June 14, 2007
After reading Designing for Tragedy, Ian Bogost's thought-provoking piece on the controversy surrounding the V-Tech Rampage and Super Columbine Massacre RPG games, I must enter the following pleas to charges leveled at GamePolitics by the Georgia Tech prof (who, by the way, I hold in high esteem):Guilty: As Bogost correctly points out, I do find V-Tech Rampage in extremely poor taste (although I'm not sure why that's a problem)
Guilty: I did write that "some video game critics will cite fringe creations such as [V-Tech Rampage] to support generalized anti-game positions." (and that prediction has already come to pass in the New York State Senate)
Not Guilty: Bogost suggests that I "support the industry over the medium." That would be incorrect. First, in no sense do I consider myself part of, beholden to, or "supporting" the video game industry. I'm a writer. I happen to cover the industry, sometimes in a critical vein. The column of mine to which Bogost refers to is simply my commentary on what the industry should have done proactively in response to the Columbine game. Of course, the leaden bureaucracy of the video game industry did what it always does when there is controversy - nothing.
Second, I don't get Bogost's point about "supporting the medium." Sure, I like games - like 'em a lot. I've been gaming for a long time. Does that mean a game - any game - should get my support just because it's a game?
I like to read, too. Does that mean a book deserves my backing for being a book? Do I have to choose between a book and the publishing industry? Is one instrinsically good and the other, evil? Or is this just Bogost's bias as a game designer bleeding through?
Let me speak plainly. It's true that I don't care for Super Columbine Massacre RPG, while Bogost has praised the game. From a technical standpoint, I recognize that SCMRPG is clearly a much better design than the ultra-amateurish V-Tech Rampage. Danny Ledonne seems like a bright, articulate and sensitive guy. I'm sure he had no evil intent in creating the game. Guess what? I still don't like SCMRPG. It creeps me out. That's just me; your results may vary.
Not Guilty: Bogost writes that I would "banish" games like V-Tech Rampage and SCMRPG; Wrong. Never happened. I have never, in any forum, suggested banning or "banishing" any game. I don't dispute anyone's right to create any game they care to make. But on the other hand, they must live with any fallout or criticism. I've got as much right to say I hate V-Tech Rampage as Ryan Lambourn has to create the game. It's that simple.
Guilty: I will cop to believing that Bogost's suggestion:
"I hereby issue a challenge to the videogame industry: to create a videogame about the Virginia Tech tragedy..."
...is a really, really bad idea from any standpoint, including those of business and taste. Bogost knows this. He's too brilliant of a man not to. If he truly believes this, however, my challenge back to Ian is this:
If a commercial Virginia Tech game is such a great idea, put your money where your mouth is. Make the game yourself and see if the New York Times - with which you have a groundbreaking partnership deal - will run it.
GP: Just to be clear, Bogost's article was written in the spirit of debate, as is my reply.
UPDATE: Ian has replied in comments.
Comments
...
FIGHT!
Honestly though, I'm surprised that he believes the points you labeled as "Non Guilty". I very clearly knew you disliked Super Columbine and figured you didn't like V-Tech, and I tend to skim articles more than anything. Not to mention I've never gotten the vibe that you felt things should be completely pulled from the market.
I think it is important that "the industry" speaks up when controversial independent games like these are made, to explain that the games did not come from "the industry", and that they are not responsible for their content. But it sounds like Bogost is frustrated that in the process of wanting/trying to distance themselves, developers and publishers have overlooked the fact that these games show that the medium CAN be used to tackle difficult, important, meaningful subjects, however controversial. They just choose not to expand the medium to express those sorts of things, which is perhaps one of the reasons that games are still so maligned in comparison to TV, books, movies etc.
I'm not sure if Bogost literally wants the industry to make a V-Tech game - I'm not sure why anybody would want to, I see no connection between games and V-Tech, so it would be a strange medium to use. But I completely understand his challenge to developers to learn from the likes of SCMRPG and start trying to make games that actually have meaning and relevance.
