›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

MAGFest Gaming Intellectuals - Video Game Ethics

MrPeriodMrPeriod
edited February 2013 in GeekNights

MAGFest Gaming Intellectuals
Video Game Ethics

Every year, Scott and I attend MAGFest not just to lecture, but also to sit as panelists alongside the rest of the MAGFest "Gaming Intellectuals" on various gaming topics.

Is it truly ethical to design a game to be addictive, or is "addictiveness" simply a sign of good design? Do games change us in more ways than we might realize? Is regulation on the horizon (as we have already seen arising in Japan), a good idea, or even truly possible? How are games different from other media?

Source Link
«1

Comments

  • okeefeokeefe
    edited February 2013
    You have trained me to never go to any of your panels or lectures at a convention, because I could go do something else and catch up when you post them to YouTube—unless they're interactive, like your Learn a Boardgame lectures.
    Post edited by okeefe on
  • RymRym
    We might not publish the PAX East ones specifically to avoid that problem. =P
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    If only you could repeatedly credibly promise not to publish, and then publish every time.
  • RymRym
    If only you could repeatedly credibly promise not to publish, and then publish every time.
    Well, we're in the tiny-ass panel room for at least one of our lectures this year, so it may well not be feasible to video without the stage...

  • AprecheApreche
    That's fine. Panels are for people who don't already know who we are.
  • AmpAmp
    As a question, what constituted it being a intellectual panel? It seems that it is rather a broad term to use with regards to gaming.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    I think the main idea is to put together people with a decent level of expertise in the area, and go from there.
  • RymRym
    As a question, what constituted it being a intellectual panel? It seems that it is rather a broad term to use with regards to gaming.
    That's the name of the group put together by MAGFest: "Gaming Intellectuals."

    We run our own lecture(s) independently of these specific branded panels, which are organized ahead of time by the convention from a pool of invited guests.
  • AmpAmp
    edited February 2013
    That would be part of my rub. What counts as a decent level of expertise? I know Dr Hazard holds a PHD so that is something but what makes someone an expert? Is it just playing a dick ton of video games? An understanding of the mechanics? The story? Design? All of the above? I feel that there really needs to be a better definition of what constitutes and expert or an authority when coming to something that is still relatively new.
    As a question, what constituted it being a intellectual panel? It seems that it is rather a broad term to use with regards to gaming.
    That's the name of the group put together by MAGFest: "Gaming Intellectuals."

    We run our own lecture(s) independently of these specific branded panels, which are organized ahead of time by the convention from a pool of invited guests.
    Wasn't having a dig at you, it was more of an open question that had been kicking around in my head for a while.

    Post edited by Amp on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2013
    That would be part of my rub. What counts as a decent level of expertise? I know Dr Hazard holds a PHD so that is something but what makes someone an expert? Is it just playing a dick ton of video games? An understanding of the mechanics? The story? Design? All of the above?
    I think the sensible answer is this - any one of the above, as long as it's relevant to the specific topic at hand and such expertise been demonstrated in the past.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • RymRym
    We were invited due to our long history of apt lectures and commentary on games. They've invited more people every year: mostly actual academics or people in the industry.
  • AmpAmp
    That would be part of my rub. What counts as a decent level of expertise? I know Dr Hazard holds a PHD so that is something but what makes someone an expert? Is it just playing a dick ton of video games? An understanding of the mechanics? The story? Design? All of the above?
    I think the sensible answer is this - any one of the above, as long as it's relevant to the specific topic at hand and such expertise been demonstrated in the past.
    So how do we grade this then? Say for example that both you and I are BFFs and have played the same games together and know the same stuff, we shoot the shit and have good discussions. One day you decide to start running panels and I sit on my arse. This goes on for five years, we still play games but you run panels and get into discussions with other like minded people and all that. Does that make you more reliable as an someone to talk to for this stuff or is there something more? Again I'm really curious as to where this distinction comes in as I feel that it is prone to abuse, where people call themselves one thing but can't back it up.
    We were invited due to our long history of apt lectures and commentary on games. They've invited more people every year: mostly actual academics or people in the industry.
    Do you know that what sort of criteria then that you all have to meet? Have they gone and looked at your back catalog and seen that you both speek sense and are more valid then say Fred Bloggs creator of Spec ops 2; cover shooter dark grey addition.
  • MattMatt
    You forgot the part where they measure dicks
  • AmpAmp
    Oh yeah got to get the dick measuring in. I hear that the guy who runs extra credit had got a massive shlong.
  • RymRym
    edited February 2013
    Off-hand, I would say it's (for the GI specifically) primarily a combination of:

