China and playtime

 Xi Jinping has gone too far this time

Oh I've bitten down on my tongue for this matter, on a number of principles that felt good and right at the time. First and foremost being that this isn't a political blog, and I think that the very idea of a 'political blog' sounds like the single worst thing humanely imaginable, just behind the concept of Twitter. Secondly, and this was spurred on my other things that I read, I sort of felt like I didn't really have a voice in this matter, not being a citizen of China myself or knowing anyone from there, so who am I to comment on their social edicts? What flies just well for other parts of the world don't always land well everywhere and I think that's totally fine, I'm happy that we have such different ideas for what makes society tick around the world. (providing, you know, the ideas actually have merit and/or work.) But this has gone beyond the pale, Jinping and his CCP have crossed the Rubicon, and what's more it crossed into the realm of gaming and outside of strictly politics from the inception of the story, thus watch me as I expend far too much effort justifying the most tame take of 2021. China's mandate of limiting gaming time to 3 hours a week sucks. (Gasp! Rabble rabble rabble...)

Now first I want to address the obvious point, in that I'm perhaps being a little alarmist with the way I phrased that, and I am. The mandate limiting the amount of time that people play isn't for all gamers, rather it's for children so that they can be programmed into imposing these limitations on themselves into adulthood. (Suppression works so much smoother with a healthy opening does of indoctrination thrown in) And that is the first thing people like to bring up whenever you offer a raised eyebrow to this forced gaming-time limit; "this is for the good of the youth to ensure that they don't become hooked to gaming that may hurt their grades and swallow up all their free time. It's for the children!" And who are we to say that public health mandates made in another country to fit a demographic you aren't part of is draconian? All good points which I accept, there's over a billion citizens in China and I'm sure their perspective on sweeping social policy is influenced by that unique fact. But here's a related question, should policing the free time of children really be the job of the government? Isn't that what the parents are for? I mean- that's why they became parents right? Because they want to raise this human, rather than watch it be raised for them? If this really is all about helping the children and solely about that, then couldn't the same end be reached with much less invasive and degrading measures, such as creating programs to teach parents how and why they should keep and eye on their children's free-time activities? (Maybe Xi just wants to feel like he's in everybody's living room with them, or something, playing Uncle Discipline.)

But wait, isn't this something of a toothless decree. I mean, how could the CCP feasibly enforce such an ungainly and wide reaching policy short of knocking down every door in the country (Which doesn't seem all that feasible given the population numbers.) Well they've actually solved that, because you see; China already had a pretty good stranglehold on all entertainment that can legally enter the country, and their government has the utmost control over entertainment created within their borders. As such, every Tencent game is fitted with a login feature that requires identifying data in order to play a session, proving the age of who's gaming. (As well as handily allowing the government to keep track of all player's gaming times so that they judge and manipulate social credit scores accordingly. This bracketed stuff is alleged, I feel legally obliged to say) Whatsmore, there's talk that logging into these games are starting to all require a live webcam section to the login so that details can't just be lent out to kids, the player will be clearly visible to... who? Will there be an AI checking ages with facecam footage? Do they have a team dedicated to just this task? Is Xi Jinping himself taking the opportunity to spy on gamers in their most vulnerable state like a creep? Who can say?

Now you might wonder, given that this effectively makes it impossible for any significant playtime to be racked up by young players, how the internal games companies are reacting to the time bans. Well if you wish to take state funded and run industries at their word, and who doesn't, then we can see the results on their profits are largely negligible. Tencent claimed only a measly margin of the money they make is off the back of children, and tossed away potential shortfalls with the carefree abandon of someone who's bills are covered by the government they serve. They're making enough money not to be wound up by these measures, but considering how every company on this diseased, greying, earth is forever in pursuit of all the money; I have to wonder if there are true, unspoken, thoughts bubbling away in the studios. (EA has shown just how profitable catering to children can be, afterall)

But if we're going to come down on real reasons, or rather the best assumptions we can make on the topic regarding the evidence to hand, then things become interesting. Whilst 'protecting the minds of our youth' seems like a noble goal, well- let's just say that nobility hardly makes for believable motivation when we're talking about a government who happily courts human rights violations on the regular. (Or at the least, that would be hugely hypocritical) Instead I think we saw a sliver of the truth leak out in a now infamous state article which attacked video games, tanking stock and spurring Chinese games companies to drastic measures. This article used a very specific term to describe gaming. "Spiritual Opium". A clear reference to the way that the British historically broke and addled the Chinese youth with the opium trade, resulting in several wars. An understandable reason for persisting animosity between China and the West. But what does that mean for the way they view video games? Well I think it's pretty clear, China see it as product of influence from the West that threatens CCP influence. At it's heart this isn't about the mental wellbeing of any children, this is about control. 