On poor taste: I wasn't suggesting it is a problem that you find V-Tech Rampage in poor taste. You'll note that my opinion of it is not dissimilar to yours. However, my opinion was also not driven by the very idea of a game on this topic, but what it had to say and how it said it.
On citing fringe games in legislative contexts: I think I was pretty careful to show how this concern has merit and that you're good at mounting evidence to support it. But I also think that having thoughtful counterpoints to games like V-Tech Rampage that do come from the industry would actually help demonstrate the medium's value in legislative contexts.
On the industry and the medium: by supporting the medium, I wouldn't suggest that you or anyone should support every individual videogame no matter its nature. Rather, I suggest supporting the idea of innovation in videogames of a variety of forms, not just the forms advanced by the mainstream marketplace. To be fair, you do indeed do some of this here (including having said very nice things about my work, which is way not the mainstream marketplace). But it's a very selective kind of support. Consider your dislike for SCMRPG. I'm not going to try to sway your opinion, you're entitled to it. But it's possible not to like a work and still support the vision and potential it represents.
On banishing games: I'll admit that you never used that word, but I also never accused you of doing so. Yet I think the rhetoric of the articles here on games like SCMRPG essentially amounts to banishment, even if it's shrouded in more euphemistic terms like "public distancing."
On making a different kind of VT game: are the hypothetical examples I cited in the article in bad taste? And I don't understand why such a game would be a bad idea from a business perspective, you'll have to explain that more.
On your challenge to me: It's indeed possible that we could make a game around this theme at Persuasive Games. I won't rule it out, and I do think our editor would consider it if done appropriately. But I'll also say that I have no plans to do so at present. My challenge was specifically directed at the mainstream games marketplace. It was meant as an example of what supporting the medium might look like. I believe that for games to grow in the way we all want, part of what we need are high-profile commercial examples that push the edges of the medium. Rhetorically, I think we also need some of this movement to come from the mainstream commercial industry. That's why I specified a "game in a box." And incidentally, there is clearly room for more than one game on this topic. It's big and complex and goes beyond the tragedy itself, as I tried to show. So even if I were to editorialize the issue in the NYT, my challenge to the big guys still stands.
I'll echo Dennis's sentiments about the spirit of debate and also note that I have a lot of respect for him and for this website.
We need to stop letting the indie developers do the controversial stuff for us and do it ourselves.
Personally, I don't think that I could do something in the nature of V-Tech, but there are other issues that are more home to me that I could work with.
Why would making money and treating touchy issues thoughtfully be mutually exclusive? We see it all the time in other media.
I'm pretty confident I won't be needing that shirt...
However, judging by silly bet, I know you believe that it is nigh impossible for the NYTimes to agree on such a proposal.
On another note, you two seem to be looking forward to this debate. It is a shame GP is busy now.
But is it moraly acceptable if its fun to play?
Because I cant see an un-fun game selling.
1. Who'd buy it? You'd be targetting a small minority of people who'd want to have anything to do with subsidising a comparny capitalizing on a tragedy
2. Amid the predictbale storms of protests from public and private groups, the company publishing the game would suffer serious damage to their reputation, and ultimately their stock price. Can you explain to shareholders how you thought this would be a profitable idea that would benefit the company?
3. Marketing: can you imagine the ads? Even if the game is a survival/horror game from a student's perspective, I can't imagine any mainstream medium accepting the ad in their magazine or tv show, which would leave you with your own website ads, not very effective.
It's simply too soon. If Tragedy + Time = Comedy, then the same equation can result in = Entertainment if enough time passes, as the WWII Pearl Harbor, etc. type games demonstrate. But from a purely business perspective, I can't see how making a game like this now makes any sense.
one of the few ways to treat this as a "game" would be to put the player in the role of the victims. But I notice that many games that try to pull off emotional elements just ring hollow, and most players (from my experience) don't respond much to those elements that are supposed to make them feel something, anything. I think my suggested approach would fail miserably because if you just drop the player into the role of a victim, there is nothing to build up emotion. In the classic examples of games that made gamers cry their was significant buildup and the players have time to get to know the characters. in my setup there isn't any of that so it would probably be lost.
hmmm, I have some time before work, maybe I'll try to figure something out.
