A little background. Just over a week after today, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide whether video games should be regulated by the government. It's more complicated than that, but I have a lot of typing to do, so if you haven't heard of this already just go watch these (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1742-Video-Game-Voters-Network) videos (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech).

According to Game Politics:

Yee said he was "hopeful" that the Court would give "parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."

Yee additionally claimed that the court has "often ruled" in favor of protecting kids and limiting their access, citing topics such as "pornography, gambling, marriage, firearms, jury duty, tobacco, alcohol, voting, abortion, licenses, and the death penalty" as examples.


Senator Yee:
"Parents - not retailers or game makers - should be able to decide whether or not their children can play in a world of murder and violence that often degrades women and racial minorities. The video game industry should not be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.

Senator Yee:
...parents can easily discern if other forms of media are appropriate for their children, whereas violent video games can contain hundreds of hours of footage with the most atrocious, racist, and sexist content often reserved for the highest levels."

This is easily the biggest pile of bullshit I've read in months. Him and plenty of other people just as misguided as him are going to decide the fate of videogames worldwide. Usually I'd say stuff like how I'm proud to be living several thousand miles away from the USA, but this time it's different. This has the potential to change gaming as we know it.

I'll try to be as brief as possible because I'm raging right now.

1. It's called the ESRB. There's a logo on every game that shows exactly what kind of content is inside the game. And game ratings are much more strict than movie ratings. If there is so much as a papercut that shows 1 drop of blood, it's an instant 17+ M rated game.

2. Power is already in the hands of the parents. All they have to do is look after their kids, which is something they don't seem to be doing quite well. Both the Xbox360 and PS3 have parental control systems which can limit the child's playtime and its access to certain content and there's hardly anything on the Wii that needs such a system. And even if they didn't have those systems built in, is it really that hard to spend 10 minutes and see what your child is doing in these games? Or you know, taking a look at the fucking box?!

What these motherfuckers want is the power in their hands. They don't give a toss about children or violent content and even less about the games themselves.

This guy is either extremely short-sighted, stubborn or just nothing but a troll. Probably all 3. These are the people who are ruling your country people. Enjoy.

It's people like that who annoy the Hell out of me. True videogames can be violent etc... but it's up to the parents themselves to monitor what their children are playing. One of my cousin's is 14, and has Resident Evil 5, Grand Theft Auto IV and other M/MA15+ (the current highest rating here in Australia for videogames) games, yet I've seen his mother go into a game store and have a argument with the clerk over selling her son a violent game. True some of the blame may fall on the clerk/s themselves for not making sure the age of the person before selling the game... but it's not like videogames are cigarettes where you have to show proof of ID before purchase. Ultimately though, imo, it IS the parent's fault for not monitoring what the ESRB rating is of the game before letting their child play it.

That does not give the government the right to regulate video games as they see fit.

More often than not, it's due to some radical freethinker who thinks that they're right, no matter what anyone else says... and if they can get enough people who think the same they do behind them, they think that gives them the right to dictate how things should be done.

Yeah, but that's how it's always been. The problem this time is that they're essentially trying to kill video games as an art form. The entire world will be affected if this law passes, not just the United States. There's a much bigger threat here.

I don't think this'll pass though... Something like this comes up every couple of years and nothing happens cause of it.

Hopefully not. If it does, it really will show what kind of incompetent fools are in charge of the United States. This is the Supreme Court. If they decide against it, then politicians might as well not even bother attacking video games ever again. But if they are in favor of it, then we're pretty much fucked. And like I said, everyone gets fucked, not just the US.

It's not just videogames which have been targeted though like this. In the past, movies, novels etc have all been targeted more or less for the same thing. Degradation of Moral Fibre or some such bullshit. All in all though, people should just read and understand the rating system for the game they are about to purchase and then consider IF it is suitable for a child in their care. Otherwise, they have only themselves to blame.

"Parents - not retailers or game makers - should be able to decide whether or not..." he forgot to add 'government' to the should not list.

Most of the time, it's lame ass parents who don't do their research on what games their kids want. People should not have kids in the first place if they are not going to be more proactive in what their kid engages in.

That's so fucking stupid. Either this guy can't fucking read or is just plain retarded. It's already a law in the US that if you want to buy an M rated game, you need to show ID. It's the stupid parents out there who'll blindly buy their child anything. When I was young my mother wouldn't let me play Mortal Kombat because it had REALISTIC BLOOD AND GORE (it was all big and in caps too and her being a huge religion nut didn't help much). But when I told her it's that fighting game I play in the arcades all the time (had to mention Scorpion, the yellow ninja lol) for her to be like "Oh. Well, it's not THAT realistic". It all boils down to the parents and whether they're stupid enough to let their kids watch/play/read/etc. anything they want or at least know what the hell they're doing.

It's already a law in the US that if you want to buy an M rated game, you need to show ID.

No it isn't. They card you at most stores because it's the store's policy, not the law.


Lot of people jerking each other off in this thread because they like video games so this automatically has to be the work of ~evil men~


"...parents can easily discern if other forms of media are appropriate for their children, whereas violent video games can contain hundreds of hours of footage with the most atrocious, racist, and sexist content often reserved for the highest levels."

This is easily the biggest pile of bullshit I've read in months.

Why is it bullshit? Seriously, explain why that's bullshit. Even the ESRB doesn't always find everything contained in a game. I don't know where he is getting the "reserved for the highest levels" thing from, but either way he is right that games are long these days and it is hard to always know what it is in them.


If there is so much as a papercut that shows 1 drop of blood, it's an instant 17+ M rated game.

Really? What are some recent games that got rated M for papercuts? I think most of the recent M rated games probably got that rating because they feature a huge amount of graphic violence.


What these motherfuckers want is the power in their hands. They don't give a toss about children or violent content and even less about the games themselves.

Yes, people are definitely trying to regulate a medium because when they go to bed at night, all they can think about is "god damn it I really wish that I was controlling the sale of video games right now" and can't get a wink. No, I don't think that this kind of attitude is productive. You have never even met these people. If you did I think you would find they they have neither horns nor hoofs, and that they genuinely believe what they're doing is what's best for the country. And if you want them to understand you, the first step would be trying to understand them, instead of vilifying them because you disagree with their position.


This guy is either extremely short-sighted, stubborn or just nothing but a troll. Probably all 3. These are the people who are ruling your country people. Enjoy.

Funny enough, most of the posts in rage threads like this over SAVING THE FUTURE OF VIDEO GAMES WHICH ARE A DEEP NEW ART FORM are short sighted, stubborn and... well I don't believe any of you guys are trolling, but I'm sure plenty of it happened when this thread was made on /v/.


In the second of your videos that you linked to (the first one does absolutely nothing except say THIS IS BAD), the guy with his head mysteriously disconnected and floating above his body says that if the supreme court rules in favor of this, it will mean that publishers won't make as many M rated games anymore, and this will be bad--thus, the future of gaming is at stake! I find this highly questionable for a bunch of reasons. This suggests that the games ARE being marketed and sold to children, which... doesn't that kind of validate the opposition's point? But much more importantly, a game like, say, Fallout does not require the kind of stupidly excessive violence it contains. I am having a great time playing New Vegas right now, but not because if I shoot an enemy in the head with VATS it shows a huge shower of blood and they get decapitated. In fact, I think that's incredibly stupid and unnecessary. It could be removed without affecting the game's "art."

And games really aren't art. Sorry, but they're not. Roger Ebert wrote a pretty interesting blog post about this recently, which predictably was reacted to by gamers with the same kind of venom everybody's been spewing in this thread... and nobody actually bothered to really consider his arguments either. Even Tycho at Penny Arcade, who I normally think is a very intelligent guy, responded with nothing but insults about Ebert being old and out of touch. Here is the article, if you would like something else to rage mindlessly about: Video games can never be art - Roger Ebert's Journal (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html). However, I would mainly like to just pull one quote from the end:


Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

Why indeed?