    1. Demonstrably good presentation skills
    2. Active research in the subject area
    3. Credentials of some kind in the industry
    4. A history of communicating interesting and relevant ideas


    Generally, an expert is someone who has attained a level of mastery in a narrow field. The nature of the field defines the applicability of the expertise.

    Someone who plays CounterStrike often, understands the game more or less fully, and wins reliably against professional-tier players could be called an expert CounterStrike player. That says nothing about their other expertise, such as:

    a. Commentary on others playing
    b. Teaching/Coaching others on playing
    c. Designing or critiquing design on this or similar games
    d. Presentation of ideas related to this or similar games.

    I personally am an expert in the FIX protocol, as one example.

    Do you know that what sort of criteria then that you all have to meet? Have they gone and looked at your back catalog and seen that you both speak sense and are more valid then say Fred Bloggs creator of Spec ops 2; cover shooter dark grey addition.
    Well, yes. Everyone does that. I maintain a fairly detailed resume for any speaking engagement, and measure is unceasing. ;^)

    We're active in the convention circuit, and have a long history. That counts for a lot. We also can present live and require no editing or major preparation. That also counts for a lot.

    Most people who are experts on anything do not also have expertise in public speaking of any sort. Live talks from such people are often of little value except in the case of Q&A or interview.

    Post edited by Rym on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2013
    So how do we grade this then? Say for example that both you and I are BFFs and have played the same games together and know the same stuff, we shoot the shit and have good discussions. One day you decide to start running panels and I sit on my arse. This goes on for five years, we still play games but you run panels and get into discussions with other like minded people and all that. Does that make you more reliable as an someone to talk to for this stuff or is there something more?
    Yes, it absolutely does make me more reliable in this hypothetical scenario, from an outside point of view. The simplest reason is that I have actually demonstrated some of that knowledge publicly, whereas you have not.

    Apart from that, running panels and getting into discussions is likely to have exposed me to more of the relevant discourse. That's not to say that you can't choose to do so on your own, but it's much less likely.

    Just think of this kind of thing in terms of statistics; as a matter of correlation rather than causation. None of the factors we've discussed make someone better as a matter of necessity, but such things are nonetheless strong evidence of expertise.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • 5ro45ro4
    edited February 2013
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kompu gacha only banned if lucrative? Because then it isn't actually the game mechanic that's banned but it's application as a monetization system. Pretty different cases.

    Still, great panel.
    Post edited by 5ro4 on
  • AmpAmp
    edited February 2013
    Off-hand, I would say it's (for the GI specifically) primarily a combination of:

    1. Demonstrably good presentation skills
    2. Active research in the subject area
    3. Credentials of some kind in the industry
    4. A history of communicating interesting and relevant ideas


    Generally, an expert is someone who has attained a level of mastery in a narrow field. The nature of the field defines the applicability of the expertise.

    Thats a pretty good set of criteria, so who then validates those that meet them? I can understand a respected degree counting in your favour but what would constitute active research or communication? For instance you and Scott have given talks at Pax Dev, Prime and East as well as a host of other conventions. Does the quality of these events act as a mesure of the quality of your presentations?
    So how do we grade this then? Say for example that both you and I are BFFs and have played the same games together and know the same stuff, we shoot the shit and have good discussions. One day you decide to start running panels and I sit on my arse. This goes on for five years, we still play games but you run panels and get into discussions with other like minded people and all that. Does that make you more reliable as an someone to talk to for this stuff or is there something more?
    Yes, it absolutely does make me more reliable in this hypothetical scenario, from an outside point of view. The simplest reason is that I have actually demonstrated some of that knowledge publicly, whereas you have not.

    Apart from that, running panels and getting into discussions is likely to have exposed me to more of the relevant discourse. That's not to say that you can't choose to do so on your own, but it's much less likely.