I think it's a question of what "A VA Tech Game" means. It wouldn't be anything like Lambourn's game. It would have to deal with the social and political context for the tragedy. I'm certainly not going to do it just to get you to wear the t-shirt, but it is a sight I'd like to see :)
@JC
That's one option, but I actually discuss a number of possibilities in the column.
@John Kanders
My challenge was meant exactly to combat the idea that such a game would merely be capitalizing on tragedy. It would have to inform or inspire to be worthwhile. As for marketing, this would have to follow the idea just mentioned. As far as time, you should note that in the column I say explicitly that there is no timeframe on my challenge.
@ Wavinglighter, @Citizen_Snips
I know that what you describe is indeed the rhetoric of this website, as I mentioned in the column and my reactions here. But I just don't believe it is entirely true. I think thoughtful design and careful public framing are of course in order, but the idea that such a game is a priori offensive makes me scratch my head.
I appreciate the conversation here. I would, however, encourage folks to read my column on the topic before making assumptions about what I said based solely on Dennis's reply. He linked to it in the first sentence of his post here.
Writing from the standpoint of a college student, I can basically assure you that at the very least, if the reaction on Facebook is any indication, no college student would support this game, let alone buy it. That includes myself.
I read your column last night and I enjoyed it. I also could see things from your point of view.
The type of game that you describe, would be along the same lines of a documentary film, something the game industry lacks. Most documentary films are not made to make money, but to get their message accross (how biased or unbiased is irrelevant)
Whether such a game would be socially unacceptable or not is not an issue here either. I think that is someone were to go after SCMRPG they need to go after Bowling for Columbine as well. They touch the same event.
As a whole, the game industry looks at video games as that, a game. Sure they are starting to use them as teaching and training tools, but we do not look at them in any other way. I would like to see more games along the same lines as "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" But right now as a whole we have no guts.
Ok I've read your article. And here are some more thoughts. The Game Industry is not ready to tackle subjects like this. I know there are mainstream games out there that involve some touchy subjects but they are often over looked and are really only mentioned, implemented in passing.
The game industry (over all) right now is still more concerned about making things look more realistic that to have substance. Personally, even as someone who has a job in the industry, it is getting stagnant, and I can't wait till this faze is over. I want to play/make a game that has substance, in depth storylines, and if it looks pretty so much the better. I believe the that most game companies are still in an infancy stage, making games that are deemed cool, or that they can cash in on. Eventually they will be ready to make games of the caliber you describe. But first, we, as gamers and the game industry, must wait for our lifestyle, hobby, and careers to become more accepted.
As you might expect I agree with you. Thanks for reading.
@Citizen_Snips
Your assessment of current trends sounds right to me, I don't think that the medium will become more accepted automatically, without its own intervention.
I love freedom. Freedom is something I will NEVER receive enough of from my Government. Making a VTech massacre game is NOT "stupid" or "dumb". Sure it’s a bit extreme and it could possibly be done in poor taste but it hasn't even been made yet and everyone is putting it down. Just because YOU think something is a bit too out there doesn't mean it is. Just because YOU think something is offensive doesn't mean it is offensive to everyone. I personally enjoy being offended every once and a while. It reminds me that everyone has different tastes and desires and that variety should be preserved.
The only way to get freedom in this country is to take it. There are those who whine, cry then whine some more and get nothing done. And there are those who do what they want and do what they must to take their freedom. We as a whole must support all who wants the right to make a VTech massacre game even if you think its sick, irresponsible or in bad taste. Cowards.
Maybe if everyone weren’t so goddamn weak minded and cowardly the industry would have more respect. If you FEAR the government, public or media then they eat you alive. If you fear the government, public or media then you don't belong in an industry that is in any way shape or form related to art. So to be blunt... Kindly carry your weak, pathetic ass out and don't return until you've rid yourself of fear. At the very least stop getting in the way of progress.