The one thing I think Ebert doesn't bring up that's really vital to the discussion and would have pulled his argument together is that you could make art and put it in a video game, but that doesn't make the game art. Penny Arcade's nonsensical response to this post was a comic:



The answer is that yes, the result would be art, and that that is not how games are made. Writers, composers, and graphic artists arguably make art for use in video games all the time. Sometimes, they might even release art books to go with the game, and often these books might be titled something like, "The art of [game name]." If the game is art though, why is there art of it?

Video games are not a bold new art form. If you tell a great story in a video game (which yes, absolutely has been done), the art of that is in the great story you told, not in the fact that it was attached to a programmed system of rules. If you create beautiful imagery it is beautiful on its own, not because you are observing it in a game. Games are games, and they are defined separately from art.


I don't support government regulation of video games. I don't think it's either warranted or a good idea. I support it a hell of a lot more than this braindead hissing fest that happens every time it gets discussed in the law, though.

But much more importantly, a game like, say, Fallout does not require the kind of stupidly excessive violence it contains. I am having a great time playing New Vegas right now, but not because if I shoot an enemy in the head with VATS it shows a huge shower of blood and they get decapitated. In fact, I think that's incredibly stupid and unnecessary. It could be removed without affecting the game's "art."
You can blame this on Todd Howard, who seems like a really lame dude. "Violence is funny! Lets all just own up to it! Violence done well is fucking hilarious. It’s like Itchy and Scratchy or Jackass – now that’s funny!"

Anyway, I agree gamers can be really defensive about... games. Recently a girl in the UK was attacked by a dog that was upset by sounds coming from Nintendogs. Her grandmother asked that a warning be given on the box that states it may upset some dogs. She didn't call for the game to be banned or anything like that, but she was completely vilified by everybody in a thread at /v/ and every other gaming community I found talking about it. Most said if she didn't do such a poor job training the dog this wouldn't have happened - and that's probably true. However, it's kind of hard to know whether a dog is poorly trained until it attacks (which was the case when my little brother was bitten on the face earlier this year) so I think it's better to just play it safe.

Can't parents just be good parents and monitor what their kids watch and play?

Can't parents just be good parents and monitor what their kids watch and play?

You have great point sir... I agree with you...

Roger Ebert doesn't point anywhere why Video Games aren't art forms. He only discredits Santiago's exposition, which it's a truly bad one.
He only says that they haven't reached the quality that can be compared with the works of Michelangelo or Vivaldi.

Back to topic.

I don't support what this politician wants to do with games. The ultimate responsability is of the parents.
I grew up playing Duke Nukem 3D, DOOM, Quake, & I'm fine. My parents have taken care to beat the shit out of me if I wanted to do anything wrong.
It's the same with IDX & Mortal Kombat.

Roger Ebert doesn't point anywhere why Video Games aren't art forms. He only discredits Santiago's exposition, which it's a truly bad one.
He only says that they haven't reached the quality that can be compared with the works of Michelangelo or Vivaldi

The burden of proof is on the people claiming that video games are art because they are the ones making a claim.

For example, if a politician says, "video games are pornography," you would probably have a problem with this, right? And so you would want the politician to justify his argument and explain why video games are pornography. If he failed to do so convincingly you would consider that a victory for your side. If he then went on to say, "Well, show why they aren't pornography!" it wouldn't help him out much.

This is the same. If you and Santiago want people to believe that video games are art, you need to show that they are.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------


You can blame this on Todd Howard, who seems like a really lame dude. "Violence is funny! Lets all just own up to it! Violence done well is fucking hilarious. It’s like Itchy and Scratchy or Jackass – now that’s funny!"

Was he one of the guys who worked on the original Fallout? 1 and 2 had completely unnecessary violence too. It's always been an unfortunate aspect of the series. Of course I am happy to blame him either way.

EDIT: I'm quoting one of the comments of Roger's Blog.



I am always interested to hear your opinions on this subject, Ebert. Simply put though, you did nothing in this article except deconstruct and dismiss Santiago's definition of art.

While I admit her definition was flimsy (and the Wikipedia version even moreso) you need to give credit to her and the fact that she tried to define art. I read through this article (and, it is 1:30am, so I may have missed it) and you managed to get through the entire piece without providing your definition of art.

I also took particular note of your one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing) that videogames cannot be art because they have an objective, a point- someone wins and someone loses. I fear you may be simplifying matters, as most games these days have a narrative and you only win when you complete the narrative that the makers intend you to complete.

I would like to know how that is any different from a film's objective being the ending that the filmmaker intends the audience to sit quietly until? Simply because in a videogame it is possible to see a game over screen before then? Some games have done away with even this, providing no possible way to lose until the very end.

Anyways, keep up the blogging.

That's enough proof to me.

It's the same as there are people that can take literature bullshit like Twilight as art. Then why can't we take as art Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue or Suikoden? (just to name a few examples).
Bullet-Time type of cameras were implmented first on Max Payne, a game that was released before than The Matrix.

The article should've been named "Video games can never be art TO ME".

This is about a misunderstanding about the definition of art. Which no one can define it completely yet. Because it's a definition that cannot be explained by the Logic thought. IMO

Was he one of the guys who worked on the original Fallout? 1 and 2 had completely unnecessary violence too. It's always been an unfortunate aspect of the series. Of course I am happy to blame him either way.
He's a Bethesda dude who directed Oblivion and Fallout 3 I think. I think the problem is he thought dark humour meant extreme violence.

EDIT: I'm quoting one of the comments of Roger's Blog.



That's enough proof to me.

It shouldn't be, since there aren't any arguments as to why video games are art in the text you quoted. It is only a response to one small part of the Ebert blog. It's also wrong. The end of a film (or any story) isn't a "goal." Not in the sense that the objective of a game is. The distinction is that the game has multiple possible outcomes and requires user input to determine them. Whether the player can "lose" or not isn't relevant.


It's the same as there are people that can take literature bullshit like Twilight as art. Then why can't we take as art Metal Gear Solid, Shenmue or Suikoden? (just to name a few examples).

Because they're interactive programs with stories attached to them. The stories are arguably art, but you could take the game away and leave the stories intact. The stories aren't the game, they are just a secondary motivation for completing the objectives of the game.


This is about a misunderstanding about the definition of art. Which no one can define it completely yet. Because it's a definition that cannot be explained by the Logic thought. IMO

If it can't be explained logically, then there is no definition at all, and art may as well not exist. So there's not much point trying to say that games are it.

Politics here in America have always been fucked. Trust me living through two terms of bullshit a.k.a Bush Administration is enough to last a lifetime. American politics have always over reacted to some stupid shit when it came to video games and in my opinion it should really be up to the parents as to what they get their kid for video games. I remember back when the first Doom came out and how much shit that game stirred for being the first for having a lot of "satanic" themes and being very violent and it worried a lot parents. Sure demonic games now a days are a dime a dozen but back then it was unheard of. Similar thing happen with Mortal Kombat, only this time is was controversial for how violent and gory it was. One game I can remember that did actually get banned from U.S video game stores and it was Night Trap, as a matter of fact Sen. Joe Lieberman personally made it an agenda to ban it altogether, there was even a congressional hearing in 1993 about video game violence and Night Trap was mentioned a lot in it. You look at Night Trap now on emulators and probably think about how corny it looks compared to stuff today or how bizarre it was for the time.

