joining the Cult allows you to use even more parts of the site and access to extra content. Check out some of the extra features below.
Cult of Games Membership Includes
- Reduced ads, for a better browsing experience (feature can be turned on or off in your profile).
- Access to The Cult of Games XLBS Sunday Show.
- Extra hobby videos about painting, terrain building etc.
- Exclusive interviews with the best game designers etc.
- Behind the scenes studio VLogs.
- Access to our live stream archives.
- Early access to our event tickets.
- Access to the CoG Greenroom.
- Access to the CoG Chamber of Commerce.
- Access the CoG Bazarr Trading Forum.
- Create and Edit Records for Games, Companies and Professionals.
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
![Warcradle Studios Reveal TINY New 10mm Festive Marker! [Updated]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/11/christmas-kyle-main-600-338.jpg)
Happy Sunday!!!
Happy Sunday to you too mate!
1st ! Second show with no Ben ! I really miss him . As a Canadian who has traveled coast to coast many times , I can state that there are no mountains in Manitoba . Totem poles are used by tribes on the west coast ( Haida , Salish ). As a history buff , the idea of putting people into box cars would tell me right off the bat what the Train game was about . To play it would make me uncomfortable . And yet I have on my shelves quite a few 28mm tanks painted up to represent various SS Panzer Divisions , which dosen’t bother me at all ……
Sorry mate you appear to be second, enginseer pipped you. Now for falsely claiming first there will be consequences …. Prepare yourself 😀
Very strange as three were no comments here when I posted . I ‘m very sorry and will not do it again . Now to find a corner to stand in and reflect upon my misdeeds
Yeah it’s interesting the blurry line of what each of us find acceptable. I sence a discussion topic in this too…
There were also separate Branches of the SS which make playing them on the tabletop less controversial.
The guys we play wargames with are the Waffen SS. Armed SS, the military wing of the National Socialist Party.
The guys who exterminated 11 Million people were the SS-TV. The SS Totenkopfverbände, Death’s head SS.
It might be a small difference to people on the outside looking in but most Historical Wargamers (in my personal experience) won’t have the same apprehension towards a Waffen SS “army” as people who don’t know the difference between the Waffen SS and the SS-TV.
Context and information are key.
I tend to agree with your comment on the train cars game. I actually got suspicious while the crew were still describing the game and was not in the least surprised by the reveal. But then I am German and that brings with it a certain sensitivity for the topic.
But that just goes to show that the German school system did a very good job of putting society back on track. And it could be argued that showing up anyone who doesn’t notice beforehand was the point of the game. If in this context it can serve and be presented as a tool for teaching and raising awareness against fascism and injustice I see its merit. If one were to present the game like Warren describes it, it risks becoming more of a bad and tasteless prank.
What I am trying to say is, its not a game one is supposed to play in a social setting, but rather a game created in an institutional setting for the sole purpose of testing and hopefully raising peoples awareness.
As a Brit, the idea of cramming people into Box Cars would make me think it was a game about the current state of British Railways.
Happy Sunday. Regarding the Manitoba thing you have to keep in mind that Germany has not such a history with Native americans, and there it’s usually nowadays perceived as people who suffered tremendously under americans. There is defo a lack of understanding that all these cliches even if perceived positive in Germany are perceived as an insult by Native Americans.
Yep today’s push back on appropriation of culture is going to potentially pose some significant practical problems for society going forward.
We see something similar with certain Asian countries casually using SS uniforms in entertainment.
The same kind of problem exists for wargames and movies.
Any time a game or movie choses a fictional approach to the setting there is a chance that those who survived and those who value the history feel insulted.
Battlefield V and its portrayal of certain elements (a woman with prostetic arm … ) has led to similar controversy.
One also needs to mention the Winnetou series by Karl May (German author) that was (and is?) popular in Germany. There were even movies in the early sixties.
Manitoba appears to be related to that kind of fiction.
Some cultures simply don’t have the historical baggage associated with certain events in history.
And IMHO we should respect that instead of demand changes. We can’t create a global culture that respects every single aspect of every existing culture without creating a situation where nothing is allowed for fear of offending someone.
I think it is somewhat similar to how fantasy stories about knights relate to actual history.
The real difference is that when there are people out there who keep a legacy alive.
There are two ways to deal with this going forward :
(1) accept that such legacy exists and never ever create anything related to that legacy without making an effort to incorporate it
(2) allow for a separate non-legacy variant to exist
The former can be impractical and the latter risks that the non legacy starts dominating the legacy.
As such compromises need to be made as IMHO we have to accept that one isn’t always practical and that we also need to learn to forgive a little lest we create grudges where no harm was intended.
We Germans just love our noble “Indians”. The entire Western “Cowboys and Indians” genre has in German culture moved away from its historical roots and has always been taking quite a few liberties. As you have said, the picture drawn of Native Americans by German literature and film is not always accurate or even suitable for an international audience.
But as a bachelor of culture sciences and linguistics I have to say that failing to do this kind of research, or worse not caring to do it or about it, especially if you aim for an international release, is just bad workmanship. I also feel sorry for the ham-fisted attempt at a corporate reaction to the backlash. This is what you are supposed to hire people like us for.
Happy Sunday
Happy Sunday!!
Going to have to download this to listen to on a long drive north. Better be interesting and not se d me to sleep…
pack a pillow and a blanket mate 😉
Happy Sunday
Throwing another thought into the ring – should games have ratings like movies and TV ? 🙂
Very good point @warhound67 and actually I think a ratings body might be a good option as it could allow games to find a home.
eg it would perhaps allow the industry to more safely produce games themed around more adult orientated culture.
There could be a bunch of games in the middle though who may dislike the idea as they could find limitations on distribution if they got the wrong precieved rating though.
Very interesting point and one well worth exploring!
For another XLBS !! 🙂
indeed 😀
Game’s have a age rating @warzan but brats still get the likes of GTA then if they do something wrong the games industry gets the blame instead of the shop’s or parents giving the kid the game to start with.
I think not, I hate the age ratings, I think it has been discussed again in the distant past here, but my stance remains the same, parents and not the government should be responsible to what their children should watch.
Yes, I do understand the theoretical benefit for parents, we do not have the time to review everything, but I also understand the practical and actually implemented risks of censorship movies and digital games have faced in the past decades about it.
The rating system has been exploited a lot in the past both from governments to kill things they do not like and from companies to market their games, it is a nice idea, I do not think it is an idea that can be realistically implemented.
if it was a centralised body that provided the ratings but there was no additional legislation on display or sale restrictions
would that be a middle ground?
At least the in Germany games usually come with an age mentioned for which they should be appropriate. I thought no this is however just an advice by the publisher.
It is an interesting concept, but I am not sure it would not be abusable, if there is a list then it will be displayed and enforced in some way, if only because oft he body will want to have an impact to justify their existence (and salary).
And a centralised body can be abusive if it cannot be called into question, Australia on the digital games (and movies) has been called many times to abuse the rating system to ban products the government does not want to see and a usual critique on the movies world is that Spielberg movies get more mild rating than movies of other less known directors.
On the other hand companies in the digital gaming have in their turn abused the rating system to make their games appear edgier and attract audience because of the Adult Only rating, something that boosted the sales of mediocre games.
Parents ARE responsible for what their child watches. A Parent can still allow a child to watch an adult rated movie (R, 18 etc depending on your location) in their own home. The government can prevent a minor from doing so in a public space, such as a cinema, thus devolving all responsibility for the consequences of a child viewing inappropriate material squarely onto the parents who allowed the child to do so. A ratings system isn’t necessarily the government telling parents what their children can watch, it’s placing the responsibility for what they watch onto them.
The issues arise ONLY when the government makes it illegal to sell something that has not been classified, such as with films and the BBFC. Therefore, a ratings system, such as the PEGI ratings on video games which are advisorys, is not a bad thing nor does it significantly reduce anyone’s freedoms – it does increase peoples’ accountability though.
In my opinion this is an idealised version of the idea behind ratings, in reality companies want to make money, the PEGI rating practically cuts off sections of the market, one way or the other and companies alter their products or never develop products that would cut off sections of the market because the higher ups see it as potentially cutting off sales.
Lets take for example in our hobby 40k, from fluff alone its an AO game, how much you bet GW is willing to throw out to make it again 12+ ? do you think now that 40k is sold without any PEGI rating as 12+ is an issue? would that PEGI system improve anything if it was implemented? if it was not necessary in the past why implement it now especially if there are no benefits from it?
Personally I believe too many parents see and trust the PEGI ratings and assume the body that assigned the rating did the job for them, that cuts off many critical thinking the parents should have developed.
PEGI is not legally binding and to my knowledge hasn’t noticeably caused game developers to change their games. There are still some fairly controversial games out there. It’s generally public opinion and the Internet mob that cause games developers to alter their products, not the PEGI rating system.
They’re also incredibly useful if you have children, in giving you a reference point to start making a decision from.
In the case of 40k it would most likely get a PEGI 12 because although it has violence as a theme, it’s no more graphic in nature than a superhero comic. You don’t actually see the violence, it’s just implied.
Interviews with developers from both movies and digital gaming industry shape another story, as an example above I said Spielberg gets away with much blood when other directors complain their movie was less violent and had a higher rating, of course this is an example of the system been exploited but shows that the label even if advisory is important to the studios.
Why on earth would 40k be even considered to be 12+ the fluff is way above that and things are not implied in the fluff, artwork and models are quite brutal and gruesome, actually looking at Space marine game on my self, it is 18 so expect 40k to have at least that rating.
Because it’s the depiction of a theme that drives the rating, not the theme specifically. 40k, while it is steeped in violence, doesn’t explicitly portray it. Rolling dice Removing inanimate playing pieces from a tabletop is not the same as watching someone gun someone down in full glorious technicolour.
That is a super interesting point. I wonder if the lack of rating system is to do with board games and war games being so abstracted from a lot of viscerally violent adult content that there has been no real need for a regulatory system to jump in.
But also, are we as players suitably distanced from the idea of any violence being committed on the board because it is almost a top-down perspective that we take? Is it a combination of immersion and player identity? Myself and @johnlyons were having a super interesting discussion on Friday about player identity in tabletop games. I could go on and on…
Great comment @warhound67 😀
Most games do have a suggested age rating (warhammer, for example, is stated to be 12 + I believe), but you’re right, I don’t believe there is a universal standard for rating.
The 12+ rating is for legal reasons, there is an expensive and lengthy (mostly) chemical testing to verify your product as suitable for ages under 12 and it must be done per language version, I do not remember but it may need to be done again if any component or factory change, most companies simply put a 12+ label on the product and avoid the extra cost that can be crippling for the average game manufacturer.
I think that type of age rating is more “Do we think someone under 12 will be able to grasp the rules as a whole. Not all the crazy chaos, death and genocide. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s always how i took it.
Most age ratings on toys and games are derived from the complexity of the rules and the size of the components. They’re not based on the subject matter of the games. PEGI ratings are based on the subject of a game and are advisory – I would be happy to see such a system on games to help parents make a more informed choice. But I don’t want to see a full on BBFC style classification/censorship system where games could potentially be banned outright or made illegal for sale to under 18s. I guess there’s just a level of abstraction in boardgames that does a good job of separating us from the events of the game that doesn’t exist in boardgames and video games.
For example the Grand Theft Auto games absolutely are an adult product every bit as much as something like Pul Fiction would be. However a boardgame version of it probably wouldn’t warrant the same treatment because you simply don’t see the specifics of a given action. You don’t see the character gleefully mowing down hundreds of cops with a machine gun while making flippant remarks – you just roll some dice and take some pieces off a board. Maybe it’s just because it hasn’t happened yet, but I struggle to envisage a boardgame that would really require that level of censorship.
I have read/ saw many companies interviews that they said they slap the 12+ label on games that could have been 6-8+ because they do not want to spend the cost to certified it for such ages and believe parents that want to take the boardgame will take it anyway regardless of the age in the box.
Morning backstagers!
It First Nations, Idiots
You are ofcourse correct (although cool the name calling we have rules as I stated at the start of the show, so give them some thought)
Your point though has a real value on the ‘things we don’t know that we don’t know’ point which will come up in a future show.
I struggled it seems to communicate the nature of the point to the team the other day, but I reckon this is a pretty perfect example of it in practice.
So thanks for the heads up, but if we are going to keep the discussions civil and purposeful take a moment to think how you are going to Express it 🙂
He isn’t correct @warzan at least not according to actual American Indian’s.
A survey was done in 1995 that found that the preferred term by the native American Community was Actually “American Indian”.
In 1977 there was a meeting of Native American’s in Switzerland where the term American Indian was established, by them, as their preferred name.
“At an international conference of Indians from the Americas held in Geneva, Switzerland, at the United Nations in 1977 we unanimously decided we would go under the term American Indian. “We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians and then we can call ourselves anything we damn please.””
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/fts/bismarck_200504A16.html
Even if you did name the individual tribes by name it would be an issue to some people.
Sioux, Comanche and Apache all mean the same thing. It’s the word for enemy in the languages of their enemies.
Thanks for this. I’m not going to be put off having discussions a out things where we cannot be experts in it, I’m hoping the experts in the community can help us fill the gaps. 🙂
Well just try to be as respectful to topics where we can 🙂
Thanks again for the insight!
First Nations is the correct term for non-inuit, non-Metis indigenous groups in Canada. The Cree people were bound by a similar language but spread across northern Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, and also a small portion of Montana.
The Cree attended the aforementioned 1977 Conference where the term American Indian was chosen. What the Government chooses to call them is irrelevant to me when they’ve already decided on a term for themselves.
A group of Non-Indians took offense on behalf of American Indians and so changed the words chosen by the American Indians to a phrase chosen by Non-Indians. That makes no sense at all.
That may be for the small minority of the Cree nation currently within US borders, but in the context of the ‘Manitoba’ Cree who lived in the northern part of the province and settled with the British government (Ojibwe and Dakota share more of a common border with the US) First Nations is preferred. The Assembly of First Nations is the Canada-wide body of chiefs that represents indigenous interests coast to coast.
It’s almost like Native Americans are individual people each with their own opinions about what they would like to be called…
Even to say ‘Native Americans’ is a very US-centric term and would only be the experience of those bands that fell within eventual US borders. Going to school in Canada in the 70’s and 80’s the term used in english history texts was always Indigenous Peoples, prior to that it was simply Indians since colonial times.
Bands define themselves by common language or dialect. Where I’ve done most of my work with construction management in Ontario, we often worked closely with the Tyendinaga band. They would identify (in English) as part of the Mohawk Nation, member of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy.
‘First Nations’ is the preferred inclusive term for the indigenous people of Canada of their choosing. The Assembly of First Nations was created to represent indigenous voices across Canada from previous organizations like the National Indian Council or National Indian Brotherhood. ‘Native American’ or ‘American Indian’ was never used to describe any band within this collective.
Happy Sunday ?
Hmm..not convinced by this xlbs arrangement so far. The enormous array of microphones wasn’t helping. Like a radio talk show..
I thought xlbs was meant to be rather ‘unplugged’.
Looking forward to seeing what else you can come up with ?
xlbs just started out as an extension off the weekender it even had the same format. Gradually we have been moving it away from that as there is no need to produce two shows so similar.
The mic array is to give the show more portability allowing it to be listened to as a podcast and un theory it should sound very good as a podcast. So if you are on the move or don’t get time to watch in one sitting you can take it with you.
Likewise overwhelmingly we always get the feed back ‘I watch while I paint’ so all these decisions actually are to create a show that meets that need more directly. The audio is more radio as that is more “in your skull” which allows the audio to do a lot of the work on it’s own 🙂
Anyway, yes its another change but just so you know it’s not random, these things have been a long time in the thinking 🙂
Pleas please get pop filters for the microphones. Decent ones are 5-10 gbp on amazon.co.uk and they will improve the sound quality tremendously.
yes we are getting some ordered up 🙂
Great show guys! It felt like a very mature, grown up, show today. A all 4 of you at the table seems to contribute well to the discussed, not always the case. I for one would like more of this kind of content. The format is good the presenters are good the audio is good. More of this please.
As for my opinion on art. For me art has it’s own purpose and shouldn’t have an alternative purpose or use. I guess in the way a classic car can be beautiful but for me it isn’t art. Art for the purpose of art and not for fun or educational in another manner. I’m not saying art isn’t fun.
Tough subject matter.
agreed mate
I thought that this episode was one of the better discourses, and hope that the comments carry this torch to new areas. I would have enjoyed if there was even another hour tacked on to discuss the esoteric nature of “what is a game.”
In most ways I feel that Art is ineffable. A private experience that can not be spoken or written about truthfully and be correct in a blanketing statement beyond that “Art is”. It is the want/need to have definition that causes the problem. Game as a defined experience is almost nearly as bad. I feel that there is a difference because for the most part are we are actively given a chance to determine our destiny. An odd to beat. Of the examples, I would question giving the label of game to TRAIN. Platform for social commentary, a way to present understanding toward touchy subject that is on a personal level; very much yes. However, I would argue that no one or only the presenter was actually playing.
Excellent points.
Does make me wonder about the definition of a game… hmmmm
DID SOMEONE ASK FOR THE DEFINITION OF A GAME?!? 😀
*assembles chapters upon chapters of information*
Congrats. for being brave enough to have the discussion. It’s a change to the usual light hearted Sunday mornings and I’m on the fence about whether I think this is what I want from XLBS, however, it must have done something right as I feel the need to comment even though I was planning to make my first post to the site with a Burrows and Badgers project.
Overall the discussion was interesting and it brought several games to my attention that I hadn’t heard of.
I would be concerned about a situation where backstage becomes an area with a significantly different tone to the rest of the site, in terms of content. It at times sounded like it was to allow an ‘X’ rated area. I don’t think that is the intention but there were little hints of this.
As for de-platforming, I firmly believe there is a political/philosophical case for it and I’d take this into the realm of gaming. Where a platform is being used to promote fascism or encourage descrimination. Relying on freedom of speech is not enough today and was not enough in the past.
Excellent points @redcalx 🙂
You are ofcourse correct there is no plan on backstage becoming an x rated area 🙂 however it could potentially be an area to look deeper at all things gaming.
I wonder if a platform highlights a game that has a ‘darker side’ and proceeds to open discussions on it (is that necessarily promoting the darker side or is it raising awareness and discourse around it? – obviously how its presented is crucial here) (an example game would be the one about drone strikes)
Backstage is some respects is a private members club in that there are discussions that happen behind a paywall. The net result of fully democratizing that (ie making backstage free) would be fronstage flame wars by trolls and no revenue to run the platform… and then we shut down and look for other jobs 🙂
Very true and debate is certainly being encouraged.
As a business is there a significant case for covering games/minis/topics in backstage that can’t be covered elsewhere?
That mostly depends on how much the community value the independence part of the journalism and the hopefully insightful discourse that backstage could provide.
So really like anything else it depends on the viewership 🙂
I have my stances on things, but they are not a crusade for me, ultimately it is based on more practical things.
Happy Sunday!
Great discussion about the issues of de-platforming and the role of “the mob” in modern journalism. I do think the “twitter mob” is a great evil today and needs to be stood against. More so in many cases than the societal “evils” it seeks to eradicate.
