Heather Chaplin and Aaron Ruby are the husband and wife coauthors of Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution. Following five years of extensive research, they have examined the videogame industry through intimate portraits of the people behind the revolution; making their way from the hackers at MIT in the 1960s to the billions Microsoft gambled to get in the door. We got a chance to talk with them about the cultural acceptance and future of videogames.
Check out our review of the book as well.
The title, SMARTBOMB, doesn't sound like the typical
title for a book about video games.Heather Chaplin: Aaron came up with the name SMARTBOMB; it first comes from his love of Defender as a kid; as a teenager he worked in a local pizzeria, mostly so he could play the games. When we were starting the book, we were really realizing that games not only don't make you dumb, but the whole technology and industry is kind of like a "smartbomb" onto the culture. We were really intrigued by military issues. Aaron in particular was struck that though smartbombs were around before Defender and Missile Command, it was through video games that the word came into popular parlance.
Aaron Ruby: The idea was to play off this military notion. It was interesting to us that the word smart bomb came into parlance during the Gulf War via games, even though the military had used it since the close of Vietnam.
Was the military a large part of your focus for the book, or did it develop out of your research?
HC: The Iraq War was started soon after we started the book, so the whole military thing seemed really heightened. Aaron caught on to military connection very early, with early arcade games like Battlezone and then Marine Doom.
AR: But it was actually the announcement of the formation of the Institute for Creative Technology (ICT) at USC and the release of OC Incorporated’s Real War, commissioned by the Joint Chiefs.
HC: Obviously all tech industries are in one way or another tied to military research.
I think that chapter in the book does a really good job of explaining the culture in the military behind the use of games. We all knew it was there...
HC: What struck us was that now the military was turning to entertainment for help.
AR: It was also interesting to see that, unlike the movie industry, the video game industry is much less conflicted about such cooperation, for better or ill.
Do you think the criticisms leveled against games as being murder simulators is a fair one?
AR: Not really, and if you’re talking about Grand Theft Auto then absolutely not! But if you're talking about Full Spectrum Warrior, the discussion gets a bit murkier, though I wouldn't use the term "murder simulation." “Murder” implies motive, which video games don't supply.
Critics like Dave Grossman would say that titles like Full Spectrum Warrior do help train the people playing them, even children, to kill.
HC: I think it's complicated. What a lot of people we interviewed pointed out was that games like Full Spectrum Warrior don't necessarily make you more of a raving maniac killer - but it does teach the skill set needed by the modern soldier.
AR: To the extent that games can teach how to stack fire, set up a killzone, etc. and to the extent they offer transferable skills, then games like Full Spectrum Warrior might impart skills that would benefit a murderer.
HC: ...and of course tactical combat teamwork. So, in a way, it's more insidious really.
AR: Grossman has a point, but he and [Jack] Thompson don't know how to differentiate between the model aspect of games and the content portion. I’m not sure I’d say more, but the point is that either way, there's nothing about these games that make you murderers.
I don't want to spend too long on this ongoing controversy since we'd be up all night, but I wanted to mention it since the book clearly distinguishes what gamers learn from these types of games and why the military sees such promise in them.
HC: One game designer we grew to know well didn't want this attributed to him (which is interesting in itself) but in 2005, he said he saw the industry moving towards more MMMFs - murder made more fun.
AR: Bottom line: I think it boils down to ignorance about what video games are, with respect to the public, the politicians, and even the ESA. We do need to give parents a heads up for dual-purposed games, which are also designed to train the military. But the ESRB system isn't equipped to do that; they don't even play the games they rate. That's like rating a movie by reading a storyboard.
HC: The military was the first segment of society outside of entertainment to realize the power of video game technology as a teaching tool.
AR: Definite head start syndrome.
HC: I think we're seeing educators beginning to regret having been so dismissive and afraid for so long.
I'm curious about why you chose the format
you did for the book, short of stepping on the toes of already comprehensive histories like Leonard Herman's Phoenix and Stephen Kent's The Ultimate History of Video Games.HC: We were pretty adamant that we weren't trying to do a history. We wanted to create something that told a whole story and the best way to do that seemed to be to tell a bunch of short, narrative stories that taken together would make up a whole. We wanted to poke into the different corners of the world so that people would get the sense of how big and diverse the world is. And we really, really, really wanted the book to be a good read, something easily accessible to non-gamers as well as gamers.
AR: And also, who wants to read 300 continuous pages about video games? It's a tough row to hoe.
HC: We really thought of each chapter as being a whole unto itself so that the reader could read them in the order he or she chose, or could read them start to finish. That's why we worked really hard so that each chapter would work on its own but that taken together and read in order, the experience would be richer.
I'm glad you said that Aaron. There's obviously a lack of interest in long histories. Both Herman's and Kent's histories are self-published. Did you have trouble finding a publisher interested in video games?