Fact of the matter is restriction on gaming is nothing new and has been tried many times throughout the last 20+ years in the US. Games have ratings just the same as what movies have. My complaint about when they do this to gaming is how come they treat games different from movies and America is really fucked up about this. It was okay in 1973 to allow a scary movie like The Exorcist, or disturbing fucked up movie like Day Of The Woman in 1978, be released. Back then ratings on movies weren't taken too seriously yet, so younger teenagers just as easily could have seen those kind of movies, the R rating barely took effect in 1968 from the movie Night Of The Living Dead. Yet, in 1993 Doom gets a whole crock of shit from parents and politicians for having the very same elements that the horror movies had many years prior? Most parents in their right minds wouldn't let their kids watch The Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Poltergeist or Pet Semetary. So why treat games any different than movies?

Bottom line, parents should take more charge as to what their kids can play.

The thing is, parents already can take charge to what their kids play; they don't need a law to give them permission to control what their kid does and doesn't see. Heck, there are a LOT of stores now that require ID for purchase of an M rated game. With those things already in place, I don't see what the point of the lawsuit is. If you want to control what your kids see/do, then just do it.

This lawsuit is unneccessary and I suspect it will also be unsuccessful.

I think it is worth pointing out that the government regulates lots of things you can make the same argument for. Can parents keep track of their kids and prevent them from drinking alcohol or smoking weed, for example? Well, they can certainly have an influence... in many cases I don't think they really can completely stop it if the kid is determined to though, unless they actually lock them up.

Whether that means those things need to be government regulated is another matter, as is whether video games should be considered for similar regulation, but you guys are acting like there is no precedent for regulating things in this country. Just saying "parents should stop their kids from doing it" isn't enough to explain this away. It may be so, but not all parents can or will.

I think it is worth pointing out that the government regulates lots of things you can make the same argument for. Can parents keep track of their kids and prevent them from drinking alcohol or smoking weed, for example? Well, they can certainly have an influence... in many cases I don't think they really can completely stop it if the kid is determined to though, unless they actually lock them up.

Whether that means those things need to be government regulated is another matter, as is whether video games should be considered for similar regulation, but you guys are acting like their is no precedent for regulating things in this country. Just saying "parents should stop their kids from doing it" isn't enough to explain this away. It may be so, but not all parents can or will.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that if you're going to have kids, then you need to take responsibility for them. While the government can regulate certain things, parents should have enough common sense to explain the consequences of engaging in certain things. And honestly... a LOT of people out there should NOT be having kids.

Prime example: http://gizmodo.com/5675347/woman-kills-baby-for-interrupting-farmville-session

I think her stupidity caused her to kill her kid rather than Farmville... 'cause you know, maintaining a farm is such a bad influence on one's mind.

So... is your argument that, because parents should be responsible for their kids, the government should never do anything at all? I mean, yes, I agree that parents should be responsible and look after their kids, but this just isn't a productive way to try to end the debate.

"Some people should not be having kids." This gets thrown around all the time, but we should not be thinking about this in terms of what individual people should or should not do. That is not how you can effectively argue about what laws should and shouldn't be. You know what? People fuck. And they get pregnant. You can spend all the time you want posting on the internet about how people should reform their behavior, but behaviors are consistent amongst people of varying socio economic conditions and these trends will always continue on a large scale until we reform the conditions, rather than trying to slap the people on the wrist. This is the same kind of thinking that has lead to massively overcrowded, unsustainable prisons full of people on minor drug charges who are being kept in the same rooms as murderers. We should know by now that you can't fix large-scale trends in bad behavior by doling out spankings.

And I'm sure we'd love to all think that if we were in the same situations our behavior would be different because we are so great, but it probably wouldn't. People who are not in a proper financial or mental state to have children often do specifically because of those situations. They aren't well educated, they have few prospects in life and have never learned to manage themselves or their relationships responsibly. You can't just apply a blanket "well everyone should start acting better" and be done with it. That would be nice, but the problem will never be solved if we adopt that view.

I think prohibiting children from playing certain games would just lead to more piracy for game swapping between friends anyway. I don't think it'd be all the efficient in stopping kids from playing these games at all.

Anyway, I don't think a kid should be stopped from playing a game if they want to play it.

I lol'd at "games as an art form."
Interesting discussion regardless; please continue, people.





Edit: If dishing out spankings isn't very useful, I guess government getting after parents is definitely a no-go?

games ARE an art form.
they combine two forms of art: music and drawing.
i dare say dancing mad is on par with any composition of beethoven or any comtemporary musician.

You've missed his point completely. His point is, "Yes, the music in games can be art, but that does not mean games themselves are art."

I think gameplay can be artistic though, if it could help you to empathise with your avatar's situation. I'm not aware of any games that have done that, but I don't think it'd be impossible.

...
i dare say dancing mad is on par with any composition of beethoven or any comtemporary musician.
You are too daring then, but whatever.

Anyway, I don't think a kid should be stopped from playing a game if they want to play it.

I mostly agree, for the record, though if I had kids I think at very young ages I am pretty sure I would not let them play war simulators and maybe other stuff that's just very excessive. Anyway I'm probably done playing devil's advocate here I think.

@TK

The point of the second video wasn't that games will stop being sold to minors. That's (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103555-Retailers-Turn-Away-80-of-Kids-Trying-to-Buy-M-Rated-Games) already (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/05/ftc-report-retailers-clamping-down-on-m-rated-game-sales.ars) happening (http://www.sync-blog.com/sync/2008/05/fewer-kids-get.html). The real issue is that games could potentially lose first amendment protection. Which is basically an invitation for polititians to "go nuts" when it comes to video game regulation, since there isn't going to be anyone there to stop them.

Also you say the ESRB aren't mentioning everything you can do in games? Show me 1 game where you can do things the ESRB hasn't mentioned anywhere. If that has actually happened then that just means they aren't doing their job properly, although I haven't encountered any. As for the papercut thing, I was obviously exaggerating but I still stand by my point that games are regulated far more strictly than any other mass media.

As for games being art, I'm not going to start the argument. I find it pointless. I have my own opinions on the subject, and so does Mr Ebert. What I will say however that video games are a just as competent a medium for getting a message across as any other. Just as competent at generating emotion as any other. What exactly is it that qualifies them for extreme censorship? What exactly is it that makes them different from, say, movies and unworthy to be called "art"? What exactly is it that keeps them from being taken seriously?

Oh and I'd like you guys to explain to me why you think that pieces of a game can be "art" but the whole package being "art" is out of the question. In my opinion, games work best as a whole and their value is diminished when examined piece by piece.

Sigh... I leave for 3 days and I miss all the action.

@TK
Also you say the ESRB aren't mentioning everything you can do in games? Show me 1 game where you can do things the ESRB hasn't mentioned anywhere. If that has actually happened then that just means they aren't doing their job properly, although I haven't encountered any. As for the papercut thing, I was obviously exaggerating but I still stand by my point that games are regulated far more strictly than any other mass media.

I guess you missed it when that GTA scandal happened where people uncovered a "hidden" part of the game that was essentially porn.

Many, many games have very difficult to find easter eggs and hidden places and objectives and many possible endings. If you think the ESRB could or would play every game so thoroughly that they've seen every possible nook and cranny, you're not thinking it through. It would take an employee weeks of pay just to see and do everything possible in Fallout: New Vegas alone.


As for games being art, I'm not going to start the argument. I find it pointless. I have my own opinions on the subject, and so does Mr Ebert. What I will say however that video games are a just as competent a medium for getting a message across as any other. Just as competent at generating emotion as any other. What exactly is it that qualifies them for extreme censorship? What exactly is it that makes them different from, say, movies and unworthy to be called "art"? What exactly is it that keeps them from being taken seriously?

