Fun vs. Offensive:
Balancing the ‘Cultural Edge’ of
Content for Global Games
 Tom
Edwards
 Geographer & Principal Consultant
 Englobe Inc. – http://www.englobe.com
 tomedw@englobe.com
March 24, 2006
Agenda
Introduction: A Recent Scenario
 Content and the Cultural Iceberg
 The Intent of Good Game Design
 Defining Geocultural Content Issues
 The Cultural Edge and its Aspects
 P.R.O.P. Methodology
 Questions/Comments
 Appendices: Recommended Resources

Please silence your mobile devices and hold all
questions until the end - thank you!
Regarding a Recent Event…
Imagine you are a Manager for a major
information service provider…
An actual approval pipeline scenario:
 Content was created to reflect on a specific
cultural market.
 Normal channels approved the content.
 Some concerns were raised, but content
was published anyway.
Regarding a Recent Event…



Few months later, your content is seen as extremely
offensive by certain cultural groups.
Public/government backlash escalates quickly and
spreads across locales.
Your management debates corporate policies and
searches for the person(s) responsible while quickly
formulating a response.
Which Event Are YOU Thinking About?

Kakuto Chojin is of course the event to which this
refers. Chanting containing verses from the Qur’an
was included as background audio in the game.

The game reached negatively-affected
non-US locales via the gray market.
Local governments and consumers
vocally protested and criticized after
discovering the content.
The game crossed over a “cultural
edge” and required a global recall.
There are strong parallels to the more
recent event you may be thinking of…



Content’s Course to the Customer

Content interacts with customers after passing through “layers”
or “filters” that shape decisions, strategies and perspectives.
Your Game
Your Specific
Company
Each layer has complex
sub-themes. A problem
within any one layer can
incubate a potentially
offensive content issue.
The Game Industry
Local Market
Dynamics
Your Local
Customer
The “local market” isn’t
just international; the U.S.
is also a diverse market
with many cultural
sensitivities.
The Iceberg Model of Culture
 Some cultural characteristics are obvious above the surface, but
many critical aspects cannot be seen.
 Deep-level geocultural qualities greatly affect local customer
perceptions; reactions to content issues in games typically occur
in relation to one or more of these deep aspects.
Your Game
Language and Context
Politics and Regulation
Social Trends
Cultural Practices
Religion and Beliefs
Your Local Customer
The Intent of Good Game Design


Generally, most games aspire to be “Fun” for their
intended audience, not “Offensive”.
Consider 2 broad categories of generally positive
and negative game traits:
Fun
Offensive
Entertain Invoke Anger
Positive Diversion Negative Distraction
Build Community Divide Community
Educate Reinforce Stereotypes
Quality = Revenue & Trust Errors = Sanctions & Mistrust
Defining the Cultural Edge
Cultural Edge (noun):
1) The tipping point at which a content element
stretches the limits of the intended context,
changing the game from “fun” to potentially
“offensive”.
2) The panic zone in which a lack of time,
knowledge, and/or process results in an
unwanted controversy.
3) A place of opportunity where various diverse
outcomes are discernable, when proactive.
The Intent of the Cultural Edge


The majority of “Fun” games are worry-free and
contain little or no sensitive cultural content.
“Offensive” content in games might fit 2 categories:




Indiscretions: Edgy content that is challenged but might be
forgiven, and is sometimes valuable (GTA3, Mortal Kombat,
Doom, etc.)
Insults: Overt attempts to rile public sensitivity that have
little defensibility (GTA: Hot Coffee, JFK Reloaded, Postal).
The Cultural Edge is not about “Censorship” or
“Political Correctness”.
The Cultural Edge is about viewing your game from
the cultural perspective to proactively anticipate a
local response and revise if necessary.
The Type of Audiences



A quick word about the audiences for game content:
 Intended: Game players and those who
understand the general context issues of a piece
of content in a game.
 Unintended: Non-game players who have little or
no exposure to game content/context issues.
The Unintended group is a larger concern for
Cultural Edge issues, those more prone to label a
game “Offensive”.
The “Offensive” perception can drive revenue and
popularity among the Intended audience while
isolating the Unintended.
Why Consider the Geocultural Factor?