Recently this came to a head in my eyes when it was discovered that Chinese censors had made changes to the designs from outside the country in order to curve what they label as 'effeminate' characters. Actually, this push goes beyond gaming and into all cultural influences entering the country, but we have an example from the gaming world too. This is just another piece of evidence, if you needed it, that the CCP are so invested in managing their citizen's lives that they must dictate the very concept of what it is to be 'male' in order to appease some pathetic antiquated stereotype that they deem to be 'moral'. Too much chest showing? That's not manly. Wearing pink? None of that. Long hair? Better cut that down to regulation length now. It's not hard to see the unspoken attack on homosexuality barely hidden under these dictations, alongside the much more predictable disparaging of non-conformity in general. 

These are the sorts of standards that the CCP stands for, archaic and repressive as they sound, and those who buy into their narrative of 'positive social reform' and 'proactive policy establishment' merely need to look beyond the headlines. Again, this isn't a political blog, and so every opinion I share is primarily directed to the way these people view art and gaming, but when it bleeds into the real world like this I can't just ignore it. I think the idea of 'negative effeminacy' really struck a cord with me because I immediately reflected on how policy-makers like this would view a property I supremely love, like Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. Most every member of the Jojo cast, main or side, are always depicted with lavish extravagance and eye-popping colours, often whilst posing like supermodels. Also, most of them are male. It's a style that often runs hard against the stoic, boring, tough-guy model of the stereotypical 'manly man', and yet I respect that image a lot more than I do of the dull male protagonists of most other anime. A microcosm of this debate, perhaps, but I feel that has a relevant place in this conversation, because I believe that 'masculinity' is in no way limited to something as vapid and ephemeral as how you look and act, but instead is derived from the strength of your character. And besides, what's a cuddly little Pooh-bear like Xi Jinping know about how to be a manly man anyway? His evenings are no doubt spent curled up in a ball under his bed with a comically large terracotta jar inscribed with the title 'Hunny'.

So now we can come back on the whole 3-hour time limit on video gaming and see what it actually represents. It's an identification of gaming, as they have already done before with other forms of art, as an act of expression that runs counter to the goals of the government, however they specifically pan out. (I don't claim to know the inner workings of the Chinese government's hivemind, I can only paint broad strokes.) It's action made to try and exorcize gaming, and other societal influences, from the routines of children in the hopes that they don't pick them up as an adult. And it's an attack on individual freedoms. Now perhaps the Chinese public don't hold 'personal freedoms' to the same standard as the rest of the world, and I don't mind them viewing things that way. They may be utterly happy with the rulings and what it represents. I, however, look upon it all and see a poor policy, established in bad faith, to dubious ends. (Yeah, I have a feeling I'm not going to get approved for that vacation to Shaanxi anytime soon...)

Catching the Censorship bug.

Somethings gonna give.

Censorship. Something of a contentious topic in the wider world, especially when applied to creative endeavours. People always like to postulate on the necessity of censorship and the reaches it will go to if left unchecked. As a result, some interesting hypotheticals get bought up on the issue. Does the artists intent come into play when something is censored? Is anything worthy of full censorship or just partial censorship? And at what point does censorship start to impede the fundamental values of freedom of speech? I'm not here to talk about any of those larger examples of censorship you may have heard about in the world however, wouldn't fit my MO. I want to talk to you about censorship as it exists within video games today, mostly between the covering of naughty parts and violence.

For my part I'm an advocate of reduced levels of censorship and regulation. I think that artists should have the right to express themselves in whatever way that they-so choose and bring their work to light even if it does touch on darker topics. It allows for a greater range of discussion and discourse when a narrative is allowed to plump into the darker depths of human capabilities. This is the sort of thing that can really push a story into a realm where it can actually effect the audience in ways they had never thought possible. Who remembers back when Game of Thrones was still good and we were subjected to the scene that has come to be known as the red wedding? Do you remember how you felt? For me, watching it alone in the dark, I remember sitting there in shock until the next show came on. (Which, incidentally, was a making-of for GoT.) After I could bear to get up again, I remember going to by room and sitting down thinking 'I'd love to play a game to calm down but I don't think I can stand to see the colour red right now'. That scene was so brutal and vivid that it displayed the horrific reality of violence in a way that no other 'hyper violent' show or movie had ever done for me before. To this day I've never felt that way after watching a particularly gruesome scene in anything and I think it's a shame.

The reason I bought up that GoT Scene was because I don't think that would have been aired 10 years prior. Of course, it helped that Game of Thrones was still incredibly popular when that scene aired, I doubt that 'Arrow' could have gotten away with a similar scene. But we have come such a long way when it comes to regulating fictional violence that the 'The red wedding' is now a possibility. If we hadn't of made strides to break down the wall of censorship that had been established, we might have never been graced with one of the most powerful and memorable moments of TV. When we come to the topic of the way that censorship has been utilized when it comes to Video Games we find that different walls have been setup that have yet to be challenged, yet alone overcome.