Why did you say you won't start the argument and then argue about it? Anyway, games are different from other media because they invite the user to participate. There is rather clearly a difference between seeing a movie filled with excessive violence and playing a game where you are actually encouraged to play the role of the perpetrator of that violence.


Oh and I'd like you guys to explain to me why you think that pieces of a game can be "art" but the whole package being "art" is out of the question. In my opinion, games work best as a whole and their value is diminished when examined piece by piece.

I don't think chewey was necessarily endorsing my opinion on that, just clarifying it, so it is probably just me you are addressing with this. Anyway, the answer is simple. A game is a set of rules. You can play it without the art. For example, you could play chess using pieces that were each individually sculpted from single stones by a master craftsman. Or, you could play using mass produced cheap plastic pieces.

You could play Street Fighter after reducing the game to a pair of rectangles representing the hit and hurt boxes of the characters. You could play Fallout: New Vegas with blobs for character models and guns, no music, and no story (when assigned a quest, the game could simply say "procede to x and accomplish x" without providing context or dialogue.)

This is almost exactly what early video games were like. People have since increasingly attached completely independent art TO those systems, and now there are folks saying the game itself is art. But don't forget games are just sets of rules.

Video games are not a bold new art form. If you tell a great story in a video game (which yes, absolutely has been done), the art of that is in the great story you told, not in the fact that it was attached to a programmed system of rules. If you create beautiful imagery it is beautiful on its own, not because you are observing it in a game. Games are games, and they are defined separately from art.
If a cross dipped in urine is 'art', how can games not be art?

If a movie or a book or a song or a comic can be art...why can't games?

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------


I guess you missed it when that GTA scandal happened where people uncovered a "hidden" part of the game that was essentially porn.
Many, many games have very difficult to find easter eggs and hidden places and objectives and many possible endings. If you think the ESRB could or would play every game so thoroughly that they've seen every possible nook and cranny, you're not thinking it through. It would take an employee weeks of pay just to see and do everything possible in Fallout: New Vegas alone.
Actually that whole 'Hot Coffee' was more about a person NOT DOING THEIR JOB and as soon as it was found, by an outside source, the game was given an AO rating and pulled from shelves...because no one would sale it.

Unlike movies where you can have an R or NR rated product, from the start, and most retailers will sale it.
AO is the 'kiss of death' for any video game.

Hell, If a light being flicked on and off constantly is regarded as Art, I'm game with calling something like Another Code, Phoenix Wright and Hotel Dusk Art.

Hell, If a light being flicked on and off constantly is regarded as Art, I'm game with calling something like Another Code, Phoenix Wright and Hotel Dusk Art.
I'd rather mention SotC or just about any game by Vanillaware myself.

I don't think any of you are listening to me.


If a cross dipped in urine is 'art', how can games not be art?

If a movie or a book or a song or a comic can be art...why can't games?

I don't think a cross dipped in urine is art.

As for why, if a movie or a book or a song or a comic can be art... why games can't, I will see if I can find an explanation for you anywhere on the internet.

Ok, I found one. I'll quote it.


The one thing I think Ebert doesn't bring up that's really vital to the discussion and would have pulled his argument together is that you could make art and put it in a video game, but that doesn't make the game art. Penny Arcade's nonsensical response to this post was a comic:



The answer is that yes, the result would be art, and that that is not how games are made. Writers, composers, and graphic artists arguably make art for use in video games all the time. Sometimes, they might even release art books to go with the game, and often these books might be titled something like, "The art of [game name]." If the game is art though, why is there art of it?

Video games are not a bold new art form. If you tell a great story in a video game (which yes, absolutely has been done), the art of that is in the great story you told, not in the fact that it was attached to a programmed system of rules. If you create beautiful imagery it is beautiful on its own, not because you are observing it in a game. Games are games, and they are defined separately from art.



Because they're interactive programs with stories attached to them. The stories are arguably art, but you could take the game away and leave the stories intact. The stories aren't the game, they are just a secondary motivation for completing the objectives of the game.


Anyway, the answer is simple. A game is a set of rules. You can play it without the art. For example, you could play chess using pieces that were each individually sculpted from single stones by a master craftsman. Or, you could play using mass produced cheap plastic pieces.

You could play Street Fighter after reducing the game to a pair of rectangles representing the hit and hurt boxes of the characters. You could play Fallout: New Vegas with blobs for character models and guns, no music, and no story (when assigned a quest, the game could simply say "procede to x and accomplish x" without providing context or dialogue.)

This is almost exactly what early video games were like. People have since increasingly attached completely independent art TO those systems, and now there are folks saying the game itself is art. But don't forget games are just sets of rules.






Actually that whole 'Hot Coffee' was more about a person NOT DOING THEIR JOB and as soon as it was found, by an outside source, the game was given an AO rating and pulled from shelves...because no one would sale it.

Unlike movies where you can have an R or NR rated product, from the start, and most retailers will sale it.
AO is the 'kiss of death' for any video game.

I'm aware of how it got in the game. I don't understand what your point is. It was on the disc, and was unknown, and wasn't caught by the ESRB. Which is exactly what Smarty asked for an example of.

---------- Post added at 03:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 AM ----------


Hell, If a light being flicked on and off constantly is regarded as Art

I do not think any reasonable people believe that is art.

This is probably my last word on the art stuff...
We can't be absolutist on this matter.


It shouldn't be, since there aren't any arguments as to why video games are art in the text you quoted. It is only a response to one small part of the Ebert blog. It's also wrong. The end of a film (or any story) isn't a "goal." Not in the sense that the objective of a game is. The distinction is that the game has multiple possible outcomes and requires user input to determine them. Whether the player can "lose" or not isn't relevant.

We were talking about films here not stories. And it isn't wrong, without going far to the real purpose(because this one depends on the developer), the basis is the same. To have the audience pay attention to what they are watching.
Or being more crude, just to make money. That can be the end purpose.




Because they're interactive programs with stories attached to them. The stories are arguably art, but you could take the game away and leave the stories intact. The stories aren't the game, they are just a secondary motivation for completing the objectives of the game.

Why a pieces of programing code can't be art. And Neo-Plasticism is?
A pack of straght black lines on a white background & Yellow, Blue & Red Squares.


Also everything that you are considering art per se is Interactive, because we are interacting on an emotional level.
Game make you interact on that level too, having fun it's an emotion.



If it can't be explained logically, then there is no definition at all, and art may as well not exist. So there's not much point trying to say that games are it.

So It doesn't exist?... Basically what you're saying is...

"It's Snowing outside, so it's cold.
It's not Snowing outside.
Therefore it's not cold"

That's pure logic my friend. Your argument is not valid. The conclusion can be false as it can be true.

This is called Denying the Antecedent Fallacy:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
The truth of the premise does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.



But don't forget games are just sets of rules.

If you say that games are just a set of rules & because of that they aren't art...

Then we can say the same shit about Poetry, Cinema, etc...
Because there's a set of rules for the procedure...

The definition of art is very expansive. You're just being hermetic about it.

Officially exists subterms such as, Military art, Medical art, Martial arts...etc...

Fucking Pong is a piece of art.

ON and OFF - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/09/13/on_and_off/)

You were saying? :3

We were talking about films here not stories. And it isn't wrong, without going far to the real purpose(because this one depends on the developer), the basis is the same. To have the audience pay attention to what they are watching.
Or being more crude, just to make money. That can be the end purpose.

Sorry, but I don't understand this paragraph at all. I didn't say "stories" anywhere in the post you quoted. I don't understand what the audience paying attention or making money has to do with any of it. Are you saying that because people want the audience to pay attention to a game, and people want the audience to pay attention to art, they are the same thing? Where is your direct response to any of the arguments I made?