Primary Goal: Protect the game creator’s (and
industry’s) image and revenue stream and allow local
customers to really enjoy a “Fun” game.
Additional Goals:
 Build player loyalty and trust in your content.
 Expand revenue potential by increasing appeal
across cultural boundaries (break out of the
‘typical’ demographic).
 Review yourself, or else expect potential
legislation by government(s) – including your own.
 Break the perception that only “Serious Games”
have redeeming social value.
Geocultural Content Example – 1
This much-publicized error
resulted in an Indian
government ban on Windows
95 due to missing coverage of
Kashmir within India’s territory
in this time zone control panel.
 Cadbury’s 2002 campaign for Temptations
chocolate in India was a serious marketing
error which yielded much backlash. Text
within the disputed Jammu and Kashmir
region reads: “Too good to share”
Geocultural Content Example – 2
In 2002, Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirt
designs (at left) caused much protest
from consumers who found it racially
offensive; it was quickly discontinued.
Geocultural Content Example – 3
Desktop Image for Indonesia



Flag of The Netherlands
Even a simple photographic filter technique can send
a strong, negative message to your target customers.
Indonesia gained its independence from The
Netherlands in 1949.
Quick Fix: Change the color balance.
Types of Game Content in Question
Primary content types and associated examples that
can incubate geocultural issues (i.e., just about
anything people see, hear or read):








Scenarios: Historical events, figures
Cultural Derivatives/Allegories: Religious, ethnic, cultural
themes derived from “real world” cultures.
Text: UI elements, country/region lists, geographic names,
comments in lines of code, user documentation & manuals
Images: Maps, flags, icons, clip art, photos, cinematics
Audio: Voice, music, lyrics, sound effects
Packaging: Box art, box text, reply addresses
Branding and marketing: Brand names, advertising
campaigns, promotional items
Messaging: Press interviews, executive speeches,
corporate events
Discerning the Cultural Edge
Game is “Fun”
Cultural Edge Zone
Game is “Offensive”
•High customer loyalty
•Waning customer loyalty
•Low customer loyalty
•Strong revenue
•Decreased revenue
•Low/negative revenue
•Positive image
•Questionable image
•Negative image
•Consumer/gov’t support
•Consumer/gov’t inquiry
•Gov’t/punitive actions
Potential consequences of going over the Cultural Edge:





Loss of consumer trust in your delivery of a positive experience
Brand erosion with negative PR and customer backlash
Loss of revenue and market share
Loss of political position, possible punitive legislation and litigation
Punitive government actions against local subsidiary staff
The key is finding the ‘tipping point’ at which any
content type can remain marginally acceptable.
It will be different for every game and every locale.
Four Critical Aspects of the Edge






The Cultural Edge is a complex place to discern,
often requiring experience, practice, trial and error.
Four key aspects can aid in your discernment of
the appropriate Edge for your specific project:
Context: The original source of the content
element and its placement in other environments.
Discoverability: The likelihood of a player noticing
sensitive content in the game context.
Defensibility: The ability to defend your content
decisions from an authoritative, informed position.
Intent: The end user perception of your decisions,
whether general or specific.
Context – An Example

Context Dependency: When an element is more
dependent, it blends in more with its intended
environment and is thus less discoverable.