But first lets start at the beginning. You're likely already aware of the origins of Video Game censorship but I love to hear the sound of my own typing so bear with me. In 1976 a little game called 'Death Race' hit the arcades. (No apparent relation to the Stallone movie.) In the game the player was tasked with running over gremlins in a little pixel car. The height of carnage, obviously. This caused a whole slew of controversy as people decried the game whilst claiming the usual: the game would lead to rampant hit-and-cases all over the country! Since then there were several scattered controversies over the years. 1982's Clusters Revenge (Aka sexual assault simulator), 1987's Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards (Which didn't even feature anything sexual, it was just a crappy point and click game.) and, of course, 1992's Mortal Kombat. Midway's Mortal Kombat utilized animation developed from real life pictures to simulate it's fighters, and then worked on blood and gore effects on top. The result was the most horrifying and realistic violence ever seen by man! In the early 1990's! The ensuing chaos is well documented. Everyone and their mother wanted Video Games banned for their violent influence, because video games were most certainly the cause of all evil in the world. Things got so bad that in 1994 the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was established in order to get ahead of things before government regulation started up.

Since then, Violence has become a huge sticking point for people who dislike gaming. Just look at disbarred attorney Jack Thomspon. (Who's Wikipedia page rather generously lists as 'activist' rather than 'explotation artist'.) Jack made a name for himself by launching a campaign on all things pixellated for years. Okay, that's not entirely true. Back in the day he spoke out against rap music too, but he really hit a stride with all the Video Game stuff. Jack seemed to position himself as an arch nemesis to unstoppable video game titan: Rockstar. The attacks he made against the violence and sexual themes of GTA are legendary. He filed lawsuits against them, funded campaigns and went all out to destroy Take Two through the legal courts. Then he got disbarred.

But before he slipped into obscurity, Jack Thomson opened the floodgates for the cries of censorship that would befall the gaming landscape. Droves of NRA members would accuse games of causing violence, rather ironically. Talks show hosts would film segments on GTA, lamenting the way the game encouraged hedonism and murder (completely oblivious to it's satirical leanings), and then there was that one time when Watch_dogs got in the headlines. I understand that people are afraid of 'hacking' even though most of those people have no idea what hacking actually is, but accusing Watch_Dogs of teaching children how to hack is positively laughable.

Censorship isn't just an issue of the past either. Just recently there was a huge controversy over the censorship spearheaded by an unlikely source: From Sony itself! (Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.) A spokesperson had made a statement indicating that the company was making moves to cut down on the stretch of sexual themes in their games, namely the Japanese Anime-focused ones. Personally, I have rather strong views on this particular branch of censorship but I'll likely write more on that at a later date. At the time it didn't worry a lot of people because, for the general public, their games-of-choice weren't in the crosshairs. That was, at least, until Devil May Cry 5.

Devil May Cry marked it's triumph return to it's series roots by reintroducing the classic versions of popular series characters: Dante and Lady. One scene did raise the hackles of Sony, however, when Lady was swallowed by a demon and had to be rescued by Dante. After she was freed there was a scene wherein she was expelled from the beast naked and defeated. Dante then picks her up and takes her to safety. It should be noted that this was done through a cut scene and the nudity was handled tastefully. Lady was obscured from view and nothing racy was shown. (Oh, wait. There was an inch of but crack in one shot? My bad, call the censors, we need to lock this down!) Sony made the move to add a light flare in one scene showing a glimpse Lady's behind, making a whole slew of gamers raise an eyebrow and say "Really?!"

It's less the act and more the audacity that Sony believed themselves fully within their rights to edit someone else's artwork in order for them to be comfortable with it. The change was small, but the precedent set is incredibly unsettling. Even Nintendo reflected similar remarks (Nintendo!) saying that it isn't their place to decide on the content of third party games. If you don't think it would fit with your policies than don't sell the thing, but acknowledge that you'll be missing out on a stream of revenue by doing so. When the question of censorship arrives, just like with South Park's manatees it is an all or nothing scenario.

The topic of content regulation and censorship stretches to a whole slew of areas that really require their own blog to dive into. I just wanted to establish a baseline to expand from and show you how things are playing out in today's world. In the coming years I think that this topic will become increasingly important as these outdated values start to seriously impact the earned media that the Internet has fostered in recent years. (Which I elaborated more on in my: 'Youtube vs gaming' blog.) From the looks of it, things are going to get worse before they get better as fear mongering starts to lead the direction of the industry. Maybe I'm being a tad hyperbolic but it can be enlightening to imagine the extremes in formative times like these, because we may just reach those extreme sooner than one might think.