Why a pieces of programing code can't be art. And Neo-Plasticism is?
A pack of straght black lines on a white background & Yellow, Blue & Red Squares.


Well, it would generally be because of all the stuff I already said about why games aren't art whereas pictures designed for aesthetic purposes are. This thing you've got here is arguably art. A lot of modern art, probably this included, is considered not art by the vast majority of people who see it. However this does have some pretty huge differences between it and a game, but I'm really kind of sick of repeating myself when nobody actually responds to what I say and just goes OH YEAH WELL IF POOP IS ART THEN HOW COME GAMES AREN'T


Also everything that you are considering art per se is Interactive, because we are interacting on an emotional level.
Game make you interact on that level too, having fun it's an emotion.

Ok, then everything that exists is art, because everyone can have some kind of reaction to anything. Please stop stretching things this badly. It is very obvious what it means when we talk about games being interactive vs. movies not being interactive.




So It doesn't exist?... Basically what you're saying is...

"It's Snowing outside, so it's cold.
It's not Snowing outside.
Therefore it's not cold"

That's pure logic my friend. Your argument is not valid. The conclusion can be false as it can be true.

This is called Denying the Antecedent Fallacy:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
The truth of the premise does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Yes, I've done symbolic logic too. It makes you look smart, but it doesn't accomplish much if you ignore all my arguments and then start spewing P and Q for no reason. I am not sure you really understood me there. I did not say that art doesn't exist. You said it has no logical definition, and I said that IF that is so, it doesn't exist.

The reason for this is because it is a concept that we created, and we create things in logical terms. It's the only way we think.




If you say that games are just a set of rules & because of that they aren't art...

Then we can say the same shit about Poetry, Cinema, etc...
Because there's a set of rules for the procedure...

Having a set of rules for something does not mean that it is a set of rules.


The definition of art is very expansive. You're just being hermetic about it.

Officially exists subterms such as, Military art, Medical art, Martial arts...etc...

Fucking Pong is a piece of art.

If you really think pong is art, then there probably isn't much point in continuing this. I'm not sure if this just means you have incredibly low standards or what but I hope when you see a genuine piece of actual quality art you can appreciate it.

---------- Post added at 02:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------


ON and OFF - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/09/13/on_and_off/)

You were saying? :3

This is far from the stupidest thing to ever win money for being "art." However, no reasonable person thinks that is art. The article you linked to touches on this fact.

HOWEVER... even if we were to be incredibly generous and say, ok, this lights turning on and off thing is art, it's still a completely different thing from a video game. It's a static "piece" meant for observation, not a ruleset with user-determined outcomes. Is this really the best argument you guys can muster? "Well, someone said something stupid is art, so games are art." ...

I took a big dump yesterday. I had to put time and effort in to get that dump. I think it is art, because hey, if a lightswitch going on and off...

I guess you missed it when that GTA scandal happened where people uncovered a "hidden" part of the game that was essentially porn.

Many, many games have very difficult to find easter eggs and hidden places and objectives and many possible endings. If you think the ESRB could or would play every game so thoroughly that they've seen every possible nook and cranny, you're not thinking it through. It would take an employee weeks of pay just to see and do everything possible in Fallout: New Vegas alone.

I guess I did miss that. But an isolated incident doesn't make it a massive threat.




Why did you say you won't start the argument and then argue about it? Anyway, games are different from other media because they invite the user to participate. There is rather clearly a difference between seeing a movie filled with excessive violence and playing a game where you are actually encouraged to play the role of the perpetrator of that violence.

I didn't present any arguments for games being art. That's why I said I wasn't going to start the discussion. Art is a purely subjective term and there will never be a clear definition for it. What I argued was gaming's potential to generate emotion within the player. The potential for its creator to express an opinion through his work. Hideo Kojima made Metal Gear Solid to convey his anti-war beliefs to the players. If video games, as a medium, presented him an obstacle in doing this, then Metal Gear would be a film, a novel, a comic book. Anything but a game. He clearly decided that the best way to present his creation to the audience was through an interactive experience, something that no other medium can provide. Why should anyone stop him? Even if you don't agree with his views, there is no reason to prevent him, or anyone else for that matter, from doing it. I think your problem doesn't lie with the definition of art, but rather the scope of violence in games.


I don't think chewey was necessarily endorsing my opinion on that, just clarifying it, so it is probably just me you are addressing with this. Anyway, the answer is simple. A game is a set of rules. You can play it without the art. For example, you could play chess using pieces that were each individually sculpted from single stones by a master craftsman. Or, you could play using mass produced cheap plastic pieces.

You could play Street Fighter after reducing the game to a pair of rectangles representing the hit and hurt boxes of the characters. You could play Fallout: New Vegas with blobs for character models and guns, no music, and no story (when assigned a quest, the game could simply say "procede to x and accomplish x" without providing context or dialogue.)

This is almost exactly what early video games were like. People have since increasingly attached completely independent art TO those systems, and now there are folks saying the game itself is art. But don't forget games are just sets of rules.

Yes, you could play chess with plastic pieces and its value wouldn't be diminished. Yes, you could play Street Fighter with the characters being nothing more than glowing coloured dots. But you couldn't play Fallout equipped with water pistols fighting stuffed animals in the Mushroom Kingdom, because that would essentially defeat the purpose of it being set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Isn't that the whole point? Or rather, isn't that what its creators wanted?

Like I previously said, I think your views are colored by your opinions of excessive violence.

In a game like, say, Serious Sam you do nothing but fight hordes of monsters with giant weaponry. That is indeed excessive violence, but its problem isn't the mere fact that it is so, but rather the fact that it has no meaning. Saying that violence doesn't mean anything in, say, Assassin's Creed would be completely missing the point. The game deals with religion in the 12th century and the way it was used by people with political power to manipulate the masses. Those people in the game's universe are the Templars. The order of the Assassins on the other hand is ideologically opposed to them and believes strongly in free will. Both groups are unknown to the public and there is no other way to solve their differences besides violence. It's trying to portray a cruel world and it wouldn't work if it didn't have violence in it. The game wouldn't have the same impact if the Assassins wanted to give everyone a hug and the Templars were gold members of Mahatma Ghandi's fanclub or something.

What about Grand Theft Auto IV? Was the violence pointless there as well? Or did you miss the fact that the game deals with the sad truth a European immigrant had to face with the fact that the "American Dream" he had envisioned wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that reality isn't all that fun? And would Fallout be the same if the Earth was never scarred by nuclear warfare and everyone just went on with their happy lives?

But then again another problem may lie with what you consider violent as well. And an even bigger one is what the politicians of the USA consider violent. And this is what I'm afraid of. You might still have fun with New Vegas if they removed all the blood but certain others might not and considering those certain others could potentially gain the power to ban anything they consider "violent", that's not something I'm too happy about.

And now I'd like to respond to the rest of you.

I think you guys are approaching things the wrong way and it's even more proof that arguing about "art" is pointless. I do in fact believe that games can be art, based on my definition of the thing of course, but that doesn't mean that every video game is "art" simply because of its nature as a game. Not everything is art. But you see that's still just me. I'm trying to argue something else that you don't seem understand.

I'm trying to argue that video games have potential of offering something that has never been possible before. Interactive storytelling. It's a spectacular thing. I disagree with TK because he thinks that only comes into play when violence takes over. There's so much undiscovered potential that gaming has yet to touch and I wouldn't want it all to disappear because of some blind old people living 1000+ miles away from me.