@Ian Bogost:
I agree with you that "sensitive" issues such as the V-Tech shooting and colombine can be dealt with in a sensitive way and make money in other forms of media. Books, news, magazines, television and movies all hand information on sensitive issues to the viewer as just that - a viewer. Someone external to the case at hand. Someone with no stake (typically) in the outcome of the story.
Games have the unique ability to make the "viewer" interact with the concept being presented. For better or worse, the player takes on a role in the progression of the story. This sweeps away some of the impartiality of the player, by giving them objectives (defined by the developer in most, defined by the player in some of the newer "sandbox" games).
How would you recommend dealing with a sensitive issue, one the elicits an emotional response in the "viewer" while at the same time giving them a personal investment in the very topic at hand?
I think it's a topic worth pursuing, but I also worry that any solution - or even finding a sensitive solution, is enough of a challenge that many won't be ready to take it head-on. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
Actually I don't have to support a game such as VT Tech massacre, thats part of my freedom you are so busy rubbing our noses in.
I also had another question:
One of the movies that Ian lists is Elephant, a movie essentially about the Colombine massacre. However, in it the names are all changed as is the location and many of the details. It gives that wonderful disclaimer at the beginning about how any resemblance to actual events or people is coincidental.
The question is:
To Dennis: Would playing a game that took a similar stance (no particulars, but still covering the issue of school shootings) remove the creepiness from it?
To Ian: If such a game was made, would it satisfy your challenge to the industry to produce a thought provoking game on the subject, even though it is not specific?
But what about an identical game based on a fictional, yet similar event in a fictional, yet similar enviroment? Common sense says that the 2 should be treated no different, but public reaction and common sense are rarely the same thing. I could honestly see something like this being succesfully released on one of the more edgy consoles like the DS, and before anyone publically criticises the obvious VA tech metaphor in this fictional game, it would already have enough exposure for people to recognise the art and provocation that a game can have in a sensitive context (whereas a flat out 'VA tech: the game' would simply never make shelf - and idustry releases do need to make shelf, virtual or otherwise).
Just a theory, of course.
@GP & Bogost, keep up the good debate, its great distraction from my raid :)
I offer a couple of ideas in the column, but here's another approach. One of the more persuasive arguments to me about school shooters is that no one influence leads them to the actions they commit -- its a complex of factors, media, home life, friends, etc. Everyone who visits this site should read Gerard Jones' book _Killing Monsters_ for more on this. Anyway, that's an interesting theme for a game. The longevity of factors that create sociopathic behavior.
@Tiler
Yes, in my opinion a fictionalized game that dealt with the same issues would satisfy the challenge.
Of course I want the Industry to progress, if you ready my other comments you would have seen that. But right now at this time it would be bad for the game industry to make a game such as this. A smaller independent game company might get away with it, but a large publisher with several developing houses underneath it would surely be destroyed by the amount of lawsuits and the government that would surely crush them under their ginormis legislative heel.
no one is willing to take that risk right now.
From on art standpoint, games labout V-Tech and Columbine are edgy, invoke a strong emotional reaction, and can be argued that they needed to be made just to force people into dealing with these tragic stuations emotionally.
But we are also a business. As much a busness as People magazine. No one has demanded that People magazine elevate the art of photography. In fact, it's unnecessary as we have many fine photographic artists in the world.
"The Industry" has a responsibility to NOT make games like V-Tech unless they can be reasonably assured they will sell. They owe that responsibility to the company, the workers, and the shareholders.
However, there is nothing stopping individual artists from making such commentary, and using video games as a medium. An independant artist is responsible only to his art, and that is precisely where games like V-Tech and Columbine belong.
Again I realize its silly and maybe offensive to compare the two movements but I was just trying to illustrate a point so please understand that.
thats a really hard balance to strike though. And there are so many factors that go into the view of the Game industry as a whole (mostly misinformed, some blatant lies), and with people (Americans mostly) being so easily swayed in opinions its almost not worth it. And that might be why most Companies stay quiet when the People's Public Microscope(TM) is upon them. what better way to make someone go away then to make them bored with you? granted this is not the best coarse of action at all (I'd rather be on the battle line duking it out) be it's worked so far and it won't change until something goes horribly wrong and the Industry pays.