On the specific subject of Manitoba, it looks to me like simply poorly researched art. Whatever they call it themselves. The question to me is though whether stereotyping and poorly researching Native American history and culture deserves any greater opprobrium than any other culture. Why does it create greater offence than a game whose art includes horned helmets and leather armour on vikings, say? Or a film that completely disregards the known realities of 12th/13th century England in its background and portrayal of the Robin Hood story?
It may be poor art in that regard but singling out certain sections of society for special protection smacks of hypocricy and virtue-signalling.
By all means criticise the game for poor research, but criticising it because it poorly researched Amerindian society whilst at the same time giving a free pass or not caring about other poorly researched games is going too far. If horned helmets aren’t comment-worthy than neither are totem poles.
It seeems to me there is a bandwagon in modern society whereby people are quick to leap on the offence train when anything is mentioned about certain sections of society. That is fine, but when it means people lose their right to express themselves or perhaps even make a living because they get labelled “racist” then it is going way too far.
excellent points and we plan to return to the topics you raise here in the near future. I’ll be keeping copies of this post to discuss them.
Good points. I think the main difference with horned helmets on vikings is that that is such a well known mistake whereas things related to Native Americans aren’t so well known; so when a horny Viking appears it’s met with an eye roll and an exasperated sigh, but when something like the issues in Manitoba appears it goes unnoticed by the majority because they don’t realise it’s a mistake. And the comparison isn’t a perfect one; a better one would be having a game about Ancient Greeks where everyone was covered in blue woad and dressed like matadors simply because those are all from Europe.
There should still be push back against things like the continued horny vikings, but it’s probably better to concentrate on pushing back against less well known things like Native Americans all being bundled into a single package.
Good points. I’m all for a pedantic debate about “authenticity”. As long as it is done politely and with tolerance, we are all benefit from the increased knowledge. The point about debate is to try and seek out the truth, not to eliminate from public discourse ideas that the opponent considers false by force. That latter is simply fascism.
It seems all too often the so-called “progressive” element in our society are hugely intolerant and repressive in their actions whilst claiming the moral high ground for themselves, and so justifying very intolerant and nasty behaviour.
Looking at the debate we watched on this programme this morning, I wholly support @warzan‘s POV here I think.
Tolerance cuts all ways. Of course, some ideas are more difficult than others, but that is no reason to eliminate them, it only calls for careful debate in the establishment of truth and the expression of ideas. No idea is free from discussion simply on the grounds that it may cause offence. None of us is entitled to be unoffended ever. Remember “Je Suis Charlie?” Are those that shouted loudly in defence of Charlie Hebdo’s right to be offensive to organised religion prepared to defend the right of any artist to be offensive? WHy are some areas deemed intolerable, when others aren’t. And most importantly who gets to decide!
Some of the most popular games contain ideas that offend someone. Remember how offensive elements of D&D seemed to some parts of the US church back in the 80’s? Should D&D have been banned because they took offence at it? So what is different if it is a smaller, less powerful, cultural grouping?
Now, I’m not defending any manufacturer, but I am saying let’s not feel entitled to start to lynch mobs just because we may be offended. That helps no one and when I see no-platforming going on, that is where I fear to end up. Who gets to decide what is intolerable? Would you feel safe if it was me?
Happy Sunday guys,
I am interested to see how the comments pan out on these meatier subjects if this is going to be the new format. On rare occasions in the past we have seen threads closed due to content where people have took things to heart and their passion has led to things not nice to read.
For me art is not easily defined and no amount of using google or other sources gave me a definition that I felt represented my own thoughts. Over the course of your discussion I came to my own opinion of what you were asking. Art for me is anything created by humanity that evokes an opinion good, bad or indifferent. Anything naturally occurring is not art. But and its a big but (hehe) if everyone saw something that had been made and agreed it wasn’t art then it wouldn’t be, because we all said so.
The Train game was an unusual premise and was only given context through a place name, if that name had been Tokyo to me it would have represented the underground trains in Japan which are often loaded to capacity and run as efficiently it seems as anywhere in the world. So I am with Ryan on context is key.
If we apply this to the upcoming Boot Camp what do we get? There have been discussions about using the correct iconography on the German vehicles, namely the Swastika which is part of the Afrika Korps markings. What are peoples thoughts?
On the format of the show, I like the layout of the table and mics and did feel it was very much a podcast theme. I like the side view used for the majority of the time and to be honest don’t see the point of flicking to the views of individuals or pairs face on. I enjoy seeing the body language of all those involved to what is being said. I would prefer to not have the view changes other than for visual content relating to the discussion that you bring up full screen. Also putting mugs on the playmat was really messing with my head the entire episode hehe, coasters people coasters.
Have a good week everyone.
ok going off to order coasters 😉
And the camera switching was not the best and that’s my fault lol as I had the box.
Well give it a little time to settle in and maybe make some changes (although your suggestion is actually simpler but I’ll see if I can do a better job first lol)
awesome format. awesome show.
i have to have my two cents and I think there are definitely artistic elements in all games not just board games.
The ‘Manatoba’ debacle is BS. The game company have shed themselves in the worst light possible. What we have is lazy game design with careless and ill-informed theme. The artistic endeavours that went into the creation of this game do not excuse the failures in oversight by the managers of the development team.
They should apologise.
Have to agree with you there buddy. As a large platform that reports on all things tabletop games, I wonder to what degree we demand a higher standard from companies. A discussion for another XLBS certainly, but my instinct is they should be doing much much better!
Games as art. Outstanding topic.
As a fan of Neil Gaiman and Kevin Hearne I’ve learned that history, myth and religion warp over time to reflect popular understanding and belief of a subject based on what people read, see and hear. As a student of history I can accept that for the sake of ‘flow’ movies and games have to simplify, adjust and modify cultures. But I have the benefit in most cases of having a much deeper understanding of the history, cultures and events depicted that puts the artistic license in perspective.
Think about “300” and how warped the average person’s view of the Spartans became. How simplistic is the non-historian’s view of Vikings based on “Last Kingdom” and the “Vikings” TV series? Imagine a future where all records of World War 2 were lost other than vague references to the Nazis and a complete copy of the Hogan’s Heroes series. Future humanity could be left with the belief that Nazi prisoner of war camps were fun places, where a hilarious series of adventures were undertaken by prisoners that could escape with ease, and that Nazis were bungling boobs, suitable only for comedy relief.
I totally agree that context is everything. As gamers we are forced to look at the limits of what is done in good taste. Many people play in the character of the faction they play. If I want to play an army of ruthless, xenophobic, fanatical ‘superhumans’ who despise mercy, openly espouse eugenics and the extermination of other races, it seems fine if they are Space Marines and you are saying “For the Emperor!”, but if it’s the 3rd SS Totenkopf Division, and you give anything stronger than “For the Fatherland”, it could understandably be considered strange and insensitive.
@warzan It’s easy to pick out hundreds of examples of games that can ‘cross the line’ of free speech/expression. If Warlord produced a supplement and miniatures for the Irish Wars, and the starter set was the battle of the Boyne, or a skirmish game set in “the Troubles” would you do a “Let’s Play” of it?
excellent points
And yes we’ll come back to the boyne and troubles etc in a future episode 🙂
Has the format for the shows changed permanently so that News, Kickstarters and previous topics aren’t being revisited or is that just because Ben’s in the wilds of Wales?
no well keep it flexible. but we haven’t covered news and ks in xlbs for some months 🙂
I was writing something similar my self but lost it. Thankfully @horus500 put it far more eloquently than I was doing.
I’m minded to get you and @avernos on the boyne show…
…you up for it?
I certainly would be, as I mentioned to you at a bootcamp one time I think the Boyne is a fascinating fight.
Not really period of interest but certainly a lot of Urban myth about that campaigns
Heavens yes.
Super interesting points @horus500 ! I certainly would love to get stuck into a discussion on the show someday about what it would mean to play games and film let’s plays set in a kind of Irish Wars or Troubles type scenario. My instinct on that is that a tabletop RPG is a more suitable starting place to explore those topics through play because it allows the social dynamics around the table to inform how a GM manages that situation.
Well a good few people already play wargames set during various periods of Irish history… it’s a very rich vein to tap into.
We play both the Irish War of Independence and the Civil War and are just starting the Williamite Wars using the Donnybrook rules.
I know a few who also game skirmishes based on The Troubles in the 70s and 80s, though I have to admit, it wouldn’t be one for me.
I have a friend who has decorated a bathroom with the Monopoly game. She framed a game board, has exagerated game pieces on shelves and found a shower curtain that is Monopoly themed. This game to her is art; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But as for the question in general, I don’t subscribe that “is art” or “it an abstraction” allows someone to get away with anything. Gladly, games thrive in a market place. If the subject is so objectionable that the vast majority find themselves offended, the game will simply die by financial starvation. Don’t you think?
There is a case for that, but bad ideas can spread through society just as much as good ideas.
It’s a very tricky balance 🙂
Agreed, but I prefer to use gaming as an escape from my day to day pressures. I guess I simply avoid “issues” by the choice of games I want to, and am willing to, play.
Yep and I agree with that sentiment! 🙂
Well that horse has been flogged enough. Off to paint some Blood and Plunder. Here is a topic, “now that your kickstarter has arrived, how do you motivate one self to paint that ton of minis?” Really enjoying the new web format. Thanks for everything you and your team are doing.
I’ll pop that on the list 🙂
So engaged forgot to say, Happy Sunday! Thanks for the show.
And happy Sunday to you too mate
You guys get major kudos for using the legendary Brian Sewell for the graphic. 🙂
lol yeah I’m pretty sure Brian would have approved 😉
He probably would have complained about the font you used
Yes we fucked that up 😉
I like that you go touch on some of the more serious subjects about hobby and games and the underlying points that are not that obvious at a first glance.
I don’t think you can just stick a label on things like this. There are so many things that influence the view of “is something art or not”. It is not even easy to say that something is offensive or not in the big picture, this can depend on the time and community you are from. You and your community might find something offensive but 20 years ago or in another part of the world they might think it is completely normal. Is it then up to those few who take offense to say remove it and throw it in a bottomless pit?
Context is important but it can still let you do things that you might think of as wrong if it was brought in another way. If you take the game Auschwitz, nobody wanted to play it once they know what it was. Now if GW or other company brings out a game about the black ships that have to transport as many psykers as they can to Terra, how many people would play a game like that?
Mornign all – Happy Sunday folks.
bout ye big lad
Cheeky Sunday morniing. Cannae bloody paint as no glasses till monday so prep and conversion work it is with a filthy big cup of ….’weekended’ coffee in hand 😉
I’m having a day of drinking and watching substandard “professional wrestling” ^^
Start as you mean to continue. If my potato internet drops out one more time, I’m nicking a satellite ><
People are often keen to shut down institutions and individuals they are not invested in in any way. This is why backstage will always act more responsibly(?) over provocative and challenging issues on this platform. We are all invested to some degree. Casual commenters aren’t.
That is along my line of thinking 🙂
Happy Sunday
@warzan, well done, well done, I am highly impressed this time, I have a much deeper appreciation of you, why we do not have these great discussions more often, a complete new and high level side of you I never knew you had and I really like to hear about more.
I really appreciate more the mature and composed Warren than the funny one, please do not feel that I try to restrict you on how you behave and interact, but it was a twist I did not expect to see and I am happily surprised to have such a deep and important discussion.
You had me there when you said “I am for social justice” for a moment, but from your overall stance and discussion, for me at least, shows you are coming from stand point of equality and understanding (like the old moments who actually did proper and good work) and not a “justice” perspective, a completely different concept from what “social Justice” has come to mean at the present, I agree with your values and share your worries about were we are heading and the grave danger our stance of been offended and not discuss may lead us to.
Now on the discussion, for me at least, the definition of art is anything that provokes thinking, it may not be the ideas the artist intended to be questioned, but if it provokes thought stimulation, it is art, unfortunately art is confused with beauty, well form or skill witch leads into a mutilation, in my opinion of what should be considered an art.
In that respect gaming is a form of art, interactive art and composite art a gaming product depending on the category, boardgames, wargames, digital games and their sub categories, combines different art aspects into one product to be interactively experienced, making the players a form of interactive “artists” given they add to the game by making it their own, adding skill and usually comedy to it.
I would have a real issue with the train game, but not with the game or its sudden “reveal” but with the “artist”, “haha look at what I made you do, how do you feel now!” I am sorry I played an efficiency management game and nothing more, your sudden theme change twist means nothing and is just a publicity/ shock stunt, make the game be for that from the start, but the social and actual pressures to do your job as efficient as it is possible while rewarding you on doing the wrong thing and you have a real social commentary, Papers Please! is a fame that does exactly that, does not hide, does not pull a stunt like that and put you in the pressure you need to be to appreciate what it comments in, a great game that executes a challenging gameplay and a wonderful social commentary, unfortunately in a digital form.
A good debate on art is if game design is a form of art and I would say it is in its spirit, but not in a IP protection form, rules are just instructions to do something and should never be IP protected, but the unique combination of theme, artwork, composition of rules and execution is in my opinion a form of art that can be experienced only by interacting with it hence why in my opinion the complete product of a game designer, the game, the game , is art and should be protected, I am sorry I cannot from the top of my head remember any historical example of other interactive arts, maybe this is why people struggle with understanding why games in any form can or should be considered art, movies had the same issue in their inception and struggled for some time to find acceptance that indeed they are a form of art.
Concluding I have to warn you that even in backstage the fears you expressed like the hypothetical train game you played with @dignity will be exploited, we live in an oddly polarised and poisoned political era more sick than what we experienced during the cold war, when we should be living in a much calmer period of political tension, people seeking to be offended will be offended, no mater what, I highly appreciate and applaud your determination on taking the stance in freedom of speech as expressed by Hall (ok it was her opinion on how Voltaire behaved) and the belief I too share that things need to be discussed and not hide because somebody somewhere may be offended, avoiding discussion even if it ends up with agreeing to disagree is the one and only way to get the situation worse.
I hope you are right and in the end the wiser heads will prevail.
On a different subject I find the offence abut that Canadian natives game amusing, I have one of the most exploited, misunderstood and misused cultures in the planet, Greek, I do not feel offend each time one makes a game about ancient Greece, these are the stereotypes people know/ feel inspired from that ancient culture and want to recreate what inspires them from my culture, cool, why should I feel offended by it, even if it misrepresents aspects of it, I am honoured people find my culture interesting and inspiring enouph to theme games, artwork, movies and whatever else from it, that is what culture is about sharing it with others, keeping it for ourselves can only lead to stagnation and more segregation.
I’m not just a pretty face eh? 😉
No, not just a pretty face and deeply appreciating it.
Ah, but it’s OK to mock and abuse Western Cultures and history because reasons.
Very interesting.
How about this as a counter/parallel to your Trains to Auschwitz Scenario.
I come to OTT and we play a Historical War-game based in the Sudan in 1885.
I play the British and you play the Mahdists, you win the game and we start to wrap it all up.
W: “Right so what actually happened at the end of the war”
E: “Well the guys you’re playing took over the Sudan for the next half decade and slaughtered/enslaved hundreds of thousands of people”
Would you consider that in the same vein as the shock Holocaust reveal? If so why and if not why?
I land squarely on the side of Freedom. Nothing should ever be censored or banned.
How can it be ok to ban a game about Drone Strikes while forcing people to involuntarily pay for actual drone strikes?
That is along my thoughts, selectively shutting down ‘expressions’ is dangerous on the longer term.
The alternative (educating folk) is harder that is obvious, but leads to a more secure society in the long term.
IMHO Anyway
First I want to state an upfront caveat: None of my points below regard censorship. I also land squarely on the side of Freedom. And I agree that nothing should ever be censored or banned.
Contrasting the two games mentioned above –
I suppose the difference for me between your example and the Train ‘game’ is that in the game in the Sudan that you describe, the forces we control are actively shooting at each other and openly trying to kill each other. I know that my objective is the annihilation of the opposing side and that this game represents, in some way, an actual historical event. None of these things are surprising to me. Anything that I might find objectionable is parsed either before we begin or as we move along throughout the game.
By contrast, in the ‘train game’ all that I know about my objective is that I’m supposed to maximize occupancy on a train. I don’t have any reason to distrust the person who suggested we play the game so I begin to make up my own narrative for the game. Maybe I’m getting office workers into the city more efficiently, maybe people are going out to a concert or the big game. I’ve made the uninformed, but reasonable, assumption that I’m helping people and am applying myself to the challenge. I _Don’t_ know that my objective is the annihilation of the people that I thought I was helping and I _Don’t_ know that this game represents no matter how abstractly, one of the most horrible actual historical events. When it is revealed to me, All of these things are surprising to me. I now have to re-parse everything that has happened. All of my assumptions have to be re-assessed, clearly I misunderstood the social contract we entered into when I agreed to play this game. I feel betrayed. Have I been set up?
For me there is a distinct difference between information known beforehand and information learned after the fact as regards the emotional impact of a game on me.
I think his point is, because everybody assumes the British are the invaders here and the Mahdists are the locals a victory for the locals would be a “good thing” because the invaders were defeated.
The point of shock value would be that the assumed “good guys” and “bad guys”are reversed when the context of both sides and their future actions gets nuanced.
There were several components of his post. Some that I don’t feel qualified to speak to, some that I misread or outright missed. I may not have addressed his key point, but I also was not attempting to refute any part of it.
I was trying to enlarge on a part of it. I read one of his questions as “Given the Sudan game example and the Train game example, do you consider them to be “in the same vein”? “If so why and if not why?” I took it to be phrased as an academic question. After some consideration I realized that I had an answer to his question. Not _the_ answer necessarily, just my answer.
Your point regarding the assumed “good guys” and “bad guys” being reversed is well made. But for me, that historical reveal wouldn’t be a shock personally. I would’ve just spent hours knowingly ‘commanding’ killers and finding out that later in history they slaughter/enslaved/plundered the local region would not be surprising.
It is a logical reaction and assumption in my opinion.
To wider the discussion how do you feel about the key component of the “twist” in the train game? personally I would have issue with the game designer forcing a dark theme, later in the game just to produce “shock” instead of been upfront and create a proper game for it.
Indeed. That is what I intended when I said I would feel betrayed. The ‘host’ offered up a fun game which I had worked at, laughed and joked and then the reveal comes that we were participating in something horrible rather than harmless.
I would feel that was a breach of the social contract that was established at the outset of the game.
@ludicryan If I’m misusing the term or concept of the “social contract”, please let me know.
I would call it a true bait and switch situation.
Thanks for this episode. The deeper topics are well worth an explore and I’m also enjoying following the comments as they unfold. On the topic of games as art I’m happy to accept that any human creation that engenders an emotional response is art. As such does this mean that there is a “fine art” element in games?