Example: Consider the following 2 graphics. Both
are considered offensive, but which one is the more
context independent?
Context – An Example, continued
The Nazi-style swastika in
a historical context, such
as Medal of Honor, is
nearly acceptable but still
remains a sensitive image.
This Pokemon card was banned in
Israel in 1999 for containing a swastika
(even though it’s left-facing Buddhist
style). The context independence of
the symbol has been pervasive.
Context - Explained
Key question: Is the content element we’re
deploying sufficiently context-dependent?
 Beware of context-independent elements:
the more independent an element, the
greater potential for sensitivity.
 Some content elements are so culturally
ingrained and/or widely-recognized that their
original context is not enough to mask the
potential sensitivity.
 Context-independent examples: Religious
symbols, political emblems, historical
events/figures, national flags

Discoverability – An Example


The “ROC” name and Taiwan flag issue in Ninja
Gaiden was very sensitive yet easily discoverable.
How can this be brought back from the Edge?
1. Use the name
“Taiwan”, not
“ROC”
2. Do not show
the Taiwan flag
3. Do not use “Country”,
use “Country/Region” or
“Locale”
Discoverability - Explained



Key Question: How easy will it be for the player to
find potentially sensitive content?
Basic Rule: Content that breaks the game context,
particularly without logic, is far more discoverable.
Discoverability is often interrelated with context.
Easter Eggs: Hiding controversial content in such a
feature is a potential risk:



Positive: Usually decreases discoverability
Negative: Perceived as insidious, untrustworthy
Maintain a rationale: If you ultimately choose to
include known, sensitive content then have a logic
for why it’s there (this relates to defensibility).
Defensibility – An Example


A clear defense of JFK Reloaded can be difficult to
discern – even when the title was intended to be
more edgy and controversial.
How can this idea be brought back from the Edge?
1. Drop any use of the word
“game” and use only “study”
or “simulation”.
2. Avoid weak rationales like:
“We’re encouraging youngsters
to take an interest in history.”
3. Consider alternatives to
teaching about the JFK
assassination that utilize game
design but do NOT require you
to re-assassinate him.
Defensibility - Explained




Key question: Are we prepared to fully explain and
defend our content choices to a local government?
All decisions regarding potentially sensitive content
must have a rationale based on solid, informed and
authoritative decision-making.
External Locus of Defense: On subjects that lie
outside the core function or expertise of your
company, it’s prudent to base your defense on an
external, authoritative source.
Examples of an External Locus:



Subject-matter expert(s)
Authoritative information source (CIA, UN, EU, etc.)
Credible research bodies, think tanks
Defensibility - continued

External Locus of Defense:
Your defense
Your
company
BACKLASH
Your game title



BACKLASH
External
defense
External
organization

This is NOT about
passing the blame!
You are accountable
for your content
decisions, and will still
receive feedback.
Realize your own
limitations in terms of
subject matter.
Critical Point: Before
responding externally,
check with your team
to be 100% sure about
any hidden issues.
Defensibility and GeoLiteracy


One primary reason why such content issues are often
overlooked is an issue of sufficient geographic literacy (i.e.,
geoliteracy).
Simply stated: The more you know about your target audience,
the greater your chances of proactively discerning, resolving and
defending your geocultural content decisions.
Consider the Global Geographic Literacy Survey (National
Geographic-Roper, 2002). Out of 56 questions that were asked
across all countries surveyed, young adults (age 18-24) in the
United States averaged only 23 questions correct!
Intent – An Example


This particular game concept (title and publisher to
be unnamed) was wholly intended to appeal to
Native Americans, who found it very offensive prior
to release.
How can this idea be brought back from the Edge?
1. Don’t assume the desires of a
certain demographic: Consult with
Native American consumers and
game players prior to finalizing the
concept.
2. If intending to create a totem
pole-type character, try making it
appear like an authentic totem pole.
3. Don’t use sacred symbols of any
variety from any culture.
Intent - Explained





Key question: How clear will our content
decisions and rationale be to the local market?
Local market perception is a very powerful force.
Despite all your proactive, defensive measures
and best preparation, mistakes can and will likely
occur (the geoliteracy factor).
90+% of geocultural issues result from completely
unintentional circumstances.
90+% of geocultural issues are perceived by the
local market to be completely intentional on the
part of the content developer.
Intent - continued

