T for Teen
There’s an ever-shifting set of predictable questions that I tend to get whenever I do interviews with the gaming press or fan sites. One of the perennial questions that stays on the list relates to why we’ve targeted WAR at a “T” (for teens) audience.
There are boring but significant arguments in favor of the decision that deal with the strange and miasmatic realm of marketing and commercial viability. I can’t speak to those, as I’m terrible with numbers and generally averse to marketing jargon. I will, however, try to address a couple of other areas – including why I believe the “T” rating is the most creatively appropriate place for games like ours.
Common Complaint:
But “T” ratings mean teenagers will play – and ruin – the game!
People mistakenly associate games that aim at the “T” rating with the juvenile behavior they (rightly or wrongly) expect from teenagers. I can say from experience that age is not a particularly significant factor when it comes to predicting juvenile behavior in games. I’ve run across FAR more 18+ people acting like nitwits and generally misbehaving than I have teenagers.
I can also say from experience that when I was a teenager, I spent untold amounts of energy trying to find ways to sneak into “R” rated films and, as a result, probably wound up watching more of them than anything else. Not because all of the “good” movies were rated “R” but because the transgressive act of gaining access to a forbidden… well… anything was weirdly important. I’d bet dollars to donuts that the rowdy teenage shenanigans in a game rated “M” will outstrip those in a “T” game by whole orders of magnitude.
Common Complaint:
But a “T” rating means you’ll have to water down the game!
This is probably the most frequently-voiced concern. People interpret the “for Teens” rating as meaning “this game is designed specifically for teens” as a primary audience. I can assure you, that’s not what it means. All it means is that we work within boundaries and guidelines, generating mature content that adults enjoy that simply doesn’t cross certain very specific lines. From a creative standpoint, I’m actually very glad to have those boundaries in place.
Why?
Because it’s easy to get cheap laughs and dumb thrills by leaning on shock value. It takes skill and talent and effort to get the same point across, but without actually crossing the line and explicitly illustrating it. I think the best example of this is something like The Simpsons. You will not find a more subversive, layered and profoundly mature comedy anywhere on television in the past, present or the foreseeable future and yet the entire 20 year run of the show has been essentially kid-friendly.
The lasting appeal of the program comes from the fact that it uses nuance and innuendo to get many of its more adult points across. As a viewer, you’re more engaged because it’s an interactive experience. You’re “getting” the joke and there’s almost a wink and a nod between you and the creators as you watch.
And while The Simpsons has remained a juggernaut of smart comedy for 2/3 of my life, innumerable “adults-only” shock programs have come and gone and faded from memory completely. I fundamentally believe that the longevity of The Simpsons is because of – not in spite of – the boundaries that the various creative teams who have worked on the show have had to contend with over the years. They make you work harder and smarter to get your point across. They require more effort and attention from the audience. And when you DO choose to bring something that is in some way explicit to the proceedings, it has impact and significance, rather than simply getting lost in the mess of violence and profanity that permeates an “adults-only” product.
In the end, when you work within reasonable boundaries creatively, you wind up with a product that is engaging, mature and significantly MORE subversive because it’s all presented in a seemingly “safe” fashion.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.