To explain this; it is possible to contend that there are human works which have a greater appreciable intrinsic artistic value than others (e.g. The Mona Lisa has more to offer as a piece of art than the picture I painted of my house when I was five). These things that are subject to curation and institutionalisation can be labelled as fine art. One definition of fine art is: “products … appreciated primarily or solely for their imaginative, aesthetic, or intellectual content”. If OTT is the institution which intends to curate games as art do you feel that there are games which qualify as fine art. I’d love to hear the panel’s response to this (but assuming they would be in agreement) I’m more interested to hear what games you identify as “fine art games”. Would Bycatch, Train and even Kingdom Death: Monster qualify? Given how you have described playing these games I would say they do qualify as “fine art games”.
What other games could be considered as “fine art”?
This is a great comment @zoidpinhead . I feel like the importance of OTT going forwards in one aspect is in identifying and curating this idea of games as art and championing that games can do a bit more than entertain (of course it should go without saying that everything else we do remains) But this is an important area to develop into.
I think definitely there are some games that could qualify as fine art using the properties of the medium in a way that comments on both the form of games and on the themes they try and tackle. Brenda Romero’s train uses objectives and a lack of context really well to shine a light on complicity. However, it’s difficult to find games that do try and capture this idea of fine art. We find this in videogames as well where artistic pursuits are limited to indie games which don’t have as much financial risk on their shoulders. A part of the problem is the mass expectation that games must be entertaining or fun. Bycatch can still be fun but it is chilling and that balance is super hard to attain.
One of my favourite board games that might not attain that idea of fine art but does interesting things is Dream On. It is able to frame something akin to chaotic play that not many games can achieve. I’ll do a large write up or video on it someday so I can explain exactly how it achieves this 🙂
Thanks for your considered comments Ryan. It is good to hear that OTT is looking to explore curating some higher idea stuff along with all the great content it already has. As we can all see from the engagement with the comments today there is clearly an audience here on Backstage for this. I’d be interested in a piece on Dream On which I have heard good things about so I look forward to your commentary.
What might constitute a “fine art game” is clearly worth further thought but the idea of a trancendent emotive experience beyond the enjoyment of the gameplay itself is probably as good a starting point for further exploration as any other.
Morning everyone, my frank feedback is whilst this was a very interesting topic and everyone was very well informed it just quite a departure from the relaxed, fun and interactive nature of what I think the XLBS should be. I totally get the point of trying new things and support it but personally for me it is amiss, I know there is a desire to have more of a podcast nature but honestly, this probably should have only been an audio cast as I had no reason to look at the screen (plus point is I got some painting done, negative is means I was half listening and did not feel involved).
For me, life is already full of complex issues and I don’t need to also bring this into the hobby. Accept that everyone has what they enjoy and don’t enjoy if you enjoy something fill your boots but don’t harm anyone along the way and if you don’t enjoy something stay away from it (i know this is black and white but I need this for me to stay as a game/hobby).
A deep topic for a Sunday morning and so I have left the show with more of a frown than a smile which is certainly different.
ohh yes I get where your coming from completely and it’s all still a work in progress.
But there is value (editorial and journalistic) in having a vehicle to take on heavier topics that relate to us as gamers.
And it has to find a home somewhere if were going to do it.
The trick will be finding a balance in how we introduce it and package it.
I’m fairly certain if we had done this topic on the old set sandwiched between the what are we lobbying on and a justin mind melted exactly the same conversation could have taken place and you probably wouldn’t have noticed 😉 lol
We have a week to work on the next one 🙂
I really like the new format for XLBS. While I always enjoyed the previous incarnation, we really had two episodes of the same show every weekend. This is now two very distinct shows with different flavours, its a great idea.
Also, because I watched the ‘meet the team’ XLBS late and didn’t have time to comment, just want to say that this episode and that one both showed that the there are a bunch of very talented people in the team now, its really impressive.
I still miss Daryl though.
Happy Sunday, everyone! 🙂
The whole Games are (not) Article discussion is very interesting. I think Art depends on its viewpoint. To a Mathmatician numbers and formulas can contain beauty and there is often the point made that Musci is mathmatics, and if we go to music everybody has a certain taste and a lot of Music that would not meat our personal standard would not be art in our eyes, or as a lot of people say its commercialised as a sell out.
Returning to games as art, I would like to raise the example of Hate, which is based on an highly acclaimed Graphic Novel, however there was a lot of discussion about the theme which caused a lot of people to not back it as they thought the theme to mature, which in turn caused a lot of people to back it just to p… off other people.
( I backed it because I liked the Art and miniatures, and that theme does not bother me. ) However the discussion itself was on the Internet fought with a lot off heart and went a good few times to far, but in the kickstarter the comments are among the most friendly and civilised for any project.
I also think even if components could be art by themselves, a game is always art because it entertains us and makes us think about it, if it’s the theme or solvinga problem. And all other art is also entertaining because it tries to make us think about it or a problem.
And last argument is that things we consider nowadays art have not always been considered that and in times even considered bad, comicbooks, films, videogames are all considered art nowadays, they tell stories, but then they first came to the mass market thye where all considered childish, damaging, and most important off all giving bad ideas and destroying or corrupting young minds, and in certain areas off the world some off them are still considered this, usually by religious or fanatic people.
Which brings us to Goodwins law: Nazis burned books, nowadays a lot of people burn their tabletop armies because the game company does something they don’t like, similar to burning flags or merchandise (Nike), just remember what happened then GW switched to AoS from WhFB.
Regarding the format and the show:
I did really enjoy the format of the discussion as well, please give us more of that and I think that is great extra ind epht content for the Backstagers. But as said somewhere else:
Get pop-filters for the mics 😉
I would really love to hear a mathematician talk about formulas as art because that sounds super interesting. Same with programming. There is a definite beauty in the logical construction of formulas etc.
The one example I can provide came during a physics lecture. It was the old days where lecturers wrote on big 20 foot tall blackboards that rolled around. We had already been once around that board, so we were onto 40+ feet of notes, and a large number of incredibly complex equations.
The lecturer said something like “we substitute equation 19 into 27, this, this and this cancel, and we’re left with E = mc^2”.
The whole class stopped and looked up from their frenzied note taking for a moment. I’m not sure if I’d call it art, but it was beautiful, seeing something so powerful and complex reduced to something so elegantly simple.
Ohhhhh that does sound super awesome!
I quite like this new format, it’s good to see a serious discussion on deeper topics that doesn’t descend into a “who can shout loudest” contest. On cards against humanity I agree with Warren on the Jade Goody card, it’s one of two that I’ve removed from my set, the other being a card that refences the Hilsbourough disaster.
I don’t know how I feel about the slight injection of politics in this episode. I personally come here to watch and listen about companies and their games, while having a nice discussion about it. It’s a way to get myself out of the over serious nature of politics in my day to day life. Sometimes it’s unavoidable, like the Auschwitz game example, as well as the drone strike game. I’m just hoping this doesn’t also go the way of other entertainment mediums. Examples being Star Wars/movies, Magic the Gathering, comic books, Battle Field 5/video games, etc. They are delving way too much into politics. I’m sure this place won’t become like them, but I still worry. Also, I don’t care which side of the fence you are on, I just don’t believe it should be pushed in unnecessary places.
Discussions of philosophy, like “are boardgames art,” are more what I am wanting instead. It’s a serious topic, but not so deep that I need to stop the video, go about my day a little, then sit down to watch the rest. Something that makes us think deeper into these things are great jump off points.
One last thing. Isn’t XLBS an “unplugged” type of show? It’s a place where you can sit back, relax, and just enjoy your hobby. This doesn’t feel like XLBS of the past. I know Warren stated that things change and all, but this feels like a massive direction change. This type of deep talks may need a show of its own. That’s extra work though and I wouldn’t want the editors to be swamped further.
Other than that, I look forward to where this type of content could go. I just request that you all don’t forget your roots. It’s. Just. A. Game. Hahaha.
I’ve talked about this on here before, specifically about games which “deal with” the issue of mental illness. “Deal with” is in quotation marks because in some cases there has been no attempt to deal with the issue, but rather to exploit it for a cheap laugh.
In summary, my position is that nothing is off limits to games developers as source material, but if you chose to take something on, you have a duty to deal with it sensitively and to not treat it exploitatively. Using this game as an example, I don’t feel that they are able to justify their use of lazy cultural and ethnic stereotypes for entertainment putposes. They may have been able to if the game was ABOUT the use of lazy cultural stereotypes, and this formed social commentary or satire. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though. They have either failed to do any research, or have decided to use shorthand which may give offence purely for entertainment purposes, and therefore accusations of cultural appropriation are likely to be justified.
Whether or not board games are art is almost a side note as far as I’m concerned. I don’t believe defining something as art distinguishes it from entertainment or leisure activities (if you subscribe to the view that there is any distinction to be made) with regards to your obligation to treat your subject matter and your community or the consumers of your product with respect.
Artists have an obligation to do that too. I think we are just prepared to give anything defining itself as art more leeway in that we assume the artist is operating with sufficient intellectual subtlety that depictions or performances which may appear deeply insensitive may be making an important point, and therefore it may be justified.
This is true, but it’s also elitist to assume the same can’t be true of other forms of entertainment, or decoration which may not meet many people’s definition of art. The key is to assess any work on its own merit, not according to standards applied to a category we feel it falls into.
Proud to be a Backstager today, very well done to all. Sensitively handled and thought provoking. Normally if I miss an XLBS I don’t often get time or inclination to go back and watch it… if this format continues i’ll go out of my way to catch up!
My thoughts on Manitoba would be that it makes me cringe but I would just not buy it and wouldn’t play it if someone had it. It’s the same as games that produce content that is heavily “Male Gaze” oriented, it disappoints me that it still occurs (a lot) but some people like it. I wont promote those systems by spending money on them and have zero interest in playing them… even if the rule set is considered top notch.
Great that the whole team is being brought into XLBS, more voices and opinions are a good thing.
Art is personal and it’s not our place to condemn others tastes, but we can all vote with our feet. At the end of the day game design and production are a business and the best/only way to de-platform (in my opinion) is by choosing not to fund. If nobody buys, the company will stop producing the product, but if enough people disagree and it is financially viable then so be it… I just wont partake.
Glad you enjoyed the new format. What I found really interesting this week is that even preparing to do this XLBS, the team engaged in a fascinating range of conversations that some of us might not have had before. The team is comprised of really thoughtful and curious minds and it’s an absolute privilege to work with them. Can’t wait to see some of the others on this new XLBS format!
Far too serious and deep for my Sunday morning viewing I’m afraid.
need to add more @dignity 😉 … and perhaps a little more cow bell too 🙂
I’ll give it fair crack of the whip in the coming weeks, it might have been that I wasn’t expecting a political debate style show. If I’m brutally honest the wife and I had to switch off after 50 mins, but that probably says more about us than anything else.
I approve and like this topic and hope you do more. Introspection is always good. Comic books, video games, movies etc. have all had the scrutiny.
My only issues as were stated in the video is the crowd always ready to be offended and the “mob”. We all seem to forget that we all have choices. If something offends you so much you can always change the channel, not purchase the product or simply walk away. When we start asking for things to be banned, censored or not spoken about we all loose because censorship feeds on itself and more and more becomes censored. There are still groups in the USA and around the world whose sole purpose is have certain books to censored, removed and eliminated from history. In the USA a frequent target is Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Sadly a former senator of my state leads one of the groups and I have personally helped fight my local library from removing certain books because someone may be offended.
The “mob” is powerful. Even in Britain, the South Yorkshire Police recently tweeted “In addition to reporting hate crime, please report non-crime hate incidents,” they pleaded. These non-crimes include “things like offensive or insulting comments, online, in person or in writing.” and several people in the area have already been put into prison for the offense of “rude” and “offensive” speech. Meaning someone from your team could be arrested because some was offended about Justin chopping off the family jewels on some of those plastic models discussed in previous episodes. I hope it does not come to this with board games but it could. This is why discussion and freedom of expression is important. We cannot succumb to the “mob”
I also hope that all sides of a discussion are considered. In the case of Bycatch, yes, the game speaks to civilians that are killed by drone attacks. A tragedy I agree. There is always a fog in war and information is not always perfect. Many are killed by mistake or even from friendly fire. As someone who has a nephew who is in Afghanistan, a recent predator strike helped eliminate a crude communication facility that was helping the Taliban attack Afgan and US soldiers. I am sure the strike may have killed Taliban fighters as well as non-combatants but it has also given the soldiers 3 months of relative safety they did not have before. All aspects should be considered in these discussions. We fail as a community if we choose like the “mob” to have a narrow view.
I hope the future topics also discuss games as tools not just for social justice reasons, but also for team building. I use games even with the teams I manage specifically for team building and problem solving. In IT you need to be creative and I found games as a way for people to think outside of the box.
There is also the social aspect of how always on digital lives have made people more anxious, depressed, anti-social and has actual shown to increase suicide in teens. The book iGen details it best. Board games are way of unplugging. I find a lot new younger employees who have spent so much time communicating via a screen cannot deal with talking to people face to face. It can be seen from just the fact they cannot look at you in the face when the speak. We have had to have programs to help these young people to relate to people face to face. I again, use board games that have high interaction to help them to learn to work with people. I know it is easy to look at “train” but there are other social aspects that should be considered and the role that board games may play.
Finally, as was also stated, I hope “fun” is not forgotten. I use games as an escape. My daily job is high pressure and high stress and I have a 1hr+ commute each way just for the pleasure of all this stress. Board games for me is a way to Escape. For that 1hr+ we are playing, I am a bumbling Orc, a Mage, a pirate or whatever and it is a “just a game” — because sometime that is all it is. So, I hope that sometime we also explore simply the silly side of games. I like “Epic Spell Wars of the Battle Wizards” – I suggest getting Wizards hats for everyone for that episode. Because, even as adults, sometimes simple laughter, humor and being silly is good for the soul and you do not always have to be as serious as some of the topics spoken about today.
On a sperate note, perhaps a change can be made to the editor so that when you need to edit a post for errors you get more than two lines of text. LOL!
The post expands once you click into the editing box and start moving the cursor around.
South Yorkshire Police are an embarrassment and this is supposedly an attempt to regain community trust.
So an organisation that has a proud history of covering up their failures and generally framing the victims as perpetrators, is trying to regain community trust by requesting people report on their neighbours’ perfectly legal activities. Reports which will no doubt be kept on File. Talk about Big Brother. Oh and did we mention that the national audit office is saying police forces in Britain do not currently have the required level of funding to effectively fulfil their stated roles. Well maybe if you stopped worrying about people being mean to each other and focused only what is actually illegal that might save a bit of Police Officers’ time to get on with some of the things they should be doing instead.
Pffff. I like seeing people geeking out about cool mini’s and games.
Discussions about art is not my thing.
People having fun playing games I find is much more fun.
That makes me want to paint and play more games.
Hmm two things, a very interesting discussion, but not sure I actually enjoyed it, maybe a bit heavy for a relaxed Sunday morning.
That said I have my own views. Why do you have to pigeon hole games as art? Why can’t we say games are also a science? Art is in the eye of the beholder.
if they are a science then that would call for a peer review type process yes? 🙂
@warzan You mean a bit like establishing an independent rating system for each game against a set of established parameters, such a Playability, Components, Writing, Art Direction and replaybility to provide a combined rating of how well the game has been executed and thus should be considered for further exploration and fun. Now there’s an idea that may just take off ?
lol yeah that might work!
If you’re moving to another room for XLBS (I’m assuming this is a temp room), I recommend something with highbacked leather chairs, dark wood panalling and a fireplace for that cosy feeling (and maybe you guys sporting OTT smoking jackets and sipping from OTT brand brandy glasses ?).
I have you beat @dracs – I’ve shrunk to 5’ 3” ?
As someone who actually lives in Wales, can I say that internet coverage is spotty here, and that’s in the South where civilisation is, so if he’s out in the wild mountains it could be even worse.
On Manitoba – if that’s their stance, why pick the name of an actual real world tribe rather than creating a fictional one? Surely the point of doing so is to lend an air of authenticity to it?
Do we want to know under what circumstance Sam watched the Twilight films? And did he say movie*s* as in plural? Did his girlfriend hold his Hobbit army hostage or something? ?
Topic ideas: who’s the sexiest crew member? Actually, one step further, fullblown BoW Beauty Contest!
?version=0
?
Btw, as @warzan is for social justice, can we call him ‘Social Justice Warzan’ now? ?
I have not been a fan of the site’s rebranding nor the constant format changes. This week I got as far in the episode as Warren’s mention of ‘triggering’ and tapped out. The site is becoming unrecognizable.
You should have sticked around it was a genuinely deep and levelled discussion, a rarity at present times…
I have no doubt that it was. xLBS has always been something that I watched on early Sunday morning to unwind before the wife and kids wake up. I was never looking for a deep discussion, but a more “backstage” feel to what is happening in beasts of war. I may give it a listen at some other time, but I prefer the old format.
I agree with petdrb, I listened to about half an hour of it and really missed the old XLBS. If I want deep meaningful discussion I’ll go to work or listen to Radio 4. For me the XLBS is a great way to relax and catch up with my hobby. I did not enjoy at all this episode, please resume normal service.
Yeah it might be worth listening in and see what you think.
I will give it a go. My general fear is that Beasts of War as a place that I spend about an hour with each day is fast becoming unrecognizable.
Yup a lot is changing and growing and that can be disorientating but keep posting as we are listening, but for the long term health of the project we are having to make changes.
They will at times feel unfamiliar but give them time and hopefully the changes that stick will be beneficial and meaningful 🙂
I did enjoy the show but I will agree with @laughingboy.
I normally use the show to relax and get some painting done and get a good laugh, this show however leans more toward serious Friday evening discussion talk show and demands that I pay attention to what is being said(might not be a bad idea).
That is all good, or is it. I have a total of 4 hours a week I can use on hobby to unwind and relax.
So if I have to chose between a although good and serious show and no painting or a more loose and less serious show where i can paint at the same time. I will choose the latter.
So my opinion is that it was a good show and I can see that there might be a need for a show like this. But I for one will not be as keen on watching the show since it will demand too much effort on my part and to fully appreciate this format I need to sink too much time in to it which will eat all my hobby time.
I would much prefer that this would be a addition instead of a replacement of the xlbs so that if I suddenly got a couple of hours more each week I could choose to join in and participate in a debate.
lol interesting, I thought the format change (and yes we are still experimenting with it so you guys will be guinnie pigs for a while longer) would allow for more painting as it’s more about the discussion and a bit less about the antics and imagery on screen.
Thanks for posting 🙂
Sorry @warzan, but I think when the discussion gets to the Trains to Auschwitz section, people painting say a German WWII force might take a moment to pause….
I think you might want to take time to think about the function of a show like this.
Yup that might well cause a paint brush to pause lol Good point
out of curiosity though did you know that game existed before this episode?
No I didn’t.
nor did I! lol
Did hearing about it hold any interest for you?
I’ll answer in a sperate post.
Wow. At first, I was kind of worried about the new format. Waking up with coffee in hand to go watch online friends relaxing and talking more gaming is how I have spent every Sunday morning for years. Now to be waking up and hearing intellectual debate and exploration? Well, I am awake now and my brain is engaging, and I am not into my second pot of coffee yet. What the hell? I am enjoying this.