Ultimately, your key to managing the content
risk is responding appropriately to the local
market’s perception of intent:
A word about Backlash…
Your positive
intentions
Perceived negative
intentions
Your game title
BACKLASH
Your
company
Local
market
Stop it early!
Backlash typically occurs in waves
of escalation. Your careful response
in each ‘wave’ is critical to prevent
further escalation.
You must respond to this
perception; not your own.
Putting Edge Aspects into Action

To recap the Cultural Edge Aspects:



Intent drives decisions on Context
Context drives decisions on Discoverability
Defensibility supports your proof of Intent
How can you deploy these in the context of a
game’s product development cycle?
 Actions which compliment your existing
process can be deployed to account for Edge
issues during normal development.

Concept

Production
Proactive Review/Pass: Early triage of
potential issues with the concept, design.

Reasonable Risks: Content that could be
sensitive but is a reasonable risk given the
local market conditions.

Overt Offenses: Content that is known to
be a problem and should be avoided.
Final
Phase of Game Development
P.R.O.P. Methodology

Post-Process Issues: Managing issues
and expectations after release, on the shelf.
P.R.O.P: Proactive Review

Do it Early, Do it Often!




The sooner an potential issue is identified in concept
phase, the sooner it can be contained.
Discovery costs very early in product cycles are far less than
repair costs late in product cycles (or post-cycle recall costs).
This is the stage at which you examine and re-examine your
general Intent and Context issues.
Institutionalize Geocultural Review


If it’s not built into your product cycle, it will never be a priority.
Assign Ownership and Accountability!


Program management, content coordinators, and editors
typically own the geocultural issues.
Leverage input from appropriate individuals, groups and
resources (see Appendix 1 for some ideas).
How does a Geocultural Review differ
from an ESRB, PEGI or CERO Review?

Performing a geocultural review differs significantly as these
aspects are not usually covered by the major review boards:






Socio-historical scenarios, either global or local
Political depictions/similarities (symbology, nationalism, etc.)
Religious/Ethnic/Linguistic sensitivities (hate speech and some
ethnic issues only)
Sensitivity by content types (flags, maps, etc.)
By design, review boards maintain a confined scope built upon
a more quantitative approach; this does not account for the
more qualitative geocultural aspects of game content.
Ratings boards cannot adequately predict the risk of your
individual game content in the context of your company’s
business goals and your target audience.
P.R.O.P: Reasonable Risks

During primary development, respond quickly.



Use the Edge Aspects to weigh Reasonable Risks


If a geocultural issue is identified, action should be swift to
resolve as soon as possible.
Assemble pre-formed, cross-discipline action teams to deal
effectively with the issue (content, localization, legal, etc.)
Reasonable Risk: a content element that could be potentially
offensive to some players, but careful management of the 4
aspects – especially context – keeps it within acceptable risk.
Purging All Possible Risk is Unrealistic


Key responsibility of management: Provide guidance on
what risks are considered acceptable for the company.
Trade-offs are possible: lose a key market to gain 5 others,
limit Title X to 10 countries in order to sell Title Y in 25.
P.R.O.P: Reasonable Risks - continued

Depending on who you ask, the makers of Grand Theft
Auto may or may not have properly balanced the
game’s reasonable risks against its overt offenses.
 Pre-existing unintended
legislative perceptions of GTA
as “asocial” and “debased”
“Hot Coffee” Mod Issue in
2005 – July 2005
 Lawyers Target “Grand
Theft Auto” maker – Jan.
2006
P.R.O.P: Overt Offenses

Some content will always be a problem to avoid:






Context: For context-independent content, there is rarely a
time when it will be fully acceptable everywhere.
Discoverability: If found, you know 100% it’s a problem.
Defensibility: There’s almost no defense that will save you.
Intent: Even your best intentions won’t prevent backlash.
Content that has a known, overt offensive quality
makes your job easier: Just (Do Not) Do It
Themes with Offensive Tendencies:



