Supreme Court sees video games as art

[BiscuitintheBasket]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/06/27/supreme.court.video.game.art/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Maybe it helps for the nation's highest court to say it, too?



Video games are art, and they deserve the exact same First Amendment protections as books, comics, plays and all the rest, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a ruling about the sale of violent video games in California.



California had tried to argue that video games are inherently different from these other mediums because they are "interactive." So if a kid has to pick up a controller and hit the B button -- over and over again until he starts to get thumb arthritis -- to kill a person in a video game, that's different from reading about a similar murder, the state said.



The high court didn't buy that argument, however.



Interactive stories are "nothing new," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. "Since at least the publication of 'The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island' in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to."



Here's more on why the court thinks video games are art:



"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas -- and even social messages -- through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."



California ban on "violent" video games for kids rejected



That's all well and good. But the most fun to be had in this potentially dry court opinion is when Scalia starts writing about how gory old-school stories are, too. He's trying to make the point that stories have included violence for as long as there have been stories.



The examples are pretty hilarious:



"Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed," he writes.



Then there's this:



"Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven."



And, finally, if that wasn't enough eye-related violence for you:



"High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer's Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake."



Like these stories, this whole debate of whether video games -- violent or not -- classify as art has been raging in the tech world for years, if not decades.



It appears that much of the feud has been settled as of late, as CNN's Doug Gross wrote from the E3 Expo this month in Los Angeles.



"Keep debating whether video games are art if you wish. At E3, the world's biggest gaming expo, it's a closed question. Here, video games are definitely art -- and a gallery-style exhibit aims to prove it to as many people as care to look," Gross wrote at a gallery showing of video game art.



The Smithsonian is on board with this idea, too. That bastion of culture and history plans a similar exhibition, called "The Art of Video Games," in 2012.

 

[supraman]

Is this where I say "suck it Ebert?"



Actually I almost disagree with the courts. Though I admit to knowing little of the case details but I will say this no one under 13 belongs playing a GTA game. However non graphic violence I really have no issue with. I mean look at the original mario, jumping on a gumba is in fact violence. So I guess in reality I have to stand with the courts decision since it is far easier to have lack of a ban on video games instead of several different versions of violence with some being acceptable and some not. So i guess I do agree with the court's decision

 

[TSD]

Is this where I say "suck it Ebert?"



Actually I almost disagree with the courts. Though I admit to knowing little of the case details but I will say this no one under 13 belongs playing a GTA game. However non graphic violence I really have no issue with. I mean look at the original mario, jumping on a gumba is in fact violence. So I guess in reality I have to stand with the courts decision since it is far easier to have lack of a ban on video games instead of several different versions of violence with some being acceptable and some not. So i guess I do agree with the court's decision

They should be judged by a rating system, i have no qualms with that, just like movies. What I was really starting to get annoyed with was people crusading to censor games instead of simply abiding to a rating system.

 

[bubbleheadchief]

I'm sure variable just shot a load in his shorts over this, and maybe now he will climb off his soapbox. I was not arguing that video games arent art. I was getting torqued by his "Anyone who doesnt think a video game is an art is a moron" attitude. For the most part these people arent looking at what has gone into making it, only the end product, a game.

I agree that that games are works of art, putting an emphasis on the writing of the story/game line and the dialogue and coming up with the character designs.

 

[supraman]

I'm sure variable just shot a load in his shorts over this, and maybe now he will climb off his soapbox. I was not arguing that video games arent art. I was getting torqued by his "Anyone who doesnt think a video game is an art is a moron" attitude. For the most part these people arent looking at what has gone into making it, only the end product, a game.

I agree that that games are works of art, putting an emphasis on the writing of the story/game line and the dialogue and coming up with the character designs.

I'm still upset he didn't comment over my finest work of art "greed" I mean it is art dammit *pounds fist on desk and cries himself to sleep*

 

[Variable]

I'm sure variable just shot a load in his shorts over this, and maybe now he will climb off his soapbox. I was not arguing that video games arent art. I was getting torqued by his "Anyone who doesnt think a video game is an art is a moron" attitude. For the most part these people arent looking at what has gone into making it, only the end product, a game.