As to the subject, where to start? I do not think that you should draw a line as to what is acceptable and what is not worthy to bring to people’s attention. The line is always moving, and the line is not the same to different cultures or social groups. I have in my collection a Ral Partha limited edition box set “The Slave Auction”. To my knowledge, it was the only miniature set to ever have a parental advisory on it. It has several miniatures of naked females of different races. I have no doubt that it is something that would never even be considered for a release in this day and age. It is something that I would never even think to purchase at this point in my life. People advance, society advances ( for good or bad). As long as you are presenting the game in such a fashion as to say “Here it is. We have told you it exists. Now you vote with your wallet.”. And lets be real, not every game deserves more than just a mention. I sure as hell would never expect you guys to do a let’s play on a game about pedophilia.
Are games art? The argument can be made that games are art.If the art of war is a real thing then so is the art of wargames. We all know that some art is nothing more than shit thrown at a wall. Basically everything is in the eye of the beholder. Sounds over simplified but art, at its root, is opinion, and you can’t logically argue opinion.
Have a happy Sunday folks.
So as I am part Cherokee, I find the Manitoba topic very interesting and frustrating at the same time. I understand that the world sees the American Indian wearing feather war bonnets and using tomahawks. In reality every tribe was very different. The Cherokee nation had its own written language and newspaper along with a formal government. I understand different parts of the world seeing different cultures differently. However, when an point of interest is brought to a creators attention the response should not be “too bad that’s how we did it” it’s a shame people are not more open to constructive criticism.
It puts me in mind a bit of the character of Chakote on ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ who was supposed to be an Uhura for Native Americans but because the producers consulted with a con-artist he instead ended up being a hodge-podge of stereotypes and things from different tribes.
Hi @stvitusdancern thanks for your comment. I would personally love to hear more about your perspective on this! Especially as we may or may not forward with more of these interesting topics on XLBS.
How much responsibility do you think is on the creator if they are making a game about a culture they are not a part of? Do you think there is a difference between the appropriation of another’s culture for entertainment purposes and the appreciation/celebration of a culture for entertainment purposes?
Take this into a PM guys because I want to save the dialogue for the show lol and not spill it out here to early lol
and @ludicryan there is no maybe we will cover some interesting stuff going forward 😉
YAY! *excitement builds*
Next discussion, why Hobbits are the bestest!
Oh … my God … there is a lot to unpack here.
First off, GREAT episode, I really like this new idea of taking on more serious topics, and I really like a lot of the “ground rules” that are being set. This really “lights the torch of hope” for some topics that I feel haven’t been discussed in the community very much for fear or offending people’s sensitivities, topics I’ve brought up in my writing and publications and for which I’ve taken no small amount of fire.
I’m going to be be agreeing with a lot, and disagreeing with a lot. So I’ll probably break up this reply across a few posts.
But for now, just wanted to start off with I really appreciate the move to subjects with a little more gravitas.
Thanks Jim, I’m with you on the general approach, this community deserves recognition for the gravitas of its expertise, credibility and depth.
We need to embrace it and give it its place among the fun and more superfluous antics, as really the community deserves to have its credibility recognised within the industry and allow it to press its influence further into the industry.
The voices here matter, I would like to help understand them and foster them…
Awesome. On this topic, we are of one mind. 😀 Certainly not everything on the site / community has to be serious, but a space should be made for topics of more serious content.
Okay, right off the bat, I think I really like the ground rules.
“We’re going to tackle topics, that might trigger …”
Sad, really … that a disclaimer like that is so necessary in today’s discourse. I agree it’s necessary, and I think @warzan was smart to say it, it’s just a shame we have to. If we really want to “grow up” as a community as we say, isn’t putting away the knee-jerk “I’m offended” social justice really one of the first steps?
Ground Rule: “It’s just a game … is not an answer.”
Couldn’t possibly agree more. I am so tired of people taking that dismissive, borderline patronizing tone. Even worse is when people bring up topics, start an argument, and then when they meet resistance or debate, retreat off the field behind this somewhat cowardly smokescreen.
A variant of this is the saying: “it’s just a game so as long as you’re having fun, that’s all that matters.” This came up dozens of times during the “Historical Wargaming is Inaccessible” circus a few months ago (no, my gun barrels still haven’t entirely cooled off from that one).
It’s just a cheap tactic where people say … Oh, I have this position. Oh, you don’t agree with it. Uh … let’s not talk about it then. Then next time don’t bring it up, eh?
Ground Rule: “It’s just wrong … because.”
Oh, thank you, yes. Yes yes yes. From Confederate flags on ACW tables to swastikas on German WW2 vehicles to “you can’t play wargames in Iraq / Syria / Afghanistan because it’s ‘too’ modern and it’s just wrong just because …”
I am so tried of hearing this $h*t I don’t even know where to begin. Its cool if we disagree … there is a LOT I disagree with in this episode. But don’t shut down the discussion just “because.”
When you take a position, you assume the responsibility of defending it.
Ground Rule: “It’s art, so anything goes”
Okay, well games are not art for reasons I will get into later, and reasons that others on the thread have gone into. So saying that anything goes in gaming because it’s art I don’t agree with, but it is a form of expression so I feel this ground rule stands … for different reasons.
However … Games are also published. When you start publishing something, especially for money, especially (in some cases) for borderline educational purposes … you assume a certain level of responsibility. So everything does NOT GO … especially because it’s “art” (because it isn’t).
yeah the its art one is not really one of the ground rules (it was a clumsy Segway into the discussion)
the other three stand and are exactly as you have described mate 🙂
Gotcha. Thanks! 😀
@warzan I would think that if you kids didn’t think of you as a dinosaur one day then things will have gone wrong.
It would mean that the human race wouldn’t have progressed in any meaningful way.
As a 55 year old sitting at nearly 3 am Monday morning typing this in New Zealand, I take pride from the fact that we were the first country in the world where women got the right to vote and that successive governments are trying to treat the native peoples with respect when dealing with grievances from our colonial past.
I also am grateful that a programme like The Benny Hill Show would not likely be made in this day and age.
Kudos to the editing team for the work on today’s episode. @warzan ‘s coffee cup changed at some point early in the episode and the editing was smooth enough that I don’t know when it happened.
Ha Ha that was me I switched to Sam when my cup of relentless had finished and grabbed my stand by tea lol
Excellent observation skills right there!
Later I noticed your first coffee cup placed off to the side, which took some of the magic and mystery out of it. But the conversation rolled on smoothly so that I didn’t notice any disruption, so it was still well played.
Strange coincidence, I was talking to a member of the Cree Nation just two weeks ago, one of my Dad’s new golfing friends from upstate New York / Canada. We were talking about the complexities of Native Americans and their dealings with the federal government, and their association with the former Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, Tuscarora) tribes, and in turn these peoples’ involvement with the American Revolution, including the Battle of Oriskany. 🙂
Now, this immediately touches upon an issue I have been around and around about practically all my life, not only with gaming but also things like TV and movies.
If you’re going to make something historical, or really based on actual events / cultures / realities of my time period, I’m sorry … you assume certain responsibility for getting it at least somewhat right.
No one knows better than me that games are an abstraction, I’ve been trying to expand BoW’s scope of more abstract wargames since I firsts started publishing on the site four years ago.
But … quick word to game designers / TV producers / movie studios …
History is not your toy.
It is not a plaything that is yours to pick up and treat with casual disrespect. Knock it off. Now.
When a game developer (or again, TV/movie producer) gets things this basic, this wrong, it just shows that they didn’t take the time to properly research what they were publishing about.
I publish content for a living, both as a day job and here on BoW/OTT. So maybe I take it a little more seriously than most. But when you publish content on a given topic, you’re “automatically” implying that you’re at least somewhat knowledgeable in that subject, and disseminating that information to those who are (a) not as knowledgeable and (b) at least somewhat interested. So when things like this are carelessly published, you’re actually making the world at large “less informed” – reinforcing stereotypes and the like.
Suffice it to say that movies like Inglorius Basterds and TV shows like Hogan’s Heroes are absolutely NOT on my favorites list. I even find movies like Kelly’s Heroes a little offensive in some parts (I know, heresy).
All that said, I don’t begrudge other people’s enjoyment of them. Like I said earlier, we all need to put the safeties back on our triggers. The responsibility isn’t on the consumer so much as the publisher / producer.
But while I would certainly support this game developer’s right to publish what they want and people’s freedom to enjoy it, I would also applaud and support people who go after this kind of material as cheap, careless, and irresponsible.
Free speech swings both ways. I certainly don’t buy careless historical games. And I would discourage anyone who’ll listen from doing so.
The community is lucky that I would never stoop so low as to butcher history 😉 right mate? lol
Well now hold on a second, @warzan … I’m talking about people who publish games out into the market, who make money off this, and (whether they know it or not) assume the role of “educators” on the topic.
When you’re talking about history on the site, you predicate all your statements with “I’m just butchering history here,” everyone knows full well you’re kidding around, and you’re not publishing wargaming material out into the market.
When you want something more serious about history, you reach out to myself as Historical Editor or John or someone.
So when I say “knock it off,” I’m certainly not talking about you. 😀
I guess I should also say that games like, say … Dust or Konflikt 47 or movies like Iron Skies do not fall into this category of “knock it off” either. CLEARLY there is a fantastical or tongue-in-cheek element there (also why I guess sometimes Kelly’s Heroes gets something of a pass).
It’s when games or other media try to present themselves more seriously … that I feel they should take the effort to research and present just a little responsibly.
letting me off the hook lol
appreciated he he
Also realizing that my initial comment might have been misconstrued.
The eternal danger of the internet. 😀
I know what you mean I was watch “Blood and Fury: American Civil War: Fredericksburg” and started shouting and swearing at the tv.
Apparently Crossing a River while in direct contact with and under fire from the enemy is a move of strategic brilliance because no one had ever done it before in American History.
The worst offender by far is “Ancient Assassins: William Wallace”
Obvious closeups of blunt weapons, all the English are dressed as Templars, the idea Wallace was alone, the idea Wallace was fighting for freedom and the small fact that Wallace wasn’t an assassin.
Even their description is inaccurate “In 1296 Scotland is invaded by English King Edward I and only one man is prepared to stand in his way.”
Plus you know the Army of over ten thousand men, oh and most of the Scottish Nobles and you know the King of Scotland.
The whole issue of historical inaccuracy in films is “triggering” for me! 😀
I mean I don’t expect perfection and little details can be missed. But when (for instance) Roman armour is 300 years out of date, or supposed “medieval” costume is total fantasy, or amidst a unit of hundreds of late WWII German soldiers, not a single one carries a panzerfaust (cookies available for xnyone spotting which films I am ranting about!) … well it grinds my gears!
Hollywood will pay millions of dollars to get a famous star, but not fork out 20 for a simple academic book on the clothing of the period so that their film doesn’t look stupid just because the producet or director are too …. what? Lazy? Apathetic? Ignorant? I don’t know what it is, but they sometimes are only interested in the narrative of the story and not the details that will lend it credibility!
Grrrrrr! My nerd rage knows no bounds!
I think the question ‘is it art?’, or in this particular case ‘is a game art?’, is at its heart an arbitrary one in the most literal sense. That is i think the question is a proposition along the lines of ‘do we choose to bestow upon a game the status of “art”?’, or ‘do we judge a game worthy of the title of “art”?’. How the issue of whether or not to refer to a game as ‘art’ is resolved, and what that means in terms of consequences or otherwise, will be different for different groups ( be those groups individuals, cultures or societies ). One group might essentially be asking ‘did this game, or more specifically the rule set, and/or the components, and/or the playing of the game involve skill?’, whereas another group might essentially be asking ‘is this game, or more specifically the rule set, and/or the components, and/or the playing of the game aesthetically pleasing, valuable or worthwhile?’ The meaning and consequence of a game being referred to as art might be a license to say something otherwise considered taboo or illegal, or it might imply and even bestow financial worth.
The reason i point this out is because i want to ask is it worth us asking this question at all? Would it not be better to skip that question altogether and instead simply ask questions like those above that are about skill or aesthetics or financial compensation or free speech, and so on? Or even a question about what sort of status games have in society? I put it to you all that the question ‘is it art?’ is superficial and serves only to muddy the waters with a slew of questions that distract us from answering any one of them in any depth.
yep was perhaps worthwhile getting out of the way as a warm up where we can start to ask the others 🙂
I’d be up for fuller discussions on any of the topics you touched on in this episode. I think you could do a whole show discussing the Train game, the consequences of referring to the real world and real history, and the consequences of game design in relation to that, for example.
Also, I like the new XLBS.
Okay, here goes.
I don’t think this show is a Weekender: XLBS.
I think it is something new, something needed, something of a good start, but not a Weekender: XLBS.
My hazy memory of what an W:XLBS is, from its launch low these many many moons ago was something along the lines of a more relaxed take on the gaming world, where the crew talked about what they had been up to, hobby, etc, and also gave us Backstagers a peak behind the curtains as to the goings on at BoW HQ and what was planned for the future.
Basically escapist entertainment which people can easily paint to.
Those were the functions of an W:XLBS.
My categorising of this show would be:
Deep thinking
Well researched and thought out
Challenging
Political
Mature Content
Hardly escapist entertainment…or relaxing or an W:XLBS.
The warning for the type of show we got was sort of there in the description, but I’m not sure that many people read that before hitting play on the video.
My opinion – call it something else, layout what its function is and it will find the audience that you are looking for.
Have a competition for the new name….
You like competitions @warzan.
Discussion of Art –
Okay, I publish “art” on a number of websites, I work as a graphic designer and am trained and educated as an “artist.”
I keep putting “art” in quotes because despite, well, a certain amount of skill and … yes … some of my work I’m very proud of, I do not call myself or consider myself an “artist.”
I feel this is a word that gets kicked around waaaay too much.
Trying to come up with a definition of art I agree is very tough, I agree with @ludicryan that people have been trying to do this for thousands of years and frankly I don’t think will ever do it. Perhaps that is part of it’s definition, paradoxically, that it is undefinable.
On to the smaller question of whether games are “art,” at least for myself, the answer is pretty simple. No.
Art is something that is created by the artist, and then enjoyed / considered / reviled by an audience of some sort. The art doesn’t change. The audience does not participate in the art. They passively experience the art, whether it’s looking at a painting, reading a book, watching a movie, etc.
Games, by definition, are interactive. They are not “complete” until they are played. When I designed / built WW 2.5, it wasn’t “complete” until I stood there at the Team Yankee boot camp and watched veteran, knowledgeable wargamers try it out and really enjoy it (definitely the highlight of that weekend for me). They helped MAKE that game. The story they told on that table was partly mine, but partly theirs as well.
This brings up the very interesting points you guys were making about “does the game only become art when it’s played?”
I would agree that the game only becomes COMPLETE when it’s played.
But art? Again, not sure. Because if that were true, now every person who plays they game becomes an “artist” through the act of helping complete that game.
And again, way too many people I feel call themselves artists already, and the term is (at least for me) widely overused.
All that said – as a graphic designer and *ahem* artist (not really) and a game designer, I can certainly agree that a game has artistic elements in it. The box art, the rule book, the components, the miniatures, the game board, the cards, there is very often some amazing art IN a game.
But if your office building has a great sculpture in the lobby, does that make the whole building art?
Does that make the businesses in that building “art?”
No.
A game is an interactive system that, while it will certainly contain artistic elements of design, does not become art overall.
I think Graphic Design is Art. When I studied art at school (I use the term study broadly, I actually used it as an excuse to spend several hours a week drawing at school) we covered graphic design as part of the course. It’s definitely an art form, as is marketing. I don’t think it’s “fine art” in the sense that it’s going to end up in the tate modern being analysed by people who haven’t got a clue what they’re on about, but it’s definitely art.
@onlyonepinman – I certainly wasn’t trying to disparage any other graphic artists / designers out there. I suppose the only reason I don’t think of graphic design as “art” is because that would make me an “artist,” a title I’m honestly not comfortable with. Maybe I just don’t want to hold myself to that standard.
Just because I feel I do work that’s fine for a brochure or website or flier or digital signage or a PowerPoint deck or a poster … doesn’t mean I would want it hanging in a gallery somewhere … 😀 😀
Usually I just have some requirements and specs from a client or my boss, or design parameters in a game / article / gaming component, etc … and I do the best I can to apply some basic skill toward a given functional, communication, or commercial end.
Often feels more like construction than “art.”
Maybe you’re right, I’m thinking more along the lines of “fine art” rather than “art,” but again, now the definition of “art” is getting so broad as to be almost superfluous?
You have a great knack for bringing history to life (and at certain times of year complete fiction too). I think you have an artistry about you – many people here at BoW and in the Wargaming hobby do – and that’s without seeing any of your graphic design work.
But, you know you better than anyone and if you don’t like the title of “artist” far be it from me to disagree.
Thanks very much for the kind words! 😀
Interesting, so we stand on the two opposing sides of the debate about art and gaming.
I have to explain beforehand that language shapes my definition of art so I need to explain this first.
From a linguistic standpoint Art that has its root in Greek (yes, I was somehow surprised to find it too) refers essentially to something that is fits well and or is pleasing, surprisingly or not in my language the word for an Artist means a skilled craftsman and the word for craftsman means someone who “births/ creates” something.
So from a linguistic perspective anybody who creates something is a craftsman and a skilled craftsman that creates something that is well build and or pleasing is an artist.
My definition of art is when something provokes thoughts, mental stimulus, yes, even mundane, basic constructions can be elevated into art when they are so well made one can only stare in amazement at the skills of its creator, indeed many things can not be art, but excellence elevates them in art.
Games can be art, the fact that are interactive does not preclude them in been art, it means our definition of art has not yet matured to incorporate interactivity in art, like how we struggled to incorporate cinema as art in the past, but one can appreciate craftsmanship going into one.
Yes, games are a composite of different things and they can incorporate many disciplines themselves regarded as arts individually and yes, they need to be experienced (to be frank all art needs to be experienced, David stored in a crate in some basement is not art) to be completed, but that does not stop the completed whole to be appreciated as a form of art, a celebration of excellent craftsmanship provoking the awe and inspiration from those experiencing it, of course not all games can be art like not all pottery can be art, but games (like pottery) can be art when they pass the mundane function and cross the line of excellence.
One question that you created for me is if the experiencing element needs to evaluated for the game to be elevated, I can see both sides of the debate, an excellent creation needs an equally skilled and fit player to be seen and experienced at its best performance, while on the other hand one can suggest that an excellent creation can be appreciated for its craftsmanship regardless of the skill the experiencer has.
I gravitate more to the second since in traditional art the skill and knowledge of the observer does not preclude the appreciation of art, but an educated observer appreciates it more in a higher degree.
Edit forgot to add
I do not understand the concept of “it is art and anything goes”, art is not an excuse, its a level of achievement, you either reach it or not.
Great post, @psychoticstorm –
You bring up very interesting and valid points. It just sounds like we just have different definitions of the word, or at least different scopes by which that definition is applied.
“… refers essentially to something that is fits well and or is pleasing, surprisingly or not in my language the word for an Artist means a skilled craftsman and the word for craftsman means someone who “births/ creates” something.”
My only point would be, by that definition, the mechanic tho fixes my transmission in my car is an “artist.” It fits well, its pleasing when the car shifts from one gear to the next, and to do this requires a great deal of craftsmanship. I mean, I don’t “see” the transmission, but every time I shift my car, I experience his great (and expensive) work.