The film industry has been through it, so has the music industry. It seems all art is made the scapegoat until something else takes the spotlight away from it.
I agree with you, but judging by some of the responses here and elsewhere to this issue Dr. Bogost has raised, I dare say there's a lot of ignorance not just among the general public but also within the gaming community regarding the potential of gameplay to challenge and promote ideas in a way that's NOT edgy, NOT confrontational, and NOT offensive.
It seems that some people are having a hard time imagining a game that doesn't involve killing everything in sight.
But still, as WolfStar76 pointed out, games have a uniquely powerful ability to put the "viewer" directly into a role in the story. When that's done well, a highly immersive game...immersive in the sense of background or context, rather than graphical realism...could actually go a long way towards illuminating new perspectives and helping to understand why or how things happen, which would indeed be very worthwhile to me, especially in the context of something like the Virginia Tech incident.
Existing games don't aim to do that though. I think a huge part of the roadblock here is how we perceive what a video game means. After all, we refer to them as "games". The word itself evokes the idea that you're supposed to derive pleasure from whatever you do in them. And, so far, most games tend to put you directly in the role of the central character. Presumably, you are supposed to find pleasure in doing whatever that character does. So in the case of games like Super Columbine Massacre, I think the mainstream perception is that this "game" is created so people can gain pleasure by re-enacting the shooting.
Other art forms are also frequently designed for entertainment, but it is widely understood that, often, they are meant to make you think and not simply to provide a fun romp. That makes it possible for those mediums to explore such sensitive issues as school shootings or, say, the holocaust. If a new movie comes out about a troubled teenager who eventually cracks and shoots a number of classmates, people will say "Oh, that looks like an interesting issue to explore." Because they assume, from previous experiences with movies, that it will look at that teenager's life in and out of school, and provide some valuable insight into why such things happen.
Video games, on the other hand, are still largely judged in terms of *which children's age group should be getting pleasure from them*. Even among the gaming community, we are constantly talking about parents, children, and "playing". If the same school shooting concept is made in the form of a video game, the initial public reaction will be something like "What kind of sick people want our teenage children to have fun shooting up a high school?" I suspect this perception is largely the basis of Dennis' belief that such a game would be a bad idea.
Honestly, though, I think Mr. Bogost is probably right in this matter. We need more mainstream games that are designed to make you think, rather than to simply entertain. Unfortunately, big companies are notoriously resistant to stepping outside what they're already doing. I doubt they will invest in such games until they have already been proven to be profitable. EA will not publish a serious, thought-provoking Columbine game until they know the public majority will find that acceptable and, more importantly, worth buying. At the same time, public perception is based on past experience - those conditions will never exist if no one creates such games to begin with.
Because of that, I really hope some of the bigger independent developers, including Persuasive Games with their now immense public visibility (Congrats by the way), will be bold enough to create some shining examples of how much value games can provide with regard to such sensitive topics as real-world tragedies. Someday games can have the same level of esteem given to other arts, and the world will be better for it. But it won't happen if no one is willing to put their neck out there to begin with.
Comic books may be going through a similar kind of struggle for acceptance as a serious artistic medium, I'm not sure. They have developed new terms to help the public understand their nature, though, like "sequential art" and "graphic novel."
The fact is, if a computer game organisation made a game based around the VTech shootings, it is a sword that could cut both ways, whilst I fully agree that the right to create such a game should exist, but the problem is that there are enough people out there who will believe what the news tells them without question, that any such organisation would be putting itself at the mercy of the other Media formats, not the First Amendment. The very 'New Media' that is used to 'brainwash children' is also used to 'brainwash adults' into believing that their children are being brainwashed, it's a vicious circle.
Such a game could be used to force discussion, it could also be used to further turn public opinion against a technology that is, for the most part, misunderstood and demonised.