I agree that that games are works of art, putting an emphasis on the writing of the story/game line and the dialogue and coming up with the character designs.

Climb....off ....my....soapbox....hmmmm........oh you mean how you asked me a question and I answered it? Oh yeah, that. Answering a question that was asked of me. Damn, got me there. Gotta stop doing that.



I don't really care about how the Supreme Court sees this. It doesn't change it for me. They've seen a lot of things a lot of different ways over the years, to some (ongoing) horrifying results. What they deem "right" or "acceptable" holds very little weight with me, I don't hold my breath on their judgments. That's why I don't see it as some kind of "victory" just because they happen to agree with me on a topic.

 

[LordKOTL]

Well, if video game violence affected kids to imitate what they saw, how come I've never read a story about a kid wearing a green jerkin and a nightcap beating the shit out of an octopus with a wooden sword?



IMHO video games are as much art as any other form of medium. That being said, I think a comprehensive rating system isn't such a bad idea because if nothing else, it helps to target the correct audience. You're not ging to let a 6 year old play any of the Doom Series, most adults would likley not be a fan of anything Hello Kitty, and Dance Dance Revolution is not a hit with heterosexuals. Knowing what's in video game (or any media, for tht matter) does help the right audience be reached. Simple "Overall" ratings don't tell the entire picture.

 

[JOVE23]

Well, if video game violence affected kids to imitate what they saw, how come I've never read a story about a kid wearing a green jerkin and a nightcap beating the shit out of an octopus with a wooden sword?

Someone needs to read more.

IMHO video games are as much art as any other form of medium. That being said, I think a comprehensive rating system isn't such a bad idea because if nothing else, it helps to target the correct audience. You're not ging to let a 6 year old play any of the Doom Series, most adults would likley not be a fan of anything Hello Kitty, and Dance Dance Revolution is not a hit with heterosexuals. Knowing what's in video game (or any media, for tht matter) does help the right audience be reached. Simple "Overall" ratings don't tell the entire picture.

Guf. Faw.



Although, we should consider CLWolf's position re: DDR before we make any rash judgments.

 

[CLWolf81]

Someone needs to read more.







Guf. Faw.



Although, we should consider CLWolf's position re: DDR before we make any rash judgments.

That position would be as simple as I can make it ---- If it's made, someone likes it, which means the studio makes money. The only thing the industry cares about is the money, which means they need to make games to people it caters to in order to succeed, which in this economy, they really need to work hard.



There is a demand for dance games, especially amongst the dance music scene of youngsters. It's not the biggest demand, as first person shooting games rule the day there. Nevertheless, the demand is still there. Otherwise, Microsoft would not have focused on games like Dance Central 2 at E3 two weeks ago. Halo still stole the show for them, but it always does. Dance Central 2 did get attention, though.



I personally am not a fan of dancing games, but that's only my opinion.

 

[LordKOTL]

Okay, the DDR/gayness humor comes from an incident in the Seattle Gameworks involving 2 guys who were almost too good at DDR wearing matching shirts; Me, my bro, and a few friends with some alcohol imbibed; an overly enthusiatic announcer praising the talents of the two guys laying DDR; and a couple of girls who, after the announcer asked them what they thought of the DDR duo, replied (and I quote), "Actually, they look kinda fruity."



I'm no so close minded that I actually believe it's *just* homosexuals that like DDR, or that any hetero male who likes DDR is closeted.



Seriously, again, my point stands, in any media (not just video games) you have to target your audience properly. And yes, if there is a market it will be made, and if it is made it should not be subject to any more cesnorship than to make sure that it hits the reasonable target audience. If a store will not sell Showgirls to a minor, then why should it sell Duke Nukem Forever to a minor? Regardless, though, both examples have every right to be made and sold.

 

[Ton]

Isn't porn considered art too? When are kids going to be able to buy that?



There needs to be a rating system.