At Deep Red we are currently developing a game based on the 1960's television show Thunderbirds. As with the show, the game involves rescuing people in danger. For the game, we're using the HAVOK library, by Telekinesis, to perform our real-time physics simulation. It's a powerful system with a lot of nice features. For instance, we could use it to model articulated characters that get blown around realistically by explosions. HAVOK's 'fracture' feature could come in handy. If the amount of force applied to a limb is greater than a certain threshold, we could use the fracture feature to rip off heads, arms, legs, lower bodies, etc. Then we'd play a nice convulsion animation on the dismembered parts, of course. If lots of people got ripped apart in a small area, you'd get little herds of limbs crawling awkwardly downhill. Herding the limbs could be a little mini-game unto itself. Like Lemmings, only more so.

But surprise! - we're not going to portray death and damage to humans in Thunderbirds in such a violent or explicit way. Why? Because it's not in the spirit of the show or the game. This is a game about heroism and skill. We don't want the gore to upstage the gameplay, no matter how technically cool the gore is. Moreover, we want players of all ages to be able to enjoy the game without being psychologically damaged by it. Keeping it clean not only makes for a better game, it expands our audience.

And then there's always the question of censorship. Most of the major markets are actually quite lax about what you put in a game, so long as you label the game appropriately. But there is a growing voice of concern about violence in games. US Senator Joseph Lieberman has made a name for himself decrying violence in video games. Although the American public continues to be typically passive toward issues that supposedly concern them, there does seem to be a broad level of outrage toward violent games. Last year, Brazil banned several violent games including Doom, Postal, Blood, and Duke Nukem.

Around the world, nations are slowly making up their minds about violent games. Do they contribute to youth or even adult violence? And what form of censorship should be used to keep game developers at bay?

Violence and Society

Developers I talk to tend to say the same general things about violence in games. They point out that it's up to parents to limit what their children are exposed to. They highlight the role of the availability of guns, particularly in the US, in video game-related crime. They argue that it is ridiculous to blame violent games for causing a person to go on the rampage.

But the question isn't whether video games have the ability to force somebody 'over the edge'. The question is what the increased presence of more and more violent images in daily life, from games as well as other media, does to society. It's hard to argue that a more violent visual environment doesn't lead to a more angry, violent society.

In his Gamasutra article, 'Reflections on the Colorado School Massacre', Bullfrog Producer Ernest Adams stated: 'It may never be possible to prove that violent video games cause violent behavior. But if the evidence continues to suggest that it does...then for the game industry to split hairs about "proof" and "causation" would put us exactly where the tobacco industry is now.'

I don't want to spend my mid-life in a more violent or psychopathic culture. I'd like to think that the world will get better and healthier in the next few decades. The media - and that means us - mustn't wait for governments to censor us and kerb our appetite for violence. As members of the public we ourselves have a vested interest in improving society. Significantly, we have more power to actually do this than most. And for me, this is the crux.

The Digital Age

It is we, the wizards and priests of the digital age, that are forging a new society. We are its architects and fashioners. The spells we weave in 0s and 1s are creating a whole new universe.

The virtual world that now exists already reflects our masculine, technical, young, middle-class mindset. We make games where people play cops and robbers running about and shooting each other, generals ordering armies of little men to war against each other, and tycoons engineering cities and theme parks. They are boys' games made big, brash and loud. Consciously or not, we have been creating a world in our own image.

The rest of mankind is beginning to move into the place we have prepared. As they do so, our power and influence over human civilisation grows. This isn't some hypothetical power, but the true ability to shape the way people think, feel, and act on a daily basis: in their relationships, in their spare time, and on the street.

You've experienced this yourself. You've flamed people and been flamed. You've written politicians or rock stars or John Carmack and had them actually respond to mere you. You've gotten bored with soft porn and moved on to harder stuff. You've found fan sites for obscure obsessions and realized you're not the only person who worships the film Dragonslayer. While your relatives ask, in flabbergasted tones, how you can spend such a lovely day sitting in front of the computer, you're just glad you finally got your hands on Diablo II.

Computers, games, and the Internet have reached into your soul and changed it. You're already living in the new society. It's a world of competition, action, and machismo. It's also a world of egalitarianism, pluralism, and intellect. And no politician, or powder-wigged founding father, or bearded philosopher dreamed it up. We did.

I'll be frank: I savour this power. I want to help change the world. I want to build the roads and roadside attractions across a new frontier. And part of that desire is the hope that this new world will be better, kinder, happier - and more fun - than the old one.

Beyond Censorship

Censorship is not the issue. We as image creators and games makers have far better things to do than worry about what this or that government does or doesn't want in its games. The point is not that we shouldn't make violent, offensive, or exploitive games. It's that we should make visionary, creative, engrossing games that explore the whole range of human experience and enjoyment.

We are creating the living-, playing-, and working-space of the new century. In a very real sense that means we should be even more self-critical than any censor. It will take governments decades to understand the technical, psychological, and legal issues involved in the digital society. We are already there. Who better to envision the world we want to live in, and then to create it?