HC: We got a publisher right away, who "got" that this was a big subject. That said, it has been far harder than I would ever have imagined to convince people who don't think they care about the subject why they would find this a compelling read. You wouldn't believe the kind of prejudice we go up against in the "mainstream" media.
Games still have a stigma attached.
HC: Oh yeah, even as they become "cool." It's a generation thing: young editors get it, old ones don't.
Evidenced by the story I read regarding Aaron's PlayStation being smuggled into the house.
HC: Ha! Okay, admitted. I used to not get it.
AR: The bigger outlets have no idea how to portray gaming, except as an oddity, while specialty magazines just cater to the hardcore gamer.
In late November, Roger Ebert said, "The nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship [however elegant or sophisticated] to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers…." Do you think he was being unfair, or are there not enough champions of gaming? There are no Roger Eberts of games for example.
AR: The Ebert thing was interesting, if only because it highlights how ignorant even our most prominent cultural critics are. When did "authorial control" ever become a prerequisite for art? I think he was just ignorant. You’re right though; there really aren't any Ebert's of games yet.
HC: I think he was not only ignorant but also afraid. I think people fear video games because they're like an announcement that the future is not going to be what they thought. People thought the novel would lead to moral decay. Socrates thought the written word was a bad idea. Film was something bums did in the afternoon. Rock ‘n roll…
… comic books.
AR: Which raises a good point: Ebert accepts comics but not video games -- not because of authorial control, but because video games operate by being models, and none of our traditional media has worked that way. Except maybe theater, which is basically using humans and props to build a model, even though it's not user-responsive.
HC: New mediums are almost always met with a fair amount of fear and loathing. When we first interviewed one of the original Xbox guys, Seamus Blackley, he said his job would be done when The New York Times covered games in the Arts & Leisure section. Starting this summer, it does. So there is change, it’s just slow.
Seamus left Xbox and you guys really show a strong divide between him and J Allard, like two opposing poles. What informed that relationship?
AR: I think that is a pretty accurate description, though it's not the whole story. We couldn't tell it as comprehensively as, say, Dean Takahashi’s Opening the Xbox, but Heather is the expert in that department.
Is it a difference in philosophy or is it personal?
HC: Well, I don't think there's a lot of love but let me start from the beginning. Aaron and I went out to Xbox in September 2001, before the launch, and met both Seamus and J both, though I'm mostly interested in the former; Seamus loves games. His vision was to create a machine that would allow game makers to make the best possible games. J has a big vision too, but his is different: it's about how that great game machine could be used to establish a portal on your TV set that would allow MS to get in on "convergence" - the whole digital living room thing. I believe that for J, games are a means to an end, whereas for Seamus, they're the end themselves. Make no mistake: J is a brilliant businessman, more so than Seamus. It's J's vision that has pretty clearly won out, yes?
Perhaps, although I couldn't help but think of how much of Seamus’ vision is left in the new 360. I’m thinking specifically about the Xbox Live Arcade service: downloadable games; smaller, gameplay oriented.
AR: Excellent point. There's a lot of Ed Fries in there too.
HC: That's really interesting. I have to say, I hadn't thought about it that way.
It certainly has the J Allard stamp all over it, but I think the seeds planted by Seamus might have sprouted there, where they didn't necessarily take hold on the original Xbox.
HC: I've heard a lot of gamers and old time game journalists feeling really nostalgic for the energy of Seamus and Ed.
AR: I do think that Live brings back a dimension to games that was long missing. The world is one giant arcade and everyone can have access to the high score again, this time globally. But they have done a piss-poor job of explaining to the average consumer why Live should be compelling to them. Paying $400 to download arcade games is a big barrier to entry.
HC: Did you see J's talk at GDC this year? Many found it quite creepy... and I can see why.
Was that the one where he gave away free TVs? Or was that at E3?
HC: That was it, but I also think he's a pretty charismatic guy, with a real vision - even if that vision isn't really about making great games.
Do you think people see past his makeover?
HC: We watched his makeover! I remember Googling him before going to our interview and thinking, “Who is this guy?” Yeah - that's kind of part of the problem; that everyone knows there's something disingenuous about him; however, to be fair, this is show biz and the guy had to become the public face.
What do you think about the next generation? How it's started; where it's going?
AR: I think that the next generation has a problem, namely that graphics are a diminishing return now. There are no more humongous leaps. They need to get down to the business of better AI, emotionally believable AI, not better bots. The mainstream is ready and just looking for a reason to jump in, but I fail to see how the industry is really giving them that. Games cost way too much and the average guy or girl doesn't get through all the content they pay for. Still, it's an exciting time for games, and I’m particularly happy to see Nintendo abandoning the race for HD-beautifulness and concentrating on experience.
HC: I think the next few years might be rough. I don't see the kind of fare coming out that really generates excitement the way Super Mario Bros. or Doom did. There’s nothing totally new or capable of capturing a new audience. Steven Kent, who you mentioned before, says flat out that he's bored out of his mind. What's exciting out there? What real reason, if you're not a hardcore gamer who gets everything, is there to buy a 360?
