Saturday, July 30th 2005 I recently was looking over the website the other day and realized that it has been over a month since I last updated the Horse’s Mouth column. My bad. Life, as it is wont to do, has intruded and derailed my most noble intentions. Ironically, it was the ups and downs of life that spurred me to write this particular column…

Sex, Violence and Painted Horse Games

Before I break into a long winded discourse where I mostly rail against “the man” and occupy the intellectual, if not always moral, high ground vigorously defended by artists throughout the ages, let me begin with a simple story which forced me to reevaluate my thoughts about sex and violence in popular culture, particularly in games.

In the course of organizing and operating a business, one comes to the conclusion that they must get business insurance or run the risk of suffering financial ruin at the hands of a gurgling moron who believes that cardboard tiles are meant to be swallowed wholesale. Not wanting to give the gurgling moron population the benefit of my own hard earned profits, I sought out a proxy who could support the odd gurgler who darkened my door. Much to my amazement, this relatively common task of acquiring business insurance was extraordinarily difficult, not for being a new business or conducting said business in a field not known for great profits, but because my games were deemed “too violent”. A majority of underwriters (approximately 80%) refused to offer me insurance due to the violent nature of the games as presented on the Painted Horse Games’ website.

I would like to think that the hairs of righteous indignation rose on the back of my neck, but in reality, I became quite concerned. Painted Horse Games’ mission is to provide games of a more refined nature, specifically targeting players who enjoy playing with mixed company, whether in terms of sex, cultural identification, or financial backgrounds. In general, I think gratuitous sex and violence to be rather crass, and not a topic I would care to focus on in the games I design or produce.

That is not to say that I do not believe there is no room for gratuitous sex or violence in games. I enjoy the thrill I get out of playing XXXenophile from Slag Blah Entertainment as much as the next person. I also will not make the claim that sex and violence have no role in games designed for PHG. I just prefer to design games where these themes are not as prevalent, or are handled in such a way as to be considered mature themed rather than raunchy or sadistic. PHG’s most violent game to date, tentatively titled Re-Animator, does have a combat system and deals with mutilation of the dead. However, since the zombies in the game cannot be killed, players are encouraged to solve their problems in other ways or find themselves overwhelmed by the restless dead. I have also developed games with historical themes where violence plays a part, such as A Fading Order which takes place in the early 20th century. Some elements of the game are strongly identified with the First World War, including its frightening aftermath. However, it is entirely possible, and even likely, to play the game without experiencing the Great War.

It almost pains me to write this, but this thread of thought has brought me to a place where I can begin to see the value in rating boards, such as the ESRB. Perhaps this whole incident was instigated by the backlash generated from the “Hot Coffee” scenarios in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas from Rockstar Games. This whole debacle disgusts me. The pornographic cut scenes do not bother me at all, and I am surprised that an entire game has not been based solely around this theme, though I am surprised that anyone who purchases a game whose primary mechanic seems to be larceny and shooting police officers would find offensive. The thing that really bothers me is the misrepresentation Rockstar games perpetrated in dealing with the ESRB. Whether Rockstar intentionally left the code on the disc, or just felt that the cost and time spent to remove it would be too onerous, they still failed in their requirement to completely notify the ESRB of all of the material available on the disc, even if it was blocked.

I believe this to be the root of my problem. As a game designer and business owner, I simply consider the ethical questions arising from running a business and producing a game rather than finding ways to completely strip a game of its violent and sexual character thus removing the basis of the question entirely.

This is where review boards come into play. In the tabletop game industry, there is no board oversight so it is in the hands of individual retailers, distributors, printers, accountants and even insurance agents whether they will support a company, as is their right. A review board provides a standard which game producers can design their games towards and allow them to take acceptable risk in how they want to conduct their business. This system does not disallow designers to make the most raunchy game they think of, but it does provide them with an idea of how hard it would be to set up a business around selling it.

The main argument I have heard against review boards, particularly the ESRB, is the unevenness which they apply their judgment based in situational circumstances. For example, would 1313 Dead End Drive from Hasbro, where players assassinate the other players in an attempt to narrow down the field of heirs who may inherit a family fortune (Manufacturer suggested ages 8 to 12, presumably from the cartoon style of the game), be stocked on Wall Mart shelves across the world where as Zombies!!! from Twilight Creations or The Testimony of Jacob Hollow from Third World Games, which ironically have less human violence, be relegated to specialty game stores for having a more “adult” theme?

A valid point. All review boards, regardless of the industry they operate in, need to be constantly challenged to provide better service. In my opinion, faced with the option of receiving a “grade” (situational or not) which allows me some currency in dealings with others, or relying on the individual to decide whether my product fits in their ethical code I would opt for the sure thing.

-Steven Diaz
President & Chief Game Designer, Painted Horse Games