Believe it or not, I agree with both TK and Ebert in one area: Why do you care about what is called art, or more importantly who it is that declares it? If you think games are art, then great! What does it matter to you what a movie critic think? Don't get me wrong, I have a lot respect for Ebert and I think he's a great guy but I have no reason to take him seriously when it comes to games. I can understand his opinions and I respect them of course and I would never try to convince him otherwise. (I think he feels this way for two reasons: 1. Because of interactivity and 2. Because video games are rarely the work of only a single person which is the case with pretty much every other medium) But I'm not offended in any way by his words.

Now coming back to why I started this topic to begin with. It's been derailed long enough with discussions about "art". I was wrong to have even mentioned it in the first place. My point is that I'm against censorship, which is what Yee and others like him want for gaming. They see it as a threat, as something that could potentially be as influential as movies or music or books. And I don't blame them for thinking that way. It's something new (it's been around for what, 30 years?) and they don't understand it. It's natural to avoid or destroy something that's new and potentially dangerous. But I feel that it's up to people who do understand games to show these guys that video games aren't the same as porn.

Fuck...we're all getting trolled by TK.


You troll....you dirty troll...

---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 AM ----------

And Senator Yee said...

NOTHING YOU IDIOTS SENATOR YEE'S DEAD,
He's locked in my basement...

Fascist parents love Senator Yee,
Walking around grabbing his swastika.


--------------
AAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD...I'm out.

We can't be absolutist on this matter.


Sorry, but I don't understand this paragraph at all. I didn't say "stories" anywhere in the post you quoted. I don't understand what the audience paying attention or making money has to do with any of it. Are you saying that because people want the audience to pay attention to a game, and people want the audience to pay attention to art, they are the same thing? Where is your direct response to any of the arguments I made?

Here:


The end of a film (or any story)
Also, tell me how much Mona Lisa sells these days...
Johann Sebastian Bach did his living out of his work because of neccessity not only because he was good at it.
Money has a lot do with it.



Well, it would generally be because of all the stuff I already said about why games aren't art whereas pictures designed for aesthetic purposes are. This thing you've got here is arguably art.
115 years of humanity disagree with you.




Ok, then everything that exists is art, because everyone can have some kind of reaction to anything. Please stop stretching things this badly. It is very obvious what it means when we talk about games being interactive vs. movies not being interactive.

This leads to:



If you really think pong is art, then there probably isn't much point in continuing this. I'm not sure if this just means you have incredibly low standards or what but I hope when you see a genuine piece of actual quality art you can appreciate it.

This is the reason I said that it can't be explained logically, it's based on the perception of every person.



You said it has no logical definition, and I said that IF that is so, it doesn't exist.
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Sorry you've putted on capital the "IF", I did understand you though. When you said this first.

I didn't wanted to sound smart or anything, it's just that we perceive differently what logic really is.



The reason for this is because it is a concept that we created, and we create things in logical terms. It's the only way we think.

The Mind has no place on the emotions.



Having a set of rules for something does not mean that it is a set of rules.

A set of rules for something :not equal: a set of rules. (?)




Art is a purely subjective term and there will never be a clear definition for it.

Quoted For Truth...
This is also the reason I was arguing with TK, he didn't have in mind the subjective aspect of art.


Hideo Kojima made Metal Gear Solid to convey his anti-war beliefs to the players. If video games, as a medium, presented him an obstacle in doing this, then Metal Gear would be a film, a novel, a comic book. Anything but a game. He clearly decided that the best way to present his creation to the audience was through an interactive experience, something that no other medium can provide. Why should anyone stop him?

Beautiful Just Beautiful.



And now I'd like to respond to the rest of you.

I think you guys are approaching things the wrong way and it's even more proof that arguing about "art" is pointless. I do in fact believe that games can be art, based on my definition of the thing of course, but that doesn't mean that every video game is "art" simply because of its nature as a game. Not everything is art. But you see that's still just me. I'm trying to argue something else that you don't seem understand.

I'm trying to argue that video games have potential of offering something that has never been possible before. Interactive storytelling. It's a spectacular thing. I disagree with TK because he thinks that only comes into play when violence takes over. There's so much undiscovered potential that gaming has yet to touch and I wouldn't want it all to disappear because of some blind old people living 1000+ miles away from me.

Believe it or not, I agree with both TK and Ebert in one area: Why do you care about what is called art, or more importantly who it is that declares it? If you think games are art, then great! What does it matter to you what a movie critic think? Don't get me wrong, I have a lot respect for Ebert and I think he's a great guy but I have no reason to take him seriously when it comes to games. I can understand his opinions and I respect them of course and I would never try to convince him otherwise. (I think he feels this way for two reasons: 1. Because of interactivity and 2. Because video games are rarely the work of only a single person which is the case with pretty much every other medium) But I'm not offended in any way by his words.


Great response I agree with you.


Fuck...we're all getting trolled by TK.

You troll....you dirty troll...

I feel guilty for this too... =(

Sorry Smarty

And I'm out too... I had my piece.

fuk u guys

I'm gout

I guess you missed it when that GTA scandal happened where people uncovered a "hidden" part of the game that was essentially porn.

Actually, if I'm remembering right, that was a part of the game that was supposed to be deactivated(i.e., no 'normal' or legit way to access it).

Hot Coffee minigame controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_minigame_controversy). When I heard of it, I did look for the Action Replay code to unlock it... and thought 'What the fuck?' Quite simply, it's a load of garbage... majority of those complaining about it probably haven't even played the game or looked at the age rating on it. IMO, it boils down once again to the parents, and their lack of intelligence when purchasing a game for their children just because (in most cases I'm guessing) the parent in question is thinking: It's a videogame, therefore it's for a child.

What about Grand Theft Auto IV? Was the violence pointless there as well? Or did you miss the fact that the game deals with the sad truth a European immigrant had to face with the fact that the "American Dream" he had envisioned wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that reality isn't all that fun? And would Fallout be the same if the Earth was never scarred by nuclear warfare and everyone just went on with their happy lives?
I only read this part of your post as I was scrolling to the bottom to see if TK had responded again yet. This part, for some reason, caught me eye.

You've yet again failed to understand his argument, so I really don't see why he should bother arguing with you or anybody else in this thread anymore. All you've said here is "the story or setting can be considered art, therefore games are art." His argument is that games are containers of art and not art themselves.

I only read this part of your post as I was scrolling to the bottom to see if TK had responded again yet. This part, for some reason, caught me eye.

You've yet again failed to understand his argument, so I really don't see why he should bother arguing with you or anybody else in this thread anymore. All you've said here is "the story or setting can be considered art, therefore games are art." His argument is that games are containers of art and not art themselves.

Yeah, but would they work if they weren't tied to the game? I find that a lot of times that's not the case.

What do you mean "work?" I'm assuming you mean the video games wouldn't be fun/enjoyable? There have been plenty of story-less video games just within the past five years. Also, you can choose to go straight to the gaming by choosing multiplayer in first person shooters, multiplayer in WarCraft III, etc (and most of the community does so). And the Halo series has been quite successful, and I'm going on a hunch here..but..I think it has something to do with XBox Live, not the story.

Yeah, but would they work if they weren't tied to the game? I find that a lot of times that's not the case.
They wouldn't work because stories in games are usually pretty weak compared to stories in other media.

You could tell the story of a European immigrant quite easily in a book or a movie. If you were to tell GTAIV's story though, you'd need to beef it up quite a bit.

They wouldn't work because stories in games are usually pretty weak compared to stories in other media.

You could tell the story of a European immigrant quite easily in a book or a movie. If you were to tell GTAIV's story though, you'd need to beef it up quite a bit.

It's less about the quality of storytelling but rather the means. In an RPG with branching plot paths you can't exactly write 10 separate novels to cover all the possibilities. And a game based around exploration wouldn't work uninteractively. You saw what happened when they tried to make Silent Hill into a movie.