Please understand I’m certainly not trying to be argumentative here, it just seems that when definitions are this wide, so much can be applied to it as they definition soon becomes … hollow?
Again, I have tremendous respect for craftsmanship. When it comes to the work I do, I take far more pride in my craftsmanship than any ideas of “art.” My dad is a master craftsman that builds things with wood that would make most of us weep, I’ve never heard him call himself an “artist,” but has no shred of false modesty when it comes to “craftsmanship.”
A person can certainly appreciate craftsmanship but not be an “art critic” or a gallery curator.
I dunno, maybe I’m just putting the word “art” on too high of a pedestal, as I was saying to @onlyonepinman.
Definitions are vital for any discussion so if we can’t agree as to whether or not games are art we have to find something we can agree on before we go further. Let’s get Socratic up in this Bitch!!!!!
Assumptions: Boardgames are art.
A Car repaired by a mechanic is art.
Manitoba is Art.
A Stored crate is art.
The Painting of a Miniature is art.
TRAIN is art.
The Train Experience is art.
All art is required to be admired. (Admired in this circumstance would have the definition “To be viewed with an objective level of skill on behalf of the artist)”
All art is not always pleasant.
Art is only Art when deliberately intended to be such.
What do you guys think? What other definitions should we add and could any of these be altered?
If we accept the above as true then TRAIN would not be art since it was not designed to be art but rather a puzzle piece within a larger artistic work(the reveal and resulting reaction).
The entire experience (ie the playing and shock reveal) could be considered a form of art as it was meant to be admired and was deliberately meant to be art.
Manitoba would be art since it objectively took skill to invent a boardgame (designing a game takes skill regardless of other factors like an apparent total lack of research) it does not have to be pleasant and it was deliberately intended to be art.
A Mechanic fixing a car is not art since he does not have the intention to create art despite the fact that he does have an objective level of skill.
Storing a crate in abasement is not art even if done with the intent to be art since it requires no objective use of skill and is done by accident by people everyday.
The painting of miniatures may or may not be art depending on who paints them, how well it is done and why they do it. A Miniature undercoated Black is not art, a miniature painted to an award winning standard is art.
@elessar2590 – “Let’s get Socratic up in this Bitch!!!!!”
That comment is art. 😀
I’m not really sure that I would consider the train experiment to be art. The game is art because I personally consider games to be a form of art, however as I have said elsewhere I don’t really think that the experiment itself is particularly artistic. At best it’s social commentary at worst it’s a shitty prank.
Maybe I am just too blunt but I genuinely cannot see what message it is trying to convey, what it’s trying to tell us about ourselves. Is it saying don’t cram passengers into trains unless you know where the train is going? Is it trying to tell us people wouldn’t knowingly play a holocaust game but that they can be tricked into doing so? I cannot see any possible message in that game that provokes thought or emotion in me beyond thinking that the creators of the game are a bit dickish. And maybe attention grabbing.
Well it is a definition from a conceptual language about five thousand years old, the core word means create, but also fit together and be pleasing, I would hypothesise at the start of civilisation we gave more importance to practical art, or did not have the definition of recreation, so the base word for art comes from people creating things and the best creators, the ones that created the best and more pleasing things were the artists, as we evolved and recreation became more important we differentiate practical arts that have a function, they might be pretty and elaborate, but serve some function and fine arts crafts that do not serve a functional purpose other than recreation.
It is a logical evolution in my opinion, elaborate decorations on buildings became sculptures and mosaics, accounts of a hunt and explanations of the hunting trade became paintings and stories, even theatrical plays, detaching themselves from their practical usage and transforming themselves for recreational usage only.
I believe because fine arts serve no other purpose than recreation while practical arts are chained with functionality we have elevated fine arts above practical arts, probably this happened along our increasingly higher importance for our recreational time.
For example a sword is a functional item, it serves a purpose, it can be elevated to a really beautiful sword worthy of an individual of great status (and money to pay for it) but it must remain a functional item, if the craftsman goes beyond that and creates a sword that is really beautiful to behold but in the possess becomes too, heavy, imbalanced, impractical to use, the sword has passed from the realm of practical art to the realm of fine arts, the only reason one would want it is because of how it looks a recreational item.
Maybe because of this transition from “mundane” and functioning to purely recreational we place fine arts above practical arts.
But in my belief both forms of art are art and have their own artists.
Should we consider a mechanic that has fine tuned a car in such a fine balance that is a joy to drive even purely for enjoying the experience of driving such a smooth ride an artist? it is an interesting question, a really interesting question indeed, the mechanic has not created any of the elements but the fine balance the car experiences is his work, its a nice question on were we define the line of something been an art and not been an art, I would say the definition is the key, creation, the mechanic has not created the car, everything was components others created and one can experience their excellent design in unison with the car, the car designer on the other hand who selected all the components and put them together, with his own additions of course is an a artist, but is his creation a fine art? no the car serves its purpose and has a function, one can make the extreme claim that the car itself as a whole if it is driven just for the joy of experiencing the ride could be considered an object of fine art, but I would argue that it is still grounded on practical usage, in the same way a cathedral can be a work of art, but it still serves a purpose, elements of both could be considered fine art, the painting of the car, the statues/ paintings of the cathedral, but the overall structure is one of function.
A caveat here in my opinion a practical art can be elevated to fine art without loosing its form, but this can only be done when its intended purpose is completely disregarded and stripped for its existence, these odd situations exist but are so extremely rare I cannot think of a proper example.
I will try to make an example, lets assume a graphic artist makes an illustration for an escape rout from a building, its clear well understood and serves its function exemplary, it is fine, but, if somebody is so charmed with a copy of this illustration that takes it and frames it to his house then the illustration, for this person at least, has passed from the realms of practical art to the realms of fine art.
To sum up I believe every creative process is an art and every creator is an artist, not all arts are the same and the distinction between arts that serve a functional purpose and the ones that serve only recreational purposes are important, but one should not disregard practical creators as non artists.
Now we come into games, games are ancient composite creations that incorporate many different arts themselves, I do consider them art because in my point of view they are creations of a game designer who brought the different elements of the game, some themselves practical art and some themselves fine art, together to create something unique to be experienced interactively, are games as a whole practical art or fine art? I do not know.
The digital gaming industry at the moment pushes for fine arts (correctly in my opinion, but with wrong justifications and for the wrong reasons), physical game industry has not made a case for themselves, I would say the composite nature and the interactivity games must have to be games, make them a special case maybe games as a whole will transition to fine arts, maybe some sub-genre will transition to fine arts and others sub-genre like educational games will become practical, maybe games are a caveat case like above and the person experiencing them personally elevates them to fine art.
Now I really need to state again, been a piece of art is not an excuse, especially for fine art were this phrase is usually used, fine art has a recreational purpose and the root meaning is a creation that is well fit and pleasing, shock for the purpose of been shock is not an excuse.
Okay, on the vein of talking about more serious topics, and discussing more openly …
@ludicryan – I have to say I 100% disagree with what seems to be your position on drone warfare.
Like you say, probably a discussion for another episode.
That said, if your position is more about what is predominantly American foreign policy (because let’s not kid ourselves, a discussion on “drone warfare” is about the United States, and you have to expect some reaction from American military veterans of which there are plenty in this community), or if your objections are about the use of military power without proper oversights / civilian regulation, that’s another discussion in which we might find much more common ground.
But once a nation decides to go to war, or take military action, to take drones off the table is just something I can’t even begin to agree with on any level.
This sounds like crossbows all over again. It was considered dishonourable for a peasant to use one and kill a Knight – who was obviously the peasants better. Why use drones when you can send a manned aircraft to do the exact same job!
Well, again … it depends on the exact question that’s being “disagreed with” here.
There are episodes in which drones have been used that were very questionable. One that comes to mind was an American citizen who left the country, went to Yemen (I believe), joined a terrorist cell, and started planning, supporting, and carrying out terrorist acts in the ongoing war there.
A drone was used to take him (and others) out.
There was a lot of uproar.
But was the uproar actually about using the drone, or about “executing an American citizen” for criminal acts without due process? That person was, from a certain point of view, sentenced and executed without a trial.
Who cares if a drone was used? Would it have been all right if SEAL Team Six kicked down his door and put “two in the chest, one in the head?” Did the read Osama bin Laden his Miranda Rights first?
Whether or not the US should be taking military action (be it drones, cruise missiles, SpecOps, conventional bombing, or other options) against certain targets in certain countries, based on whose intelligence, whose targeting criteria, with what congressional or judicial oversight, etc … is a valid and open question.
But drones as a military asset are not inherently “evil” or objectionable. On the contrary, they are inexpensive, put far fewer people at risk, are far more accurate that conventional bombing, carry far less collateral damage than cruise missiles, can be recalled up to the last moment unlike artillery or some cruise missiles / smart bombs / glide bombs, JDAMs, etc … Never mind the fact that something like 98% of drone sorties are still surveillance only.
Oh, and they don’t put our people at risk. Call me biased, but as an American military veteran, I think that’s important.
Don’t get me wrong, even once a decision is made to take military action, certain weapons should remain off the table (nuclear, biological, chemical assets, most obviously). But I don’t think drones are anywhere near that line.
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but a couple of points I would make.
– If an individual drone strike typically causes much less collateral damage than other methods, isn’t it likely that you might choose to use it more frequently than other methods (or in situations where you wouldn’t even consider traditional bombing)? As such, might that frequent use mean the net number of unintended casualties could be much higher? I don’t know, I’d want to see data before making a conclusion, but I could imagine it might be true.
– I have some trouble with the “our” people point. An innocent human life doesn’t have more value because they are American vs an innocent human who happens to be in the vicinity of someone not-so-innocent. That might not be what you meant, so apologies if I am misunderstanding.
– Kind of in relation to the previous point, if you do decide as a nation that you have the right to end another human beings life, without due process, what price is it acceptable for you to pay? What I mean is, is it reasonable to say a SpecOps team that can make the decision on the ground whether to shoot or not, is the better option. Yes, it increases the risk of loss of your own soldiers, but is that a reasonable price to pay to be allowed to say “kill this person for their crimes, without trial”. Especially if the alternative is, “kill this person, and possibly some innocent people near them”. That being said, again, I don’t know the data on SpecOps vs Drone collateral damage, it might be that it isn’t much better, in which case, the preservation of those soldiers lives might well be the balancing point.
I do agree though, not the best format for this type of discussion, and one better done elsewhere. So I hope I haven’t caused offence or misconstrued anything here.
Good evening, @davehawes –
I’ve tried to write this post a couple of times and it keeps coming out too harsh. Which is absolutely the very last thing I want to do.
We see the world, and the concept of war, very differently.
I appreciate the restraint, something I am sure I would struggle with were the situation reversed. I hope we can one-day agree to disagree on the topic in civil discourse and over a pint. Not that this hasn’t been civil, it’s just lacked beverages or the better context of face to face to discussions.
Bit of a Historical Misconception.
Who gave the peasants the Crossbows? Knights and Noblemen. If they considered it an evil and immoral why would they themselves have done it?
The Crossbow wasn’t treated any differently to any other Missile weapon other than it was viewed as a way to quickly arm untrained and unfit peasants. An Archer took years of training to build up the strength required to draw a Longbow whereas anyone can pull a Crossbow trigger.
Yes the Pope did ban the use of crossbows against fellow Christians but in that exact same decree he also banned the use of Bows and Slings against fellow Christians so the whole thing is pretty irrelevant.
It also wasn’t dishonorable to kill someone who outranked you on a battlefield, otherwise Knight’s wouldn’t be able to kill a Duke or a Duke kill a King.
The reason Knights didn’t like Crossbowman killing too many other Knights was that it was costing them money.
If you captured a Knight or a Nobleman you could ransom them back for quite a lot of money but if you killed one then you got nothing. So you wanted to kill enough of the enemy to be able to defeat him but not so many that you unnecessarily cost yourself ransom money.
It’s a simplification as with most of history there is a lot more to it. However the pope banned the use of crossbows (and archers) against Christians as being an affront to God. It wasn’t necessarily adopted (nor is the position of not using drones, quite the opposite in fact). The comparison really is that there was opposition to the effectiveness of a weapon that could kill at range with less risk to the user – much like drones.
Quite simply I’ll not be talking about drone warfare here. For so many reasons.
This subject deserves the proper time and consideration which I fear so many of us don’t have, including myself. As you have hinted, there are many threads and strands which a conversation on drone warfare weaves into including American foreign policy, protection of ground troops, collateral damage, mental health issues of drone pilots, colonial legacies, postcolonialism, oversight, regulation, shoddy intelligence oh and the murder of innocent men, women, and children.
Also, the original discussion is how Bycatch uses its mechanics to talk about drone warfare. I’d rather keep on message with this one (of course deeper topics are encouraged).
What I would say is that before you 100% disagree with somebody on a position they have, do check exactly what their position is. Let us not spill ink over imagined grievances my friend 🙂
No worries, sir. I would only add that in the segment the position seemed pretty clear.
But we can bring it up on another thread sometime. Or even over a pint when I head over there in a couple weeks. 😀
Firstly I haven’t read ANY of the previous comments before posting this (deliberately). So apologies if I am repeating something already said.
Second I am going to stay well away from discussions about Political Correctness and Freedom of Speech. I think that’s an entirely separate topic that’s only tangentially linked to art. “Because it’s Art” is not a justification for anything. Anything that can be expressed artistically can be expressed in a none artistic way and should still be considered equally valid and tolerable. Freedom of Expression in gaming could be another topic however I personally don’t differentiate between “gaming” and real life when it comes our liberties so for me that wouldn’t really be a gaming related topic.
So, disclaimers aside, Are games art. I started off thinking that no, they aren’t. However as I analysed that in my head I came to the conclusion that games are art. The reason for this is simple really and it all stems from story telling. Story telling is both a form of entertainment, a form of education and an art and once upon a time (see what I did there?) stories were entirely verbal. Then someone had the bright idea of writing them down. I wonder, did they discuss whether written stories were art? Either way we now consider them to be art. Then came the play, and then the film and more recently the video game. Each one is considered an art form in its own right as an evolution of story telling or education. Games do exactly the same things, although they can be used for other purposes such as gambling, they primarily serve to entertain and to educate. Even games like chess and cards teach us things like strategy and probability and of course some games also tell us stories. So in that regard, yes I think games are art, however eome games probably have more artistic merit than others (I don’t rate Cards Against Humanity’s artistic merit particularly highly, but it’s still there none the less).
In the interests of honesty I have a bias in so far as I heavily favour narrative games or games with very strong real world themes that really mask the mathematical engine behind the game. Because I value storytelling so highly, it would stand to reason that I view games as a story telling medium and as such can justify them that way. Obviously your own mileage may vary – if you’re purely interested in the game mechanics then I can see that maybe you don’t see games as particularly arty.
With Regards to the Brenda Romero Train game, although I have actually conceded that games are an art form, I would say that if I were to disagree that games are an art, that Brenda Romero’s train game would not constitute art. The experiment itself could be dressed up as “art” in the same way that any old shite can be dressed up as art if you talk about it the right way. What she did is more of a social experiment, a piece of social commentary. It’s interesting but personally I do not rate it as art.
I’m also not entirely sure what message the experiment was trying to convey that we didn’t already know – that the holocaust was abhorrent and people are rightly reviled by it. I don’t know, did she expect that some people wouldn’t be a little put off by the subject matter of the game when it was revealed?
I guess she proved that context matters maybe? Groundbreaking.
In terms of the opening question, I don’t view games as art – they can have aesthetic value in their design, but for me art needs to be created with the intention of being art and sharing a message first and foremost. Games are created to be played/enjoyed first and foremost which precludes them from being art as far as i am concerned. (Based on this definition i would argue that the “train game” isn’t really a game just performance art masquerading as a board game.)
Also “it’s art” isn’t a defence from anything as far as i am concerned. It maybe art, but it can still be racist, bigoted etc, etc. Saying it is art isn’t a get out of jail free card to do as you please. TBH it actually opens you up for more criticism as the piece now needs to stand up to a much higher level of scrutiny than if they had said “it’s just a board game, it isn’t meant to be factually accurate”. (not sure if i broke one of the rules there or not!).
Finally, i would echo some of the previous comments, that while this was an interesting discussion, I would personally prefer this not be be a XLBS but something separate. XLBS to me is something fun to be listened to in the little free time i have before my family wake up on a Sunday, that takes me behind the scenes at OTT/BOW, and this is not that show. I also think that serious topics deserve their own space/show/podcast as there is obviously demand for the content and it seems the shame to always have it fight for space with more light hearted content.
Anyway that is my two penneth worth!
What a wonderful XLBS, I love the new format. There’s so much to unpack in this one! I don’t even know where to start, but I WILL say, as for the alex jones thing, he was making up lies about people and trying to say things that were patently false. It’s one thing to have an opinion, but when he gets his followers on board and they too harass innocent people, and parents mourning the deaths of their children, he needs to be shut down. What he does/did is absolutely beyond the pale.
On something else for a sec. As for inclusion, etc. There’s is a GREAT deal of toxicity within the gaming sphere, and all you have to do is check a handful of warhammer facebook groups or a few you-tubers and see just how toxic/gate keepery (not a word, I know) some within the community are (ie archwarhammer, sargon of akkad or whatever it is). Those people along with many more, want all gaming to be exclusive to cis, white, straight, hetero normative only circles.
The world is changing, and there are too many people who refuse to see it, or accept that fact. I bailed from gaming for nearly a decade because of this. Local communities where i was before were awful to women, or lgbtq+ folks wanting to get stuck in to “their hobby”. I am lucky, I have found a great (for the most part) community where I am now.
Hope everyone has/had a great weekend and a wonderful week.
100% with you on this one @shamanatdawn . Glad you enjoyed the format and hope you stick with us! 🙂
In my experience the concept of toxicity is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As soon as you tar a group of people with the toxicity brush, they immediately become toxic even though they probably weren’t toxic before, they just had a different opinion to you.
The general run of events leading to something being toxic is this:
1) A hobby exists and a group of people enjoy that hobby and have done for a long time.
2) Someone joins the hobby and decides they would enjoy it more if some changes were made (these could be anything but are usually related to some form of political correctness).
3) Some people agree and decide that those changes would improve the game.
4) Other people disagree and decide those changes would not improve the game.
5) Name calling and insults ensue as the two camps polarise. The people who want to see changes made accuse those who don’t of being toxic. Those who don’t want to see changes made accuse the people who do of being overly PC or SJWs.
It happens over and over again and it always happens in exactly the same way. But the thing is, it’s not a crime to want things to be a little different, nor is it a crime not to want the things you like to change. They’re both totally valid, non toxic points of view, the toxicity starts because neither side is really prepared to make any form of compromise. These things don’t start out toxic, they become toxic and I absolutely assure you the people wanting things to change are every bit as toxic as those who don’t.
happy Sunday folks.
aren’t we all in the Matrix any way ???