Do you think Nintendo, in ceding the hardcore crowd to MS and Sony who are busy waging a war of attrition, have opened up new possibilities? New gamers?
AR: Absolutely, what they have going for them is the "video game as toy" motif, which if they capitalize on it has huge potential. The problem is that the deep pocket crew (Sony and Microsoft) will dupe them every chance they get. So Nintendo can't rely on their spiffy controller alone, they need to deliver in a way they didn't with the Gamecube.
HC: Although Nintendo is a very healthy
company financially; they have no debt. For me, I like Nintendo’s approach of looking to innovate. I know some
are cynical about that but I think if you look at what they're doing, there's reason to believe what Iwata said
at GDC about how they're sticking to being innovators and leaving the "war" to Microsoft and Sony.AR: It's interesting that the name Famicom was changed to the NES for the US market because it didn't test well. Now I think the US is ready for game experiences that are living room social, without having to go online even.
To return to what Aaron said before about content being too long, too expensive. If Microsoft uses Live to deliver episodic content, could that alone, and not graphics, be enough of a leap to constitute the real “next-generation” of gaming? Will new delivery systems equal new gamers?
AR: Great question. I think not, although it would accomplish several exciting things. It would allow developers who aren't attached to huge publishers to get access to the market, which would drive innovation more. It would also allow newcomers to see what kind of games they even like without having to throw $60 at a wall each time. The problem is that there's not enough to drive a newcomer to get over that initial outlay, plus wireless controllers, plus network connection adapter, plus Live fees, et al. That's where Nintendo got it right. Newcomers don't care about Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
Do you agree with Blackley that gaming will be the dominant medium of the 21st century? I know Raph Koster has said that Shakespeare would be making MMO's...
HC: I do tend to agree with that. I actually think it's easier to foresee the long term than the short term. In the short term we have all the problems we've just been discussing, but over the long term I don't see a way that this won’t become the dominant form. I think, essentially, it already has, but people won't admit it. Again, video games are only thirty years old. Think of the nickelodeons, thirty years into the film cycle. One of my favorite quotes is from [Electronic Arts co-founder] Trip Hawkins, who responded to the question of whether games are “good” for you or not, "It's a moot point. In 50 years all the people who don't already play games will be dead."
AR: Gaming as entertainment will seem like nothing compared to the explosion of gaming technology outside entertainment.
HC: The other thing I find myself thinking of is something Will Wright said, which was that making models in our heads, which is what video games pick up on, is one of the most natural and human things in the world. I think video games tap into something very deep in us as humans. I think that video game technology is going to go far beyond entertainment; it will be the paradigm for the way we live out our lives in the future. We could be having this conversation in a simulated room with all of us as avatars. I think people forget that one of the most powerful things about video games is the interface. You forget it is interface, because it's just you interacting with this machine (your console or computer) but interfacing so naturally with a machine is a service lots of people outside of entertainment would kill to be able to provide. The rest of the culture will continue to adapt these video game traits into other areas, like the military has.
AR: Nolan Bushnell is writing a book about how he thinks education will be absolutely revolutionized by the video game paradigm.
HC: There are actually studies that show it would be. I went to the Serious Games Summit and a lady there was blowing my mind with stats on studies done on teaching in virtual worlds. People's test scores in the sciences skyrocketed.
AR: How using the video game paradigm to teach may be just what we need to inspire kids to study technology so we don't become a third world nation ourselves.
HC: We're producing fewer graduates in those areas, and less papers.
After four years with SMARTBOMB, do both of you plan on continuing to write about games. I really enjoyed the bit on CliffyB in the New York Times, can we expect more?
HC: Thanks! You know, it's a tough question for me. I wouldn't have thought I'd want to stay in the area, but I really have become quite passionate about it... and I love the people. I love the people!
AR: I definitely am. I'm really interested in finding better ways to communicate about games, beyond specialty print and TV. I've also got a few books in me, so...
I really get frustrated sometimes, for example, that gamer magazines divide their content by platform. That's just a corporate/technology divide. I think there's a lot of room for more creative ways to write about games, and I think that the quality of writing about games is there, the outlet isn't.
HC: I think Aaron is a natural to stay on it and he's being modest regarding his next projects. For me, it might depend on how much opportunity there is to write about games (and gamers) in the way I'd want. If we could take the dialog about games to a new level, I'm in. And we do keep meeting others who also want to do that. I think it will happen… eventually.
AR: The key in my mind is finding a way of connecting to all the people who are gamers but don't self-identify as one. People who don't see it as a hobby or lifestyle per se, but as an important part of their entertainment and, dare I say, artistic lives. We need a more collegial atmosphere among writers too; less competition and more community.
HC: I worry that among game writers there's such reliance on swag from companies, how can they be objective?
AR: And we have some interesting stuff coming up outside that: we are re-launching the site to be more of a full-time thing and, well, I can't get specific, but it should be fun.