That was more or less my point. The majority of games may not be too great right now, but that will change. It's already changing.

Oh and the court case is today if you're wondering. We'll see what happens soon enough.


What do you mean "work?" I'm assuming you mean the video games wouldn't be fun/enjoyable? There have been plenty of story-less video games just within the past five years. Also, you can choose to go straight to the gaming by choosing multiplayer in first person shooters, multiplayer in WarCraft III, etc (and most of the community does so). And the Halo series has been quite successful, and I'm going on a hunch here..but..I think it has something to do with XBox Live, not the story.

You misundestand. A game can work without a story. A story (sometimes) can't work without the game.

Specter of Censored Fairy Tales, Rap Music Raised in Supreme Court Video Game Case

The Supreme Court justices appeared highly skeptical of the State of California's arguments today that certain violent video games should be illegal to buy, questioning whether such exceptions would need to be applied to rap music and even Grimm's fairy tales.

The justices were hearing arguments in California vs. the Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association, a five year battle in the courts that so far has tilted in favor of the video game industry.

The court was full today for the gaming case. Oral arguments kicked off a little after 10 am ET, as the nine Justices too their seats at the bench, in front of attorneys for both sides and a packed gallery. Press, including Kotaku, sat off to the left, near towering columns in the massive classical courthouse.

California Attorney General Zackery Morazzini started today's one hour session at the U.S. Supreme Court saying that the "deviant level of violence that is presented in a certain of category of video games" requires legal restrictions to protect minors.

Morazzini's opening statement was almost immediately interrupted by Justice Antonin Scalia who pointed out that Grimm's fairy tales are very violent as well.

"So are you going to ban them too?" Scalia asked of the attorney general.

Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices and most vocal in the questioning of the state today, repeatedly and often with humor questioned Morazznii about the California law and its effects on the first amendment.

"You are asking us to create a whole new prohibition... what's next after violence? Drinking? Movies that show drinking? Smoking?," asked Scalia in the hearing.

"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games," Justice Samuel Alito joked.

No one attending ventured a guess.

While not as vigorous in their questioning, the court also pressed the video game industry's resistance to accept any law that would limit the exposure of children to a potentially harmful game. And questioned whether the industry would accept lesser restrictions such as requiring putting violent video games on the top shelf.

Some justices wondered if there was perhaps a valid interest in protecting minors from hyper-violent games.

"Imagining a game that allows a player to torture babies," Justice Stephen Breyer asked. "Why isn't it common sense for the state to say 'Parents, if you want your 13-year-old to play it you have to buy it?'

While the justices did not betray intimate knowledge of playing games some seemed familiar with the medium. Justice Elena Kagan at one point asked California if Mortal Kombat would be banned under California's law. "Half of the clerks [in the Court] have spent a considerable amount of time playing it," she said. "I don't know what she's talking about," Scalia quipped.

Morazzini said he wasn't sure about Mortal Kombat but said that Postal 2, a game that was repeatedly discussed today would, as would violent Sega game Madworld.

At one point justice Scalia asked how much games cost. $50-$60, he was told by the gaming industry's lead attorney, Paul Smith.

To win a decision, California needed to convince the Court that they should allow an exception to the First Amendment for extremely violent content that could legally be blocked from sale to kids, matching a similar court-accepted carve-out for certain types of sexual content.

"What makes video games special?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg asked. "How do you cut it off at video games?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned, "Could you get rid of rap music too?" She said that she did not findd a five-minute clip of a violent game California made available to the court "entertaining." But, she added, "That's not the point."

Kagan questioned whether the California law was too broad and wondered how one would define "morbid" violence. Scalia joked that California could start a "California Office of Censorship."

Morazinni said juries could determine what is too violent and, dismissing concerns that this could chill creative freedom and confuse game companies, pointed out that the games industry already does distinguish content through its own ratings board.

California tried to persuade the court that games are unusual, that the player, by interacting and triggering a violent act, is susceptible to different effects than they would be watching a movie.

The video game industry, led by attorney Paul Smith, tried to turn California's scientific evidence against it, noting that researchers were, at best, divided on the effects games have on kids. But Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the science had been divided on the effects of sexual content on kids when the Court allowed states to block the sale of some sexual content to minors.

Roberts and Breyer repeatedly questioned Smith on how the gaming industry could say that prohibitions against the sale of some sexual content to kids was ok but the same against violence are not. Imagining a 13-year-old going into a store that sells a hypothetical baby-torturing game, he said, "You can't buy a [picture of] a naked woman, but you can buy that?"

Smith tried to argue that the difference between sex and violence was that there had been a long American tradition regarding wariness of sexual content, but none against violence. It's not part of this country's cultural attitude to regulate violent content, he said.

Roberts rattled off descriptions from Postal 2 — shooting people in legs, pouring gasoline on someone and urinating on them. These, he said, are not generally accepted behaviors depicted in the arts. "We don't have a tradition for that," he said. "We protect them from that."

Justice Samuel Alito wondered if the gaming industry would accept a California law that simply applied penalties to games rated by the industry. Smith said he would object because such a law would turn the game rankings group, the ESRB, essentially into a government regulator.

Roberts said that the Court's recent refusal to allow a law to ban the sale of animal cruelty fetish videos was done so because the law was broad and proposed that a narrower law was not something the court had ruled out. Couldn't a narrow group of violent video games be blocked here? Smith said the English language would not allow for clear distinctions between what is acceptable violence for children to see in games and what would not be.

The Justices tried to poke some other holes in Smith's argument, noting that the FCC tried to regulate when violent TV shows can be aired during the day and night and Roberts wondering if violent video games, supposing they are harmful to kids, could be legally required to be on a store's top shelf. He compared such a possible law to those against cigarettes. "Cigarettes are not speech," Smith said. "I know cigarettes are not speech," Roberts snapped. They are, nonetheless, he said, "deemed harmful to kids."

In 2005, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed into law a bill that would make the sale of exceptionally violent video games to children a crime subject to a $1000 fine. The video game industry pushed back, arguing that California's law violated First Amendment free speech protections. The gaming industry succeeded in getting the courts to block the Califonia law, as they had in other states where similar laws were planned, all on free speech grounds. Two tiers of courts sided with the gaming industry in California, unswayed by state officials' arguments that violent video games represented a distinct danger to the welfare and psychological welfare of children.

California has contended that extremely violent video games should be subjected to the same standards and tests that allowed the State of New York in the late 1960s to outlaw the sale of pornography to children. In that case, Ginsberg Vs. New York, the Supreme Court supported a state's right to block the sale of certain kinds of sexual content from children. The Court hasn't previously permitted any such law for violent content.

The California law would define violent video games subject to this standard as those that fail a version of the "Miller Test," a test for obscenity that defines a work as, among other things, lacking any "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Heading into the hearings with the Supreme Court, the video game industry has been backed with briefs from the main trade groups behind movies and music as well as corporations such as Microsoft, rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the business advocacy group, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. California has received the support of some sympathetic states but has seen no correspondingly large support from interest groups.

The Court agreed in April to hear arguments about this case. Its decision is expected before its summer recess in June 2011.

A decision by the Court in favor of the video game industry would likely end California's pursuit of laws against violent games and leave restrictions against games to the industry's ratings board and to parents.

A decision in favor of California would make video games the only type of media content in the United States that can be illegal to sell to children based on severity of violent content, a decision that would affirm that games have distinct affects on a young audience that other forms of entertainment do not — or that that the speech in games is not seen meriting the same protection as that in other media.