Art I like most art I may not like some of the objects that’s ok but if it looks like a bag of rubbish then I just think that’s rubbish why is that shit in the Tate or what ever, other people have spent time to make something beautiful but that’s in its place. their is many people out their that seam to take offence on behalf of other people they don’t even know. you should get Lloyd to make a BOW FM jingle for the end of the show/pod @warzan
The “what is art” conversation one is that I am a bit obsessed with. As someone who is a big fan of a lot of things that are considered the lowest forms of art. Genre movies (in particular trashy slasher and horror movies), heavy metal music and to a certain extent tabletop game. There seems to be an opinion that art has to be “saying something” to be considered legitimate, but why can’t arts function be purely for entertainment. Why is Friday The 13th less of a film than Schindlers List for example. Yes, their aims are very different but I think they both succeed at what they are trying to do. I think it’s the same with games. Warhammer 40,000 has a very different aim than the ByCatch game that you mentioned (which sounds amazing). 40k is such a popular game and succeeds in what it tries to do (not for everyone of course) but is it any less art than ByCatch just because it has a different intention.
I think a lot of it is snobbery. There are certain people that would NEVER consider a board game as art. In the same way that people would never consider Metallica as art.
Happy Sunday to all. What an interesting show. I love that you are trying new ideas about what is XLBS. If you can’t experiment and grow with this group where can you? I really enjoyed the discussion and am looking forward to more in future. Keep up the great work, folks.
Just a quick 2p about the concept of the show. I enjoyed it. I want to see/hear (I listened to the download as a podcast as it happens) more stuff like this – serious, round table discussionns about serious issues. There is definitely a place for this on the channel.
But I hope we don’t totally lose the old knockabout banter-style XLBS shows as the cost of this.
I appreciate there isn’t time or resource for everything, but if there’s to be no more “Justin’s mind melter” or Lloyd banging on about Dust anymore, I will be a sad bunny!
Boy, this is a really cool discussion. Going to throw my ramblings into the fire here. I believe that not all games, are art. Why? Football(soccer)and Football(American rules) are not art, but they are games. Water Polo is not art, but it is a game. Most sports games are games but not art. Are there board games that are not art. Yes. Tick Tac Toe is not art, it is a game simplified down to a simple mechanic. Is Go art? Again, I would say no. It is a game, but it is pure strategy, there are no artistic components to it. The pieces can be different colored rocks or wooden cubes or marbles. Now to get really controversial. Is Warhammer 40k art? My answer is both yes and no. If you took a blank white sheet of paper and moved stat blocks around that piece of paper, you could play 40k, and there would be nothing artistic about it. It would be just a strategy game and nothing more(Can strategies be artistic? I would argue yes, but for the sake of this discussion please just let me skate over this one for the moment). The art of 40k comes from the Miniatures, and the buildings, and the vehicles, and the maps (looking at you deep cut studios), and it is in the lore and fluff that EVOKES images and feelings in your mind that makes it art. At the opposite end of the spectrum, there are games that art is the key component of the game. Dixit and Mysterium come to mind here. Where art is used to evoke a story or a connection between the players.
The case of Manitoba really shouldn’t be about if it is or is not art. The real issue here is one of Cultural Sensitivity and where the line between art and cruelty might be. If they had said that the tribe was a fictional tribe set in Manitoba, or even just loosely based on the Cree tribe, while some of their cultural stereotypes might have been frowned upon, they might have dodged this whole kerfuffle. If you are going to base your game on a real group of people or a real person or a real place, I think you should take the time to be as accurate as possible. There are plenty of Canadian Indigenous Peoples that use totems, and it would have taken little effort to find a tribe that suited their needs. It was lazy, culturally insensitive, and just poor game design. It is the 21st century, research is easy and fast and to not have done it is just weak. Their response did not help their cause either.
So makes anything art? For something to be art, it has to generate a human response. It has to EVOKE some feeling or reaction or response for something or a game to go from being a thing to art. Did it make you laugh, did it make you feel scared or anxious, did it make you angry, did it make you recognize it for it’s beauty, its art or at the very least artistic.
Now for my take on this version of the XLBS. I like this show. I think this is an amazing new thing, that needs to continue and grow. It does not feel right for the XLBS. Its Sunday, this is too heavy, too serious, and too intellectual for Sunday morning. There is no, ‘and relax’ for this show. It should become its own amazing talk roundtable discussion. I don’t think it should replace what the XLBS has always been. This show is something new and exciting. Is there a different new direction that the XLBS can go in, sure. I just don’t feel this is it. If you did this as a serious topic on the XLBS old version, you would be looking forward to the community responses, and would be ready to read some on the next show. I don’t see that happening here.
Sorry @rgreenparadox, I have to disagree with you that football (soccer) isn’t a work of art. I believe it is, or a particular game can be.
I’ve had very emotional reactions to games played by the New Zealand national team, particularly during the two times they qualified for the World Cup. Those two campaigns make for some brilliant stories. And a well told story surely can be called a piece of art.
I also think not just goals can be a thing of beauty, but even a single, simple, well execute pass that leaves a player in the open, or an attacking player’s turn that leaves a defender flatfooted.
Good points. I think I would disagree that the pure mechanics of a game CANNOT be art. I would say they aren’t always (at a purely subjective level) but that there is an element of art in any aspect of design. I know Oriskany disagrees with me on this, but I feel that if a human being puts a lot of time and energy into crafting a spectacularly designed mechanic that makes you gasp, I would class that as art. A game in that category I would suggest was Alessio Cavatore’s very 1st edition of Kings of War, where he created on 8 sides of paper an entire rank-and-flank wargame. That right there for me is the art of minimalism. If a grey square canvas with an orange stripe on it
) can be art, then I would say that an elegant rules concept can be too – simply by dint of its reductionist ethos.
Of course in all of this, there is “good” and “bad” art, but that is an entirely subjective idea. To be art there only has to be an emotional response, not necessarily a good one.
As an English man who has lived in Canada for 25yrs, one thing I have learned is that the indigenous people in Canada are a very proud people who are more connected with there past than we are, It seems like the makers of the Manitoba game have done little to no research into the Cree people whos name they have chosen to use.
Its as shame that we have to discus topics like this on OTT, but I commend Warren and the others for tackling this and I look forwards to seeing what comes next.
“the indigenous people in Canada are a very proud people who are more connected with there past than we are”
This is the exact sort of thing I was hoping we could avoid. The Wise and Noble American Indian vs Ignorant Westerner.
How are we Europeans/Americans/Westerners less connected to our past?
We can trace every aspect of our Western Philosophy back to the originator (Socrates) and follow it pretty clearly through the years (Locke, Say, Kant, Nietzsche, Montesquieu, Rousseau) to where it’s at now. We have dedicated countless time and resources to preserve and record our History for thousands of years. Even today we spend billions of dollars a year preserving, discovering and expanding our knowledge of our past.
Imagine if the Company had responded with “Well the Cree are less connected to their past than we are so we took some liberties”. It would have erupted into a storm of Racism Accusations yet somehow the reverse isn’t true?
I know this is getting off topic of the original article but I thought I’d have a crack at answering the question: “How are we Europeans/Americans/Westerners less connected to our past?”
I speak as a Londoner who has lived in New Zealand for the vast majority of his life, and all of his adult life, and has a growing respect for the native Maori peoples, something, I’m sorry to say, that wasn’t always the case for me.
The Maori I observe most often are on TV, usually on a political show or documentary.
Maori elders talk a lot about their peoples connection to the land, rivers, sea shore and sea. There was (and in some places kind of still is) a collective ownership of the land. New Zealand wasn’t parcelled off into blocks of land so that individuals or corporations could own it until the colonialists arrived.
The Maori connection to their environment appears (I haven’t studied it well enough to be sure) to be of a spiritual nature… Something that western thinking dropped long ago and is perhaps the lesser for it.
I am reminded of the great philosopher Douglas Adams, in his treatise “The Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy”, examined who, after the pan-dimensional beings appearing as mice on our plain of existence, was the next smartest form of live on planet Earth…. Man or Dolphin.
By the gods that man was smart.
But is a connection to your environment the same as a connection to your past? I live in the North of England, one of the old industrial heartlands of the UK and I am incredibly proud of the heritage of the region and some of the things that have come out of it. The same too of my country, England and/or the UK; I look back at Britain’s history and see a millennium of history since the formation of England as we know it and all of the things the people of this little island have achieved – good and bad. I think it’s really ignorant to suggest that people of a European heritage are less connected to their past than anyone else because we’re not. If nothing else the liberal traditions, of which almost all of Western Civilisation is built, is fundamentally part of our past. We aren’t just connected to our history, we enjoy the benefits of it everyday.
I will agree that we’re possibly less connected to our environment due to industrialism, and possibly less spiritual although I don’t think that is necessarily a bad or a good thing
Who’s to say that the history in the book’s is the real history the old adage history is written by the victors is as true to day as it always is and will be twisted to make the good guys better and the enemy worce look at the news Russia is the cause of everything because their the booby men of the moment with the amount of crap stories about we will never know the true storylines.
Well, I suppose it really depends on who higgy meant when he used the pronoun ‘we’. 🙂
The group he included within his use of ‘we’ is apparently less connected to the past than the group he observed in order to make his determination. It is not necessarily the same group of people that are included in your composition of ‘we’. 🙂
Beast’s of War has just grown up!
Happy Sunday!
Ok, a lot to unpack here. Some easy-ish points first.
– I 100% agree with Warren when it comes to blanket freedom of expression. I’ve discussed it with many people over the years, and I realise it doesn’t come without cost, but in the end, I think the cost of limiting freedom of expression is always far greater. I do think if you are going to say you are a news organisation, or something you publish is news, you should be legally held to a higher standard for fact-checking. However, news is a very specific thing, different from personal expression.
– I have been into politics, ethics and philosophy for years. I stopped watching Question Time in the end though, because I just got too angry, upset and frustrated. It wasn’t good for my mental or emotional health. The world is in a bad place right now and needs people to fight the good fight politically. However I am not taking up that cause as much as I used to, and I might never do so again. Life is full of sacrifice, compromise and stress, BoW has long been a refuge from that. A place where I know nothing too difficult will be discussed, and I can relax and chat about the hobby I love. I think the questions raised here are important ones and need discussing. However it isn’t what I come to BoW for, and if this is the nature of future XLBS, I may stop watching for the same reason I stopped watching Question Time. Not because it wasn’t important, but just the toll it takes on me is the opposite of what I need when I come here.
– De-platforming, in relation to my first point, I have to agree with Warren again. If you set out your stall as saying “these are the rules of what can and cannot be discussed on this platform, with the limits of the law”, if you then choose to censure something you find personally taboo, you don’t help the discussion. I think of the law (I think it was colloquially known as section 28) that made it illegal to promote homosexuality in schools in the UK. A lot of people as the time came for its repeal, found LGBT+ rights a taboo topic, they would have de-platformed it on that basis. We can only understand something if we discuss it, I truly believe lives of teenagers were saved by the repeal of that law, and that could only happen by allowing people to discuss things that some felt uncomfortable discussing. My point is, you can’t only support breaking taboos and controversial topics when you agree with the thing being considered taboo. I do not agree with Alex Jones at all, but I do defend his right to express those views, and for others to criticise them in return.
– The Manitoba thing. I don’t think such a game should be censured, regardless of what comes next, I might well choose not to buy it though. I think they would have been ok to say “I’m sorry, I didn’t intend offence, the point of the game isn’t this, so we’ll change it.”. I think since they more or less came out in defence of their choices, they need to own that a little more. Only in understanding the nuance behind that decision can I really tell if I would be at a point of saying “ok you guys are intentionally denigrating another culture with this game, that is something I am very much against”. Or something else, right now, they need to clarify their design choices further for me to make a call.
Are games art? I was thinking I was going to have to come here and defend them (I am as certain as I can be of anything, that games are art). Instead, I find the team have broadly done a good job of already expressing this. Still, when I worked in the video games industry this was often a hotly discussed topic. A very intelligent write-up of why video-games should not be considered art was published on a popular industry site, and in 2011 I wrote my own rebuttal to this piece. I’ve included it below, spelling and grammar mistakes and all (I didn’t have Grammarly then)! Although this was aimed at videogames, many of the same points apply (and the same counter-points!)
Full warning: Some religious views are expressed towards the end of this….
”
I am going to try for something really likely to set people frothing. The whole “are games art?” debate. Mostly because I read this well researched and well thought out article http://goo.gl/YyYVJ I am sure its no surprise I don’t agree with its conclusions, but its a good shot at making an objective discussion. If you don’t know, I work in the games industry as a programmer and have done for the better part of a decade at the time or writing. I apologise for rambling, bad English, bad spelling and bad grammar, but it is late and I never excelled in those areas.
So here are my thoughts
1) The idea that if something is “interactive” it can’t possibly be art due to the loss of author intent.
There are two problems with this premise. First is that no “traditional” art is interactive. I have been to plenty of modern art exhibitions (mostly at the excellent Baltic Centre in Gateshead) that had various pieces that required physical exploration where as a viewer I had quite a lot of options for how I viewed the art. Though perhaps the counter-argument to that would be that, those things are “not as interactive as games” or “are themselves not art”.
So I move onto my second point about interactive content. Whilst some games strive to be as interactive as possible, they are only a few and they have their limits. In fact, most games try and create a highly authored experience. They try and create a sense of immersion and lead a player by the nose through various different experiences that unfolds a story and/or gameplay. The actual “choice” in terms of changing what the game is fundamentally about is usually incredible limited, if there at all. Some developers dream of allowing a player to truly author their destiny within the world, but many focus on actually trying to take the players on a particular journey. Most things that occur within a game that is interactive, are themselves only interactive within the intent and limits set by the “author”.
Certainly, you can fulfil the criteria of leading an audience steadily to a conclusion.
2) Arguing about “Art” is so subjective outside of games, how on earth can we make any progress on this kind of discussion.
Perhaps an odd point to bring this up, but people who earn a living as “artists” and as “critics” and a bunch of other people argue endlessly over whether or not a particular thing is Art or not. Given that discussion amongst experts on these objects often have no conclusion, doesn’t that mean arguing about games, in general, is a hopeless business?
However, that said, there are a few things that are very old that some reasonable number of experts and a majority of “laymen” will agree is art. So presumably we can do the same for games? Well, I think the problem is that there are no games that have achieved the kind of complexity and far enough into history for there to be enough consensus on them. It might be that in fifty years time, people will call certain contemporary games examples of Art.
3) Its a compound of things that can be Art, but it isn’t Art.
The argument here is that a beautifully made model and texture, might be art, the story might be art or even Art, but the game itself is merely a presentation of these things, the game itself is not Art.
The problem I have with this argument is that, if you consider some film Art (which Moriarty and Ebert appear to) then if you apply this argument, then the film can’t be. The script tells a story which is Art, but its just presented in the film. The set might be Art, but the film isn’t because the set is just in it. The individual shots might be artistic images, but one play after another in a sequence itself is not art, only the individual images.
I agree that film is art, and from that perspective, I think this compound argument clearly falls down.
4) Lets say the definition of art is something that not only triggers an emotional response but one that is not expected and makes the audience think about their lives differently as a consequence of the experience.
Ok, this one is tough, games (like a lot of films) are often made to make money, rather than to make a point. There have been games created with the intention of education (edutainment dare I say!) but is that the definition of Art, that it has to somehow be educational?
Ok spoiler from Bioshock 1 now, so if you haven’t played it, skip to the next point. In Bioshock you are for a long part of the game given your objectives by a character in the narrative who has a chirpy Irish accent and a number of “catchphrases”, critically the “thank you kindly!” phrase. It is part of the accepted semiotics of games that you get some kind of unseen “narrator” who tells you what to do and where to go. Now having played lots of games, game players accept this, they could just sit there, or try and do something else, but like many games, Bioshock doles out some objectives and you set about doing those objectives.
Bioshock has a lovely story and a beautiful (at times breathtaking) undersea dystopian sci-fi setting, a land of political idealism and genetic technology gone wrong. Later in the story, we learn our Irish narrator and guide is, in fact, a nefarious villain who has been manipulating us from the start. In fact, we find he encoded in our very DNA the tendency to obey any command he gave that ended with the phrase “Thank you kindly”. This is a very clever moment because as the player we have been duped. We didn’t have to do what we were asked to do, but we did, and we believe we did it because well just like the character we play in the game, we thought those were our objectives. Yet it is revealed that we had no choice. This can be seen as a commentary on the very nature of free will in games itself, the illusion of choice (which I talk about in 1) ), it is a fantastic reveal, memorable and certainly made me think differently about games if not my life. He goes on to order you to kill someone who begs you to fight against your programming, its a very powerful moment in the game.
So I hear you cry, clever as it was, a good “twist” does not make Art. How about the famous death of Floyd in infocoms planetfall. The death of an NPC character who had aided the player lead to numerous players weeping, and feeling a genuine sense of loss. It is arguable that that in itself is an educational experience. Critics will say though that since the game was a text-adventure, it’s really an example of interactive fiction and therefore not a game.
Ok, I am not a huge final fantasy fan myself, but what about the oft-cited Final Fantasy 7. It contains an emotionally compelling storyline when a certain character dies it is used to motivate the player to hunt down the hated enemy and murderer of said character. Some people would argue that that is storyline not the game itself. Now I could refer you to my debunking of the compound argument in point 3) but I think there is a little more to it here. The fact the game is so long (potentially many tens of hours) and because you spend so much time with these characters, in and out of cutscenes in battles and so on, you develop a kind of attachment to them that is more akin to something found when reading a book or watching a TV series. This attachment is further enhanced by the fact you can feel on edge with them as you just about scrape through one fight or another, (the same can be said for books and TV, but the immersion here can be greater). That means the motivation you feel is quite genuine and strong. Moriarty would argue that is an example of Kitch, a strong an emotional response that was expected. Though I think it is only truly Kitch if the person experiencing the emotion expected to experience it (otherwise, everything, where anyone could ever work out what emotion you were supposed to feel, would be Kitch, and by Moriartys definition, not Art). What about the parallels drawn between the protagonist and his nemesis, (right down to certain special in-game abilities, extending this parallel beyond the narrative), which force you to consider if you are really like the enemy. This touches on themes of identity, and the ethics of vengeance, even if the ending is ultimately somewhat Hollywood in its pay off, these are genuine questions posed to the player.
What about MGS3’s questions about the nature of war? What about the hugely philosophical adventure RPG Planescape Torment, great characters, plenty of moral ambiguity, trust issues, but did it change the way I viewed life personally, probably not. How about Mass Effect 1 & 2, incredibly games, and certainly I felt some grief for the guy I lost on my playthrough of ME2. Actually, the whole genophage storyline, and especially in ME2 when you meet Mordins wayward pupil, who is busy performing unethical experiments, trying to undo the effects of a previous possibly unethical experiment is very thought-provoking. When we see Mordin himself who has not questioned his species interference with another species ability to reproduce for so long, when finally confronted with what his pupil has done, he starts to question his own beliefs. Certainly that was thought-provoking enough that I couldn’t quite puzzle out the right and wrong of it. In the first game, it seems fairly clear that the genophage was the evil work of an overzealous government, but Mordin who is otherwise a reasonable and decent chap has a number of arguments in its favour. I would again argue that it is the animation and audio work, combined with the script, combined with going on death-defying adventures with these characters that gives them their life and thus earns them my empathy and in so doing allows there quandaries to engage me. That whole sub-plot asks a fairly big question about “is science bad or good” and does a good job of providing the answer “it depends how it is used, but that is not always easy to determine”, which is an important lesson to learn, I think for some people that really could change their outlook on life.