    Just think of this kind of thing in terms of statistics; as a matter of correlation rather than causation. None of the factors we've discussed make someone better as a matter of necessity, but such things are nonetheless strong evidence of expertise.
    Cool so Im with you on that. So its the display of this knowledge that helps to add validity to your claim, Im going to assume that would cover written work as well.

    To lead on what factors do you feel would make someone more of an expert.
    Post edited by Amp on
  • RymRym
    For instance you and Scott have given talks at Pax Dev, Prime and East as well as a host of other conventions. Does the quality of these events act as a mesure of the quality of your presentations?
    Yes?

    I don't make the decisions: the convention does. In all things, humans use their personal discretion and judgement. There is no rigid framework or list of specific qualifications.

  • RymRym
    The bottom line:

    If you want to be invited to speak at places on things, you need to demonstrate publicly an ability to reliably deliver interesting content related to said things. No amount of expert knowledge will ever be relevant unless you demonstrate said knowledge.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2013
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't kompu gacha only banned if lucrative? Because then it isn't actually the game mechanic that's banned but it's application as a monetization system. Pretty different cases.

    Still, great panel.
    Had they banned it more generally as a game mechanic, then Pokémon games would be banned.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • AmpAmp
    The bottom line:

    If you want to be invited to speak at places on things, you need to demonstrate publicly an ability to reliably deliver interesting content related to said things. No amount of expert knowledge will ever be relevant unless you demonstrate said knowledge.
    Im with you on that one. What I can't get my head round is what body gives this approval. Is it the turn out you get for your lectures, does its popularity show its quality. Or does the content matter more. Sorry if Im going in circles and being a bit slow but its something that has been on my mind for a bit.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    He just answered that:
    I don't make the decisions: the convention does. In all things, humans use their personal discretion and judgement. There is no rigid framework or list of specific qualifications.
  • AmpAmp
    He just answered that:
    I don't make the decisions: the convention does. In all things, humans use their personal discretion and judgement. There is no rigid framework or list of specific qualifications.
    I was meaning in general. So we then have to view each persons achievements separately?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Not only that, but more importantly there is no one "we" that decides who is and is not an expert. It's down to the discretion of whoever makes the decision to include that person in the panel, event, etc.
  • 5ro45ro4
    edited February 2013
    Had they banned it more generally as a game mechanic, then Pokémon games would be banned.
    Don't know if they changed it in newer generations, but in my time the only thing you'd get for catching every pokémon was a congratulations screen, and you didn't have to give your "complete set" in exchange for it. Kompu gacha is more specific than just a collection system with ratios. But whatever.
    Post edited by 5ro4 on
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited February 2013
    Had they banned it more generally as a game mechanic, then Pokémon games would be banned.
    Don't know if the changed it in newer generations, but in my time the only thing you'd get for catching every pokémon was a congratulations screen, and you didn't have to give your "complete set" in exchange for it. Kompu gacha is more specific than just a collection system with ratios. But whatever.
    True. Although you do get a prize for catching every Pokémon, it's true that you don't have to give in the complete set for that prize, and so there may be a minor technical difference. One could also argue that the prize is in some sense "small" and doesn't really count.

    Either way, I think it's much more likely that the ban specifically focused on monetized kompu gacha mechanics. As far as I can see, it's ultimately not that different to government restrictions on gambling, even though in this case the prizes cannot be converted back into real money.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Anthony HemanAnthony Heman
    I have no idea what this threads current conversation is directed at. Is it what qualifies someone as an intellectual?

    Why am I reminded of that one chapter opening in line in The Prince of Nothing about every man thinking himself the one at the top of the world?
  • MattMatt
    edited February 2013
    I think the topic is a bit more pointed. It's about gauging the qualifications of convention panelists, to inform decisions on whether you should listen to what they have to say or even bother attending.

    To me, con panels and gaming talk is entertainment. I'm not going to vet people's credentials and sources at if we're discussing science or medicine.
    Post edited by Matt on
  • RymRym
    I basically only attend a lecture/panel at a convention if it will:

    1. entertain me
    2. educate me

    If it doesn't do both, it had better do the one it does do to an insane degree.

    I have basically zero patience for 50 minutes of undirected Q&A or high school presentation power point lectures. ;^)
Sign In or Register to comment.