In regards to the creepy comments in the game you think are the creator's call for help... You might want to go read the two creepy plays cho wrote and were released by his english teacher post-shooting. They include the same kind of creepy comments, and it's very likely they were included in the game to represent Cho's F'd-up viewpoint of the world.
Instead of playing as the villian/villains, you play as the good guy, the Cops. Your goal is to save as many people as possible from the mad shooter. You are running the hostage situation, listening to the person's demands, rants, etc. You want to stop him from shooting, and you want to capture him, so what will you do? Will you allow him to air his rants on Live TV, or will you attempt to storm the building and stop him from escaping? Will you do this, will you do that? And you do not want to appear too weak...that may encourage future people on the edge to go and do the same thing...
...Actually, now I think about it...it can expand. Make the whole game focused on stopping mad shooters. Will you spend money on security checkpoints? Will you invest in therapists? Will you ban video games? And how will you handle mad shooters when they shoot up and attack schools? How safe the kids are? How violent the kids are?
You might be wondering how will this help understand the events at VA. Well, it does give you insight in how many social issues such as medical privacy, gun shootings, etc. actually works, so it is nice from a strat. game viewpoint, but it will not actually enter into detail the actual mindset of a school shooter. Instead, its focus will be on saving people and preventing tragedies. However, the goal is to commericalize a product, and make money off it, so anything that attracts sales are a good thing. And, that's where the rants and the reports come in, where you listen to why the mad shooter is doing such things and attempting to correct said issues.
Would this actually sasitfy your demands, Ian? It could work, but I fear I defeat the whole purpose of a VT game by suggesting it.
That is a very good premise for a game; and it does lead it self to be expanded greatly.
However, I get a vision of something similar to Sim City, except you control the safety of the city. That's just what I see just reading your statements above.
For a game like V-tech, I was actually thinking on something similar to SCM-RPG.
Follow Cho's life via a series of mini games. Shooting hoops alone, a mini game following one of his plays. a mini game of Cho at the shooting range. a mini game focusing on avoiding traffic to get the package to the post office. I would stop short of shooting victims and have those elements just for the story portion. and after the package mini game, just story board of what happens ending the game.
Of course commentary on his life.
If I'm understanding you, you're saying about a hypothetical VT game "the goal is to commericalize a product, and make money off it, so anything that attracts sales are a good thing."
I believe the goal of such a thing should not be to make money, but to expand people's expectations of what a game can accomplish in terms of public discourse and addressing a weighty topic.
Seeing a VT game "in a box, in the store" does not necessarily mean that it should be a multi-million dollar blockbuster (surely exploitative), but that it is seen as having the same representation of "games" as Doom or Mortal Kombat.
Could you provide an example please.
I noticed a few things in reading the comments here. First, if gamers aren't ready to accept controversial games then we can't even begin to suggest that the mainstream media accept controversial games. It seems that we have a number of "I support someone's right to make a VTech game but I would never ever play it ever." That's the wrong way to look at things - if someone makes a controversial games it's the responsibility of serious gamers to play it in order to comment on it in a meaningful way. I found the VTech game disturbing and offensive but I still played it because it's relevant to an important, divisive topic in the gaming community and as an intelligent gamer who wants the medium to remove itself from the shackles of pop entertainment I need to be able to comment intelligently on all aspects of the medium.
At the same time we need to realistically understand and accept the limitations of the medium. Gaming will never be able to deal with intimate emotions as well as film or prose however gaming excels at confronting the audience with difficult choices and forcing people to examine their beliefs. As much as I applaud Dr. Bogost for pushing for a VTech game I think more consideration needs to be given to whether or not gaming is the medium through which a VTech inspired message should be delivered.
The other issue that's being raised is whether or not the gaming industry should distance itself from controversial amateur creations. The short answer: no. Long answer: the industry needs to protect itself but it also needs to understand that it has reached critical mass financially and socially. Electronic interactive entertainment is a part of our culture and it's not going away. The next few years will be bumpy, however, as the boomers grudgingly relinquish their control over culture and society. Considering this, the industry should support controversial independent games - though they probably shouldn't actively develop them - in order for the idea of controversial games to flourish. If that happens you'll eventually see a Dark Horse Comics-type gaming company bring controversial games to the mainstream in a big way.