Certainly, I think the tools are there in games to make people think, and the idea that they could never be Art for that reason, I think I have shown it is a matter of time if we are not already there.
5) Craftsmanship and Skill alone does not an Artist make, or so Moriarty/Ebert seem to claim.
Consider the guitar player, a classical virtuoso perhaps. They certainly can exist in a state of “flow” at the peak of their performances, just on the edge of failure carrying out high dexterity lightning fast co-ordination. This takes years of practice, great skill, and produces something that is quite beautiful and often moving. However it did not change the way I think about the world, it may not even be at all creative. That is to say, the performance itself may be of music someone else has written. So is that performance Art? According to Moriarty/Ebert, no it is not. Ok what if it was improvised, does that mean its Art? Improvised music is often about listening to other players around you and then using techniques (and in some case music theory) to help you get into that groove, and play something that compliments what you hear. At that point, you are being creative, and you are using a degree of skill, but you may not be trying to lead your audience to any sort of conclusion, and its certainly a highly interactive experience as a player in a group you are both experiencing and creating Art. I think most people would agree that skilled improvised music is Art, even if some critics didn’t? For that reason, I think this argument does not hold up.
6) Its all just a load of maths, and that can’t possibly be Art.
I think the idea that fundamentally art and maths are different things is one of the most tragic misunderstandings of human history. Now I think Matthew Holton put it well when he said: “The difference between an invention and a discovery is that you can change an invention after it has been an invented, you can’t change a discovery”. What I mean is, there are some things (fractals (maths), perspective(art)) which are discovered, they are found, understood and are unchanging within our framework of understanding them. Others are invented (Analytical Surface Equations(Maths, thinking NURBS and extensions thereof), Todd Lockwood’s Dragons(Art)). Maths can be elegant and beautiful when applied alongside the structure of code and computer science I think you can see patterns of function and form as moving as any symphony. The cartesian equation of a circle is something that fascinates me. No matter how perfect a machine you build to draw a circle, no matter how small (even an atoms width!) pen you use to draw it on no matter how flatter piece of paper, at some level of magnification your circle will have imperfections. A perfect circle cannot exist in the physical world in that sense. However in maths, it can be represented by an equation that is absolutely perfect, it really is exactly that, more real than reality.
Computer games are made using maths, but so is architecture. Some of the beauty we see in games comes from maths, sometimes new game mechanics are made possible because of advances in our use of mathematics in games. These might constitute Art, but the idea that maths alone precludes Art is equally nonsense.
7) We are still very very young.
If Space War (possibly the first computer game on PDP1 back in 1962) was our Blacksmith scene (first publicly shown film, 34 seconds long, first shown in public in 1894) then we are still in 1940’s territory for movies. A time of ” star-studded, plotless, patriotic extravaganzas” not my words, where most films were war propaganda of one form or another. However 1942 did produce Cassablanca, but many people would say that Cassablanca whilst being a great movie is not art.
A defence of which I found during some googling on the subject
”
Casablanca was considered to be a very good movie right from the time of its release in 1942. Since the 1960s it has generally been considered a great movie. But it has not been considered great art. I shall endeavour to convince you, here and in the succeeding chapter, that not only is Casablanca important as art, but that movies, in general, are the most important art form of the 20th century.
There is a category of movies which are considered to be art; they are “art films”. The very existence of this term tells us that other films are considered to not be art — except, perhaps, “popular art”. We would do well in this regard to remember Shakespeare. His plays, containing, in addition to their lofty thoughts, spectacular and sentimental elements, were extremely popular. Theatre (like cinema in our own day) was a relatively new form. The intellectual elite enjoyed the plays but didn’t consider them to be in the same class as the really great art of Virgil and Horace. The texts of the plays barely escaped oblivion. (An interesting parallel to the way in which originals of early movies have been allowed to deteriorate.)
”
Yes, even now film has to fight for the right to be called art. Perhaps it will be decades before people set out to try and really make Art games with a view to making an important point, or doing something quite alternative to the popular mainstream. There is some hint of that in today’s indie market, but most people there are still trying to make entertaining games rather than games that make a point (except maybe Veggie Games Inc. and their award-winning Steer Madness).
Partly its cultural thing, most people who argue that games are not art, did not grow up with them being as commonplace as film and TV. In fact games still aren’t as mainstream as these mediums, though it gets closer every day, and the disparity borders on the negligible for certain age demographics. I suspect when (almost) everyone who is a critic or art student grew up with a games machine of some sort as part of their normal upbringing, as film and TV is for (almost) everyone in those positions now, then it will be much more socially and academically acceptable to think of games as art. I also think that probably games will exist that will be moving, interesting, beautiful and innovative in ways we now cannot imagine. Those who saw Cassablanca and thought it constituted Art then, might still never have imagined things like “Clockwork Orange” or “Brazil”. I look forward to being an old man and playing the “blade runner” of games, I am sure I’ll be blown away! Of course, some people will still say it isn’t Art.
Conclusion.
I love computer games, I have dedicated my life to the study and development of them. They have been part of my life since I was a 12 year old kid learning to program on his Amstrad CPC 464. I have been moved by games I have played and I whilst I want to make games that are great fun, escapist experiences, I also would love to make a game that moved people, that really made someone think. I feel I needed to write this to put the record straight on my thoughts regarding the subject and because I did have some objective points to make, especially regarding Moriartys post. I truly believe there is Art in many things if we know where to look. Making games is what I do, its part of who I am in a very fundamental way, and I aspire to Art (though I am definitely not an artist!). People will debate this forever and anon, and we will never agree, and to some extent that’s ok. Games will get better, and perhaps even become more Art like.
Its interesting to note that if “All your art is belong to us” was a game, and if it did the job of teaching someone clearly the difference between an Art game, and a game with the trappings of Art, it would have educated them, changed their opinion of the world and possibly therefore have been Art…
Whilst if I am being reasonable I accept that critics (even Ebert) are both useful to society, and hated/loved in equal measures by those they critique, I leave you with the thoughts Stephen Fry once had on an episode of Room 101 about critics.
That when they die (if of course, this interpretation of the universe wasn’t complete fiction, which it is) they will arrive at the pearly gates and St.Peter will say to them what did you do with your life. They will say that they spent their time examining what other people were doing and pointing out where they went wrong. St.Peter will say to them, we gave you arms, and legs, a soul and a brain and that’s what you did? You spent your life telling other people how the things they were doing were not satisfactory, what a waste of a life.
“
Holy hell, that is a monster post! +1 to the comment just for its thoroughness! 😀 😀 😀
What @oriskany just said.
So how would you know the community would find it abhorrent, unless you talk about or show it
What I love about this topic is that it’s so very personal and about perspective. Miniature games aren’t art, although I’d argue a well made and painted mini is art, the artwork in the books, box and boards of games is art. So in that regard, games can be interaction with art.
Nothing in history is out of bounds, and the moment it is out of bounds, we are doomed as a species. Having said that, over sensitivity or complete insensitivity seems to be the flavour of the day in many countries with outrage and offense springing up everywhere.
Sensitivity lasts longer is some than it does in others. I can see why certain historical events give people the heebie-geebies. I can imagine playing FoW Vietnam with one of my mates of Vietnamese ethnicity. Playing it with his war-veteran Grandfather, would be interesting and I would be a lot more careful with my banter and joy in the destruction of my opponents units.
I’ve been at top end tournaments (Nationals and international team qualifiers) where the players have had to swap armies. Would it be ok to force that Vietnamese veteran to play the NVA or VC (he was an ARVN veteran)?
Having said all of this, I could imagine an urban warfare skirmish game set in ‘the troubles’, or former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Tunisia or any other race/religion/ethnic conflict being very interesting, if done well. Multiple factions, ranging greatly in training and equipment, victory points dependent on military deaths only in a civilian rich environment. Penalties for civilians being put in harms way, killed or wounded and the Media being able to be used as a weapon by either side based on the angle of their cameras. plain clothes combatants. Loyalist and rebel militias. A reflection of the true chaos of guerrilla urban warfare.
I just thought of something else to chuck into the mix, perhaps it can be described as “age appropriateness”.
There are certain manufacturers that produce models that are a bit “adult” in content. All sorts of companies produce “Cheesecake”/”Beefcake” pin-up type models. Going further on an escalating scale, Hasslefree produces many nude models, for instance. Kingdom Death have produced some sculpts that have human genitalia displayed openly (a penis cloak springs to mind!). Brother Vinni produces some violent BDSM porn models in his portfolio.
None of these are illegal. All can be described as “art”. Clearly BoW has an age-appropriate policy of not showing explicit nudity.
Some could argue that this is limiting artistic expression and restricting what is talked about as “news”.
Personally, despite being at heart a libertarian, I am comfortable with this. For the same reason that in the old page 3 days, I would be embarassed to buy the Sun. I think models (and any other form of game art) that is explicitly sexual in nature (whether male, female, both, neither, whatever…) should not be displayed on BoW.
That I see not as a “deplatforming” issue – for instance I know that Kingdom Death as a game is well talked about, and Hasslefree have been mentioned in the news, and the nature of (at least KD) “sauciness” has been mentioned. But the nudity or whatever is not explicitly displayed. That is a good line I think and one that should not be crossed. If nude models with “modesty bars” over strategic areas or whatever were displayed that also would be fine with me. Here. There are other news outlets that are OK with more graphic content but BoW, while allowing the odd willy joke and double entendre has always drawn the line at explicit graphic content and I think always should.
Decency is not about the expression of ideas but of specific art work, and that is a different thing I think from freedom of expression for a news outlet. Cass’s idea of there being a boundary between news information and “promotion” comes in here very well I think. Mentioning for those that are interested that a certain type of miniature has been released is one thing. Displaying it is something else. Offence caused by explicit graphic images is a different thing from offence caused by almost anything else. Because of the harm porn can do in society I think it should be very, very carefully controlled, even “light” porn such as page 3 or 1″ high models. Porn is proven to be addictive, and to destroy people’s lives (just look at the problems “sexting” causes, and that is laid largely down at the door of the porn industry as a root cause) which puts it into a category of danger that most elements of gaming that could otherwise cause offence would never go near. It is not the offence to those that don’t like seeing the pornographic images that is the issue, it is the distinct and real harm to impressionable minds, particularly to the male teenage mind.
Hasslefresian (on Facebook) also now has a policy of masking all the fun bits of his nude sculpts after people moaned. I believe the nude sculpts are intended as blank dolls for people to sculpt onto.
Really enjoying the changes of late. Also enjoyed todays topic. Keep it up guys!
Lots of talk about “what is Art”, because obviously that in itself is a subjective term. For me Art is about feelings and emotion. Art should be something that provokes some kind of emotional response – it should be something that makes you feel. In many ways I see it as the opposite of science; where science is based in logic,reason and the scientific method and should be objective, Art is based in feelings and emotions and should be subjective. I think both art and science are equally important because science can solve many problems but it says nothing to us about the human condition and experience; Art probably won’t solve many problems but it can help us understand many things about ourselves and other people.
I like to think that Science can tell us what we are, Art can tell us who we are.
In terms of a game as an abstraction, I think I fall on the side of the game creators here. The guys have tried to make something cool, with a theme they enjoy and played with some real world references within their created world. I think that’s fine. I also like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds about an elite team of Jews killing Hitler. We all know that real life didn’t play out like that, but the artistic use of those real world references within Tarantino’s created world worked to create a brilliant film. I know that you don’t want ‘it’s just a game’ as an answer so I’ll put it like this instead, it’s just a theme. It’s the same reason that as an Irish person I don’t get offended when looking at a box of Lucky charms. The offence culture these days is the real problem, the correct response if you don’t like the theming of the game is at most to shrug, laugh at it and buy something else instead. I don’t think we need to hear some massive corporate apology from a small game company addressing all possible offences they may have caused, it’s out of hand, I’m a big advocate for just chilling the fuck out lol.
You see I can’t help but think that is a valid response, but I’m pretty live and let live myself. (And would love to see more of it, I don’t remember my grand parents getting bent out of shape about half the stuff people freak out about today… but then their generation did have potentially a little more perspective coming out of WW2 and then the troubles kicking off shortly after)
Obviously I wouldn’t wish that perspective on anyone and it remains to be seen if the heightened awareness of all the equality related issues will have a positive impact (I hope so and I’m trying to be open minded about it as much as I can)
But I do want to have a level headed look at these issues along with the community (as we have successfully done here it seems – at least I hope)
Even to get a more grounded perspective on things 🙂
I think you’re kind of right there. A massive part of the “outrage” culture of today is because most of the people involved haven’t really had to struggle. Certainly not in the same way as my Grandparents and Parents who lived through the war and post war era. I think when you have faced the dangers of something like WWII or lived through some of the deprivation of the post war when rationing was still in place, you perhaps have a very different outlook on life.
@onlyonepinman and @warzan –
“A massive part of the “outrage” culture of today is because most of the people involved haven’t really had to struggle.”
Hear, friggin’ hear!
Look, the Beasts of War community has treated me exceedingly well over the years, almost everything I’ve presented has been well-received (not through any greatness in my work, but how accepting and open-minded the community really is).
The one possible, partial exception was the article series that ran a few years back regarding the Ukraine 2014-15 War. The overall response was still positive, but there were a few “ragers” or at least “protesters” in there about playing wars that were too soon, insensitivity, etc.
None were veterans (to my knowledge).
None were from the Ukraine.
None were from Russia.
We actually did have a few from Ukraine and one from Russia, but they actually seemed to appreciate the articles’ objectivity.
To my knowledge, there is only one veteran THAT I KNOW OF on this site who doesn’t like playing conflicts that are too recent because of experiences “at 1:1 scale” so to speak.
Guess what. That person does not “post rage” or protest or unearned social justice, on these articles (or similar material). It’s not for him, he just goes on to the next piece of great BoW content.
Thus, we’re still great friends and I respect his position (as well as his service, which far far FAR exceeds my own).
Bang on. I also find many people get offended on other people’s behalf, people who are not necessarily themselves offended.
I do agree that there is a big problem with a kind of “I want to be at the top of my social pile, I earn kudos in my social circle by attacking those who have broken a set of taboos. I don’t really care about resolving the issues, only identifying us and them, and finding friendship through a common enemy”.
I think this is a problem as old as human society itself, and it’s just one of the most recent manifestations has been in the form of so-called “SJWs”. We are desperate to belong to something, and you can only belong if some other people don’t belong. I believe this goes back to basic evolutionary needs (balancing the need to trust and co-operate to catch a rabbit, but also to kill the neighbouring tribe when resources are low). We crave a common enemy. I don’t even think a lot of people who do it in that way are even aware they are just creating another “us and them” situation.
However, the idea that because someone like myself, and a lot of my peers, happened to be privileged enough to grow up without having to constantly worry about bombs falling on our head, or food supplies running out, is a negative thing. More specifically, that when concerns go beyond the struggle to survive, we do start to think about ethics, that in itself isn’t something to be lamented. It should be something we are glad of.
I just think that too often it becomes about scoring some invisible points, rather than trying to really solve the problems of social injustice. When it gets to the point where someone gets attacked for just discussing an idea (which is where we seem to be sometimes now), I think we are in real danger of communication of difficult or new concepts, breaking down totally.
I’m not convinced it’s ever been about fixing problems. It seems that me it’s more about control – control over the narrative and in turn society. And it does seem to be working.
I’ll also say this, and I hope it’s taken the right way. But steering into these topics as a replacement for the usual fun and relaxed banter of xlbs is quite jarring. I do enjoy the format, I also like the clearer definition between the formats, and the sound quality is great. But I think this format would have worked better as a new show, simply as a new roundtable discussion podcast maybe. It’s not a great replacement for xlbs, I’ll miss the fun on a Sunday morning.
we don’t have the resources to do both I’m afraid.
Yeah I understand 🙁 But I’ll still miss it. I enjoy these kind of roundtable shows as well and found it to be a very interesting discussion to have going on while I was running through footage this morning. So for me I’ve moved this to my monday morning sanity show.
I agree with you @thelostdog on all of the comments above. I guess it is your perspective of this “hobby” it is quite clear to me reading these post that there are some of us (including myself) who want to keep this as an escape, simple without politics. Play, paint and build because it is fun to do so and make our own internal judgements of wrong or right… but others whom this probably goes deeper into their actual jobs, careers they have chosen, academics study, or desire to know more and so take it very seriously. Thus there will be a collision because either side of this just cannot understand the other side… If I felt so inclined I could say “Seriously all this time and effort spent on discussing whether a game is wrong or right given the real problems in the world today. Just play the game or don’t no one is holding a gun to your head” but I won’t because I respect the desire to know more.
What it means for me is if XLBS becomes this series of long, hard-fought deep debates about the wrongs, rights or tabletop hobby, less TOP GEAR and more Question Time then it is not for me… Not because I don’t like intelligent debate but because I choose to use that part of my brain in my actual job or when trying to make life changing decisions for me and my family… not for when I want to break free even for an hour of the crap that is going on in the world, escape into a realm of fantasy move some toy soldiers and roll some bloody dice.
I seriously love this site and the community so not much will stop me supporting it in whatever way I can, but perhaps I will become more selective about the areas I get involved in.
Have a great week of gaming everyone! (stolen line sorry @warzan)
Martin
So do you see a middle ground?
Yes to carry on my TV comparisons, we want to be more than Top Gear but less than Question time so let’s aim for Horrible Histories and QI. Factual, interesting but executed in a light-hearted way.
Structure to perhaps time box the discussion (90-minute show so 60 minutes to the discussion) and then give time to sections like Hobby Time, Backstagers comments, special guests (reward to being a backstager), etc etc.
My first thoughts.
A little tidbit for you.
Top Gear (Current Edition Since 2002 – 16 Years!) = 197 Episodes
Weekender XLBS (2013 – 5 Years) = 245 Episodes (and that doesn’t count the 300 odd episodes of Frontstage Weekender) (if the show were a monthly that would be 20 Years of Viewing!)
You might guess that after 245 episodes there is a danger of repeating ourselves, then things get stale, we always do our best to make sure that doesn’t happen.
So while I’m not on a crusade to push through a certain type of show, I do believe we have to keep shaking things up in some way to keep it interesting and relevant.
We have lots of metrics we measure a shows performance by too.
Anyway we will keep working to find a format that works 🙂
I really enjoyed the show, it’s been a while since we have had a deep and meaningful.
However if the intention is to prevent the show getting stale, I think this format has the potential to go stale much more quickly than a news show. There’s a steady supply of news each week, you might struggle to find an interesting discussion topic each week and the weeks when you struggle to find something if you pick a topic for the sake of picking a topic likely people will start to switch off (Remember the attempted “Sunday Politics Thread”?)
front stage is the news show
we haven’t really covered news in xlbs in months maybe a year 🙂
I’m not claiming the deeper discussions is the answer by the way but it will be part of it.