Religious: Any use of a real-world religion/belief system
Ethnic: Using ethnic stereotypes or cultural conflicts
Historical: Varies widely, but generally the modification of
real-world history (past or present) is a volatile practice
P.R.O.P: Overt Offenses - continued

Examples of Known Local Issues:
Germany: Counter-Strike
was banned in 2002 after
fatal shootings were tied to
the game; the country
already bans Nazi-related
content and is seeking
bans on any game with
extreme violence.
Japan: Use of 4 fingers
with human figures is a
very sensitive cultural
issue.
China: Hearts of Iron was banned
by China in 2004 for how it portrayed
Taiwan and Tibet during WWII (as
not as part of the PRC).
P.R.O.P: The Cost of Offense

The costs related to fully crossing over the Cultural
Edge fit 2 broad categories:



Examples:



Revenue: Loss of current/future revenue.
Image: Loss of respect, clout, market access for the
company; also negatively reflects on the game industry.
Aforementioned Totem pole game spent $400K out of $4M
budget before being cancelled for concept reasons.
Take Two’s doubling of net loss from $14.4M (Q3 2004) to
$28.8M (Q3 2005) is primarily attributed to fallout from the
“Hot Coffee” issue.
For larger companies, revenue and image damage
are likely absorbed over time. For smaller
companies, a single issue can be a disaster.
P.R.O.P: Post-Process Issues

Root Cause Analysis



Educate and Reinforce



Reexamine your process and trace the origins of the issue.
Focus on the key junctures at which the process failed or is
insufficient to identify and contain a potential issue.
Define the required actions to improve the identification and
containment process and educate the team.
Re-assess ownership and accountability if necessary.
Crisis Response: Don’t be a Knee-Jerk


Companies can compound the effects of an issue by reacting
in knee-jerk fashion to appease a market’s will (remember
the waves of backlash escalation).
While speed is important, careful discernment of the issue’s
implications and risks is critical.
P.R.O.P: Post-Process Example


Marketing for the Japanonly special edition DOA
Xbox included a kasumi
pillow.
The kasumi is not
unusual for marketing a
game in Japan. In the
US, the unintended
audience (e.g., parents)
were alarmed at the idea.
Closing Remarks




Balancing the “fun” and “offensive” aspects of
content is completely achievable without the
specter of “censorship”.
Understand your own game content from a cultural
perspective, or else risk further misunderstandings
and knee-jerk regulations.
Navigation around the Cultural Edge of content
requires proactive knowledge and built-in strategy.
Developing more culturally-attuned games can help
broaden revenue streams and also promote a
positive industry image among the “unintended”.
Thank you for attending.
Questions or Comments?
tomedw@englobe.com
Appendix 1: Recommended Resources
Where do you find the geocultural information you need
to perform a content review? Here are a few
suggestions to get started:




Cross-cultural Guides and Resources: Many types
are available: business Do’s and Don'ts books,
Travel Guides, Culture Shock series, etc.
Standards: CIA World Factbook, UN publications
Online resources: Country embassy sites, cultural
group sites, encyclopedias, atlases, etc.
Internal resources: If possible, leverage your own
company’s internal cultural diversity to help in early
identification of issues.
Appendix 2: Recommended Reading
The following are a few selected texts the presenter
recommends to read further about this topic:
 The Game Developers Guide to the Real World, Tom Edwards,
forthcoming in late 2006; a more detailed and thorough
handbook on the ideas presented herein.
 A History of Video Game Controversy, GameSpot.com,
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6090892/
 The Culturally Customized Web Site, Nitish Singh & Arun
Pereira, 2005.
 Content Critical, Gerry McGovern & Rob Norton, 2002.
 2002 Global Geographic Literacy Survey, National Geographic,
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/download/Roper
Survey.pdf