Also (this is getting long :)) a "real" VTech game isn't going to come along for years, if at all. Considering the turn-around involved in creating a game that's more then a derivative spin-off we really don't have to concern ourselves with any major player dropping the virtual VTech bomb any time soon.
I'm sorry, but I've to disagree with you here. VTR has no redeeming qualities (being little more than comparable to an average snuff film) and your "challenge to the industry," is wasted net-space. The main stream industry isn't ready for the "Schindler's List," of video games - not yet. Mostly because I believe video game industry hasn't found it's Spielberg. Perhaps our Spielberg hasn't been born yet. Perhaps he/she is reading these comments right now. Personally, I hope the latter, but my head tells me that we have a long way to go before your challenge can realistically be put into practice - and I'm talking years. Maybe decades.
Anyway, good point/counter-point between GP and yourself. I like a hearty video game discussion after a bout with Montezuma's Revenge. OK, back to relaxing after my honeymoon ...
Congrats on the wedding!
We do need more people in the industry like Spielberg. It would help out a lot. I also agree that that person is not in the industry currently. Hopefully they will be soon.
Well, read through your article, and my thoughts on the matter is that the mainstream game industry is just not in a position to make such a controversial game, no matter how good the merits are. The Problem the game instry faces right now is that it is currently in the crosshairs of those in the mainstream media, Pundits, politicians and all their like. Many of them are a "shoot now, ask questions never" kind of bunch. Couple that with the lack of respect the game industry gets from being seen as child's playthings (even though it's very untrue), and you get a situation where the industry would get seriously scarred for such a game, no matter how good it is.
The Merits of the game can only be seen IF, poeple play the game and actually listen to reveiwers of the game. As seen with SCMRPG, there are many poeple who condemn the game on just the subject matter alone without even bothering to really listen to what the reviewers have to say, or trying to play the game themselves (to them, the reviewers are probably seen as baised gamers who like it just because its a game)... the majority of these would be politicans and pundits in the media. The Merits of the game become ignored by their pure ignornat and/or agenda pushing ways. Furtharmore, because games are an often talked about issue these days, the pundits won't forget the controversal game, and everytime something bad is being said about video games, the controversal game would be brought up as an example of what's wrong with them (no matter how un true the statment may be); they just simply would never let it go.
The Movie industry however does not have this same problem. They won their fight for free speech a long time ago and pratically ignored by those who would attack it. (The Movie indsutry shares many of the same "problems" the game industry, but only the game industry is attacked) Movies have gained respect as an artisitc medium which has an audiaence of all different age groups. The poeple who review films are well reguarded as being unbaised poeple worth listening to... When a Controversal movie hits the screens, the press make sure to see what reviewers of the film have to say, and if the movie reviews are good, then the media will roll with it; unlike with video games where the media won't mention reveiws, but will only talk about what the ignorant pundits say. Since attacking movies is not an issue (unlike video games) and there are so many good things being said about the controversal movie, politicans and Pundits in the media will be a bit more hesitent to touch the movie... sure, some of the more extreme poeple will still condemn the movie, but others will watch the movie and give an educated opinion, or they simply stay quite... With positive news outweighing the negative news, the negative news will die out with time and only the good stuff will be remembered.
That's how i see that Movies can make controversal stuff while Video games can not... Games would get condemned from every angle with only the outspoken groups to actully realize the merits of the game, while Movies would get mostly ignored and forgotten by attackers with the Merits being praised...
Basically, i think if the mainstream game industry wants to make such games, it's got to first win its cultural war just as the movies had to do a few decades back. Once those poeple who currently attack games ignore games just as much as they ignore the Movies, then Video games can start making their way as a respected medium that can tackle such issues... right now, a game company would be commiting Suicide by touching those issues
After thinking about it, that's more or less how i see things... i'd love for a video game to try a tackle such things, but realisitcally, it ain't gonna happen in the current politcan media weather.