Obviously it’s the first episode of a new format for you guys so I’m looking forward to see where it goes. I’ve no intention to bring negativity to it as you always create fantastic quality as far as I’m concerned. But since it was asked for, I’d like to offer a potential middle ground.
I suppose, for me, given that xlbs is a longform show, it is quite an intense experience to focus on one topic or news story for the entire duration with such in-depth discussion, it was quite exhausting.
If the discussion was a series of topics, some more light hearted, I think that might be a decent middle ground. For the sake of argument, if the format is four hobbyists talking about the hobby, maybe each person gets to table a topic for discussion? It might help keep the chat more focused on the point in question and stop it sprawling out as there would be limited time to make your points before the next topic. I can’t think of another longform show that focuses so much around one talking point for the full duration (even question time, which was mentioned above), at least none that I would watch lol. It would mean that if someone isn’t particularly interested in yet another internet outrage storm, they can check out some of the other topics instead of passing on a full episode.
Or, maybe it’s just that internet outrage is really not worth my time in my view, so I’m already predisposed to not enjoying it as much. Future episodes could win me over.
I had noticed that there had been less news in XLBS (although you did still have Kickstarters I think). However I also noticed that there were weeks when it did feel a bit like someone had maybe struggled to find a discussion topic. I generally don’t say anything because I still enjoy the shows, I have only said it here because it’s already being discussed. Finding interesting and meaningful discussion topics is much harder than people think, as I am sure you are aware. I look forward to seeing more but I don’t really want to see discussions just for the sake of having one. I think they should be had when there’s something relevant to discuss. What you do for the rest of the time I really don’t know.
Anyhoo, wasn’t really trying to criticise or anything, hope nobody took it that way. I enjoy both formats of the show. Just thought it might be something worth mentioning.
@warzan I totally respect your desire to shake things up hell we all know if you do not innovate and develop your business model you become a dinosaur ( hello Nokia and HMV ) but it is probably also impossible to be all things to all men and so for me XLBS shifting from lighthearted relaxed enjoyment of the pure hobby to a deeper understanding of the hows, what’s and whys of the genre is just a different mind space that I reserve for what is to me more important subjects (to me being important there not belittle other desire to go deeper)
And that is fine whilst there is something less for me there are many comments here of people who loved the format. If you lost me it not exactly a big loss.
Hell it was one show where you tried something new not like the sky is falling in, I am sure there will be plenty of time where we agree or disagree on what makes good or bad content. But I am merely a vistor it is ultimately your vision and mission that drives the longevity of the business and you done a pretty good job so far.
Big love
Martin
it’s about balance
to be honest the discussion was only the minor part of the test (I kept it to just that this time round so we could focus the feedback to give us a true picture)
the real test was the change in hardware and set and see if the technical changes come off.
because whatever we do week from week (banter or deep or both) the hardware and package will stay the same once we have nailed that.
In that sense I’m a fan, I like the new sound, I like the set-up, great radio show/ podcast vibe. But that just makes me wish all the harder that it ends up being something I’ll enjoy as much as your other content. Because I’m selfish like that lol.
Technically I think the quality of both the video and audio is fantastic if I had a gripe it would be the desk is now so filled with mics you going to find it hard to bring physical items onto the table, rummage around and get it under close cam etc but if that aligns with the direction it is less of an issue.
By the way in all of this, you are quite welcome to tell me to f**k off and do one, I actually have no right to critic.
With the Manitoba game, I think we are showing an utter failure of what I see as two very specific types of art: Art as Creation, and Art as Tribute.
Art as Creation – this is where the artist has creative something of their own, inspired by various sources. Often what is appreciated by those viewing/experiencing the art is the sources of inspiration they have in common with the artist. Melding different inspirations and experiences into one work of art gives a picture of who the artist is, what they’ve experienced, and connects them with various other people with similar inspirations and experiences. However, in these cases as the art is unique, it can’t be WRONG, its just want that artist has created. From a game perspective, many sci-fi and fantasy games would fall in this category, where the often fantastical gameplay and universe are entirely the creation of the game designer (given inspired by various other sources).
Art as Tribute – the goal of this type of art is to truthfully represent the subject. A portrait of an individual, a landscape painting, a still life. The art is often judged by how much it mimics the reality. An game example would be historical games (Bolt Action, FoW), which are enjoyed by players who like how the miniatures and the gameplay mimic real life units/vehicles or real life battlefield tactics.
Now, I want to say, I see these as two kinds of art, NOT the ONLY two kinds of art.
The failure of Manitoba is it decided to pick haphazardly from both schools. In the case of Art as Tribute, they picked a very specific location, and a very specific tribe. However, they then decided to NOT truthfully represent their very real world subject. Instead they pulled together various Native American inspirations without thought to source or accuracy.
Now, there are two ways they could have avoided this.
Art as Creation – if they had simply gone with a fictional/made-up location and tribe, they probably would have been mostly in the clear. The game would have been based around various facets of different Native American cultures that the creators had been exposed to/inspired by in their lives, and they turned it into a theme for a tabletop game/mechanic. They may have still gotten a little flak for not truthfully representing Native American culture, but much would have been forgiven as it wasn’t a specific culture, just one created by the designers who probably grew up inspired by inaccurate representations fo that culture.
Art as Tribute – Alternatively, they could have kept the name/tribe, and portrayed parts of that culture that accurately represented the tribe. Or, picked a different tribe/location which matched their theme.
By doing neither, their approach comes off as “we are going to use the location/name of the tribe/culture for recognition, but aren’t going to be bothered to actually learn anything about it, to show it a measure of respect.”
Some interesting articles about ‘the train’ seems there’s another one call ‘Siochan Leat’ also known as the Irish game. interesting topic of discussion
Is there anyway to get the XLBS podcast directly on the apple podcast app?
This new format bored the crap out of me, I’ll be honest here. It’s a tad brutal, but lord, I do not like a lot of the changes that are happening in general either. I switched off after the first seven minutes of dry waffling. I don’t think tabletop gaming needs a ‘Sunday Politics Show’. Maybe Im wrong because I did not watch all of it but I don’t want to watch all of it. This is the first time since I signed up to this site about three years ago, or maybe it was four, where I seriously considered dropping my subscription.
The new name, the new look, the change in format of everything… how many times do you change the head and handle on a brush and call it the same brush?
I think the company you guys went with to facelift the business/site gave some bad concepts and ideas you guys ran with fully without thinking through properly. Or maybe the way you guys carried out discussing them and moving forward was done in a format where staff might have been afraid of expressing how they really feel due to an in office culture. I dunno, I could be completely wrong here. I firmly believe more communication could have been done with the community and see what people thought and used it as a marker research group, and a free, informed and on board one at that. Or even with just a select few of the members of the site and see what they think.
I hate the word ‘trigger’. I don’t like people using it. It’s a sign of the times and how oversensitive and thin-skinned people are and can’t handle the real world. This is a great community with a lot of level-headed people. I’d like to think there aren’t too many snowflakes on here and that said people on here possess enough sense to not get their undies in a bunch and become ‘triggered’. A solid first seven minutes warning people what this is about is very ‘Un Beasts of War like’.
Whats next? Getting rid of the annual gaming reports? Stopping battle reports? Ending Boot camps entirely? To me, I do not see why the changes were needed or are happening. Is it an attempt to make the business/site bigger and get it more out there and so people are aware and there are more viewers? I’m not instilled with confidence.
I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, and I have been quite blunt, but I’ve felt this way for a while. Im not faulting anyone appearing in the videos or any of the BoW staff but maybe some polling could be done? I mean, this strikes me as a thing where people will either express they will like the changes, or be silent about them as to not rock the boat for the sake of peace.
I’m coming from a place of passion, enthusiasm and care. I loved what the site was a few months ago. Maybe Im getting older and don’t like change. Its hard to see what the end game is and what all these changes are for or what they are working toward. Or why the rebranding meetings etc. even happened in the first place.
The most articulate way I feel I can phrase this is by comparing it to having a computer game that is successful, which I love. Then, a patch comes along that will make it even better. Cool! And then the patch doesen’t do that. It changes a lot of things. And while the changes aren’t bad and some are good, what I’m left with is something I am not as satisfied nor as happy with.
EDIT: Apologies in advance if I offend anyone or upset anybody, and I mean that sincerely. It is not my intent if I do. I know it is a bit of a rant but I tried to phrase it (my thoughts) as properly and articulately to the best of my ability so that my thoughts and feelings could be understood.
I have an idea @mage as you are on the same land mass as ourselves 🙂
I’d like to invite you to the studios for a personal tour and I’ll take you through a lot of the details and hows and whys of what has led to each step of the decisions we are making.
You can meet the crew and have a chat with them about their take on it all.
And pretty much get a first hand view of what is driving the changes, unfiltered and looking each of us in the eye. 🙂
When can you make the trip up and I’ll get some buns at the ready too!
Aw man. Wish I was on the mainland now lol
it’s the buns isn’t it lol 😉
Mmmmm buns
@warzan
It might be the end of a 12 hour night shift but I’m confused. I post in hindsight what was a cranky message and get invited to the studio?
It isn’t Opposite Day is it? I won’t wake up in a bath tub full of ice missing my kidneys will I?
While I did express dislike of some changes, I’d have a field day talking in detail about people with the technicality and minute details of stuff.
I could stop in Dungeons and Donuts in Galway too for some donuts. It’s on the way up…
Do you want to come up this week? 🙂
I have custody of my son this week, he’s only four and I haven’t seen him in a week and a half. He lives two hours ish away, Friday week onward is good for me with being paid fortnightly
Our issue there is its bang on the bootcamp, and I can’t dedicate the resources to you during that unfortunately.
So it might have to be a week or two after the bootcamp I’m afraid. (Which is not ideal as I really would like you to see first hand what happens here to clear up the misconceptions you have 🙂 (hopefully anyway)
I can wait til after the bootcamp 🙂 Ive been on the site a few years now watching videos and vlogs, I know its ‘baton down the hatches’ and get the impression its an insane amount of work to do for said bootcamps. Don’t sweat it man.
Hey, I could very well have misonceptions. I mean, if I am the only one of this opinion out of 100 or 200 people posting comments, then you’d be insane to listen to me, being a sliver of a minority.
Im a reasonable guy. Ask my one friend 😀
Here’s a suggestion for you @warzan, how about holding what our US friends would call a Town Hall.
The reason I’m suggesting this is that the comments on this posting have fallen into two streams:
– the change in format of XBLS and what it foreshadows for what could be coming
– the actual subject matter of the video itself
So Why a Town Hall?
Mainly to address the first point above.
Another channel I watch, Collider Video and relatedly Schmoesknow, have been going through big change ups in personnel and content. To keep their viewers appraised of what is happening, they do a live show where the people running the outfit present the changes and the studio talent get to discuss things. Then viewers get to ask questions via twitter or You Tube chat room.
Because these changes have been revolutionary (ie big) and evolutionary (ie small and more of the form of continuous improvement) they can discuss what is working for them and what isn’t. So far this year they have held two Town Halls.
For those interested, here is a link to the latest one – warning it is 1.5 hours long https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtibT6KUrOM
I hope you find this helpful.
I Like that idea 🙂
Let me have a quick chat with the team about how we do it 🙂
I’d suggest the Hobby Night Live time slot as your viewers are used to that. I realise that it might mean that it has to be after the fast approaching Bootcamp.
You can use the same tech setup for that show, especially to monitor the chat from You Tube, Twitch, etc.
I liked this discussion and feel that these kind of more heavy topics needs to be addressed more, but I felt that letting it go over the whole XLBS show was a bit much, I have always loved not just seeing you all more relaxed but also talking about your own hobby time and projects and the community’s projects and giving out golden buttons and so on, and with this new format it feels like you are loosing a lot of that! So I hope for future XLBS show that you not just talk about one topic for the whole time. So I like where you are heading with this, just don’t loose what made the XLBS shows so nice! 🙂
Bit slow catching up but wanted to say awsome discussion. Re games as art I could say so much but in short I think the most important point is context. As someone who has a small amount of art studies under belt I remeber it common for teachers to ask us what our art was saying. If a designer hides behind claims its art therfore its ok, then he/she open themselves up to be critiqued that they are not realy saying anything at all so should can step aside to let others be heard.
But what gets my goat re the Kree, Manatoba example is the way its contextualised, verging on a history rewrite, and as a history buff I cant stand poorly couched revisionism.
A few thoughts on this (personal view point to me).
I felt like the show was not focussed enough on the issue that started off the very broad topic of are games art. You started off with Manitoba but very quickly went off into the broader subject of games and art – I can understand that you needed an example, but I felt like the show tried to cover off a too higher topic and wasn’t chair’d enough to keep it related to the initial example (hard to do unless you go for more of a scripted show, which I don’t want.)
There was too many interesting points and discussions and each one could have been a show in and of itself, so a good start to changing the show, but for me personally I would prefer a tighter run show.
You kind of started to may Manitoba basically said it’s a game it doesn’t matter, they didn’t say about art, and then you moved to are games art, rather than what I thought was the point of the show and can games hide behind being games to allow for abstraction.
My opining would be if games go for a specific town / people then they should be expected to research and keep the game themed correctly, not just for political correctness, but for pride in their workmanship. Yes the general public wouldn’t care I don’t think, they see a game about native Americans and everyone knows they used totems and wore headdresses!!! Ok not all did, for the general public expectation is that so that’s fine – it’s not fine to keep on this in accuracy in games when there is no need, we can research and have some respect for the gaming subject – if you mention Cree then you make sure you are respectful to them.
But you cannot say oh it’s a game it doesn’t matter. It wont matter for your sales , but it should matter to the people making it and games do inform learning, like books and films – they should all start to be more accurate when representing a theme, but they are not as they need to make good sales, and also the general target audience do not care, maybe they should? That’s a topic for another time!
In terms of OTT as a platform content provider. As a provider you MUST have guidelines, these must be published and people then make the choice on knowing what you will and wont expect to see on the site. For me I would not expect you to publish any material that is racist, promotes killing school children – but unless you have that written down, then you could show it – now if you did I doubt I would leave, as it is my choice to view the content of not – but I would start to question the people who run the platform.
It was interesting that you mainly only discussed boardgames in this – you kind of didn’t touch too much on bolt action, saga as ART. It seems boardgames are more exposed because they are more “mainstream”? Bolt action is abstraction in terms of killing and warfare, but it’s theme is strong and accurate, so doesn’t seem to generate ire for being able to play as “Nazis”.
I like the discussion format, I would like to see them a but more focussed, or at least remember the question you ask at the start of the show and provide a conclusion to that point at the end of the show.
A very good start though 🙂
lol no guarantees on the meandering of topics (especially when I’m in them lol) and these discussions are not really to try and ‘solve’ an issue but rather go explore it (and sometimes that will widen). I hope folk are clear that we are more about asking the questions and trying to find the various perspectives rather than actually trying to find a ‘right’ perspective as a lot of that depends on individuals and their circumstances. 🙂
Regarding what makes it onto the platform the examples you raise are extreme enough as to be confident they will not be an issue. The extreme stuff is typically easy to make a decision on.
It’s the borderline stuff where you have substantial numbers falling on each side of the debate I’m more focusing on. (That can include but not be exclusive to the portrayal of a feminine form in a sculpt etc and countless other examples)
🙂
Looking forward to see how it develops mate ?
This! This was an amazing xlbs. So many great points. So many topics to think about. Thanks so much for doing this, for daring to start these discussions. For making us think and reflect. Thank you
I’m really enjoying the new format. Is great to also hear the views of the wider team on some deeper topics. Now to my point. I’m always really saddened by how electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is portrayed in films, TV and games. ECT has a dark past and that dark past should quite rightly be portrayed in a negative light. Modern ECT is a potentially life saving treatment for severe mental illness, that is effective and safe and happens every day in hospitals all around the world. Media set in the present day often portrays ECT as a barbaric practice that may be used in situations where it is not clinically indicated. Although these portrayals sadden me I do not believe they should be banned, rather that they should generate discussion and an opportunity for experts in the area to make a positive case.
One of the topics that has caught me before and has sprouted a little discussion in the community is mental health issues in games. I would like to see this topic discussed in this new, more in depth format. The discussion on the forums can be found here: https://www.beastsofwar.com/forums/topic/disabilities-and-mental-health-problems/
I believe there is a few of us prepared to explore this at some point 🙂
In germany we had a hard time in censorship (FSK) till the start of the new century. There were many movies, which were banned or cutted so hard, they didn’t make any sense more (still happens today for free TV). Another area was about comics. Mostly many comics were censored with black pages. I remember especially Richard Corben Arabian Nights from metal hurlant/heavy metal. Sure this is mostly mature content. But it is art too. And then is anyone thinking about hiding Michelangelos David.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo).
Sorry i deviated. Games could be Art. Ist about eyecandy, but mostly its about entertaining.
People still talk about if comics are art too.
Playing catch up.. @warzan disses 7th Ed 40k…. That’s me triggered! 🙂
For me, games are a form of entertainment so the theme of the game is judged along those lines from my perspective. There are some themes that just shouldn’t be touched, others that can be questioned as entertainment, but the idea of open discussion on them is great. When I say some themes shouldn’t be touched, a good example was the school shoot-em up that was pulled from Steam a while ago. Who thought creating a shoot-em up set in a school killing the pupils and teachers was a good idea?
Wow. This was probably… most likely the BEST XLBS uve ever watched/listened to! Concise, multi-faceted and enjoyable! As for the culture of outrage without discussion, I think those individuals just like the ceratonin release, and dont actually care, everything easy in — ‘stereo’.
Just catching up with content after being away with work. Well done to the team, this episode felt a little like a level up.
Finally managed to catch up and watch this. Not sure many will read this two and a half weeks later, so I’ll confine my comments to one thing @warzan @cassn @ludicryan – Train.
I watched a video about this s few years ago – I think it was made by the woman who created the game – so I knew what you were talking about.
But I think some of the people commenting have got the impression the game was simply intended to shock, that it was about ‘catching people out’ or that it was rather boringly conveying the message that ‘genocide is bad’.
From memory, the creater set herself the task of designing a game that could create as much of an emotional impact as a film (e.g. Schindler’s List). The game itself was artistically presented, with broken glass, etc., so it did set the scene. It wasn’t about catching people out. I remember her saying that someone (a rabbi? a holocaust suvivor?) instantly recognised the game for what it was as soon as he saw it and declared that he would not play. Her response was ‘you just have’.
These are my words, not hers, but what I take from it – and what I think she was hoping to achieve – was to get people to think about the ‘banality of evil’. That phrase is the name of a book by Hannah Arendt, about (from my understanding – i’ve not actually read it) how ordinary people get sucked into playing along with systems of brutality.
We don’t criticise Schindler’s List because ‘we already knew that the holocaust was bad’. We appreciate not just the story and the history, but the way in which it makes us remember and think about one of the most horrific crimes in history.
Train was an attempt not to create entertainment or pleasure (there was never the intention of making or selling multiple versions of the game), but to see if a game could do something similar to a film.
Amazing comment @angelicdespot and you are never too late to join in on these!