Sauce: Specter of Censored Fairy Tales, Rap Music Raised in Supreme Court Video Game Case (http://kotaku.com/5678903/supreme-court-pushes-hard-against-california-video-game-law)

It's less about the quality of storytelling but rather the means. In an RPG with branching plot paths you can't exactly write 10 separate novels to cover all the possibilities. And a game based around exploration wouldn't work uninteractively. You saw what happened when they tried to make Silent Hill into a movie.
Um...yeah...you can.
You can totally do it.

&

You misundestand. A game can work without a story. A story (sometimes) can't work without the game.

So you're saying the medium that a Metal Gear Solid or a Final Fantasy takes cannot be done by any other medium? I can agree with that. That is why movies of games always fail and games of movies always fail...at least part of the reason. Money plays another role, but that's another discussion.

So you're saying the medium that a Metal Gear Solid or a Final Fantasy takes cannot be done by any other medium? I can agree with that. That is why movies of games always fail and games of movies always fail.
They fail the same reason why anime live-action movies fail.
The person behind it doesn't understand the source material and/or tries to make a trilogy into one movie.

You could turn FF6 into an amazing 'Mad Max Meets Lord of the Rings', if you had the right group behind it.

They'd have to be willing to make three movies, or more, not just one quickie.

You caught me before my edit. =0

...
You could turn FF6 into an amazing 'Mad Max Meets Lord of the Rings', if you had the right group behind it.

...
LOL

They wouldn't work because stories in games are usually pretty weak compared to stories in other media.

You could tell the story of a European immigrant quite easily in a book or a movie. If you were to tell GTAIV's story though, you'd need to beef it up quite a bit.

Yeah... I haven't played GTA4 so I don't know the story, but I have a very hard time believing that the story itself benefits from or requires the game to be told.

Smarty, can you give examples of some games that have stories that could not be told without being in a game, and more importantly why they are dependent on the game? I can't think of any at all. It seems to me that a story's quality is independent of whether you complete game objectives in order to progress it.

EDIT: I didn't see your point about RPG storyline split paths until just now.

I think maybe this is a better place for us to be talking about things. That is one area that video games have definitely carved out a very unusual approach to storytelling. But I think it's still a bit deceptive. I love branching storyline paths that depend on role playing decisions, and I hope they are something that continues to catch on. But just because that technique has been pioneered by game developers doesn't mean it's dependent on games.

Take Mass Effect, for example. Remove the combat interface and the inventory/party management aspects. You've got a highly cinematic experience left in which the viewer acts in the role of the main character and makes decisions about where the story goes. Is this a "game"? I suppose that is a possibility. "Game" is notoriously hard to define in a comprehensive way, almost as much as "art."

Where is the line between this theoretical interactive cinematic experience and a straight film? If you watched a movie where you suddenly got to make one huge decision for the main character and it determined the rest of the story, would you now call this whole experience a game? I certainly wouldn't.

Basically what I'm saying is that branching story paths aren't something you could only have a video game. It would be entirely possible to start creating experiences that are nothing but that, with no objective based game element. They might ultimately be defined as "play" and thus games, but I think they would fall into a distinctly different category than what we currently think of as video games.

Remove the combat interface and the inventory/party management aspects. You've got a highly cinematic experience left in which the viewer acts in the role of the main character and makes decisions about where the story goes. Is this a "game"? I suppose that is a possibility. "Game" is notoriously hard to define in a comprehensive way, almost as much as "art."

Where is the line between this theoretical interactive cinematic experience and a straight film? If you watched a movie where you suddenly got to make one huge decision for the main character and it determined the rest of the story, would you now call this whole experience a game? I certainly wouldn't.

Basically what I'm saying is that branching story paths aren't something you could only have a video game. It would be entirely possible to start creating experiences that are nothing but that, with no objective based game element. They might ultimately be defined as "play" and thus games, but I think they would fall into a distinctly different category than what we currently think of as video games.

Case in point: Phantom of Inferno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Inferno)

I only use that because I have that game. In fact, the only thing you do in that 'game' is make choices...that's the extent of your interactivity.

Plumbers Don't Wear Ties also subscribes to this...but art, it definately is not! :P

Basically what I'm saying is that branching story paths aren't something you could only have a video game. It would be entirely possible to start creating experiences that are nothing but that, with no objective based game element. They might ultimately be defined as "play" and thus games, but I think they would fall into a distinctly different category than what we currently think of as video games.

This is already a game genre! A huge portion of visual novels, and some sound novels too, give you choices and branching story paths. I'd say that many of them sort of have puzzle like gameplay, in that you have to figure out the correct combination of choices to get certain story scenes and endings.

I want to say that they tend to have better stories than regular video games too, but I imagine only the really good ones get translated into English, so that's not necessarily true.

I was thinking about bringing up visual novels but decided not to because I have never played one and know very little about them. I think it is quite telling that they are referred to as "visual novels" though, which is a pretty clear distinction from "video games."

Ok well after reading through all of this I've arrived to the conclusion that:
(A) No one will or can ever agree on the definition of art (because beauty and therefore art will always be in the eye of the beholder)
(B) Governments are wasting precious time and resources arguing about frivolous luxuries (which is what a game essentially is in the grand scale of things) rather than concentrating on the more major problems (like global recession, or global warming).

Ok this is how I see it:

One couldn't look at a colour or at paint and say it's art. One couldn't call a single note music. But they are the neccessary componenets used to make a work of art ie. a picture or song. When we read a book or poem, we are seeing the compilation of many beautiful words to make a prose, which then can be called a work of art. Maybe we can say that art is anything that is created for the sole purpose of beauty.

With this in mind we will look at some books that have been written that enables the reader to choose their own endings (eg. To jump down the toilet go to page 65. To climb up the garbage chute go to page 180- you get my meaning) Would it be accurate to not call this book a piece of art? It is still written the same way that any other book is, the only difference is that it allows the reader to interact with it in a different way.
The same components are somewhat used to make a film,that are used to make a game (ie. Actors, directors, composers, creators, etc). The only difference between the two (especially now-a days) is the fact that there is a different level at which the spectator can interact with it.

The actual disk itself and the individual components used to create the game (ie. individual pixels or notes for the soundtrack, etc) can not be obviously called art. However the compilation of the imagination and creation that goes into the video game can potentially become a work of art. Same as we couldn't call the pieces of paper in a book or the letters on the page art, but we can call the finished product art.

Certain games have storylines and messages behind them that would have the same relevance to our ancestors as they would to us. These games have touched the hearts of many therefore they are seen as a thing of beauty that doesn't really serve a purpose as such (entertainment for a couple of hours at most). So therefore, the people that have been moved by the game as a whole (because you can't disect it and take away each component from it; the music belongs to it as much as the graphics does) can call it a piece of art if they wish. Art is subjective.

Yes art does go into the creation of the game, but that isn't really the point is it? The point is, when the amalgamation of all these mediums of art is made, outcome will inevitably be a piece of art. The inputs reflect the out puts.
I don't mean that the in-game battles are going to be a high level of art (imo neither is modern art) but to some people it may still be classified as such. Like I said earlier:

Maybe we can say that art is anything that is created for the sole purpose of beauty.

.....................and remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm not saying that the game as a physical product is art as such. Rather that the art form is expressed in the way that it moves us and make us feel.
Consider this quote:

That's what a ship is, you know. It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom.

Now I'll paraphrase it to make it relevant to my point:

That's what a video game is, you know. It's not just a soundtrack and a concept and a plot and graphics, that's what a video game needs but what a video game is............what any video games really is.....is beauty.

Moving on now from that point.

The only two things I can say about the government's involvment is this:

A) They have much more important things to be discussing at the moment. Third World poverty, global warming, hunger, the global recession, child labour and the oil crisis seems to be somewhat more important topics to be deliberating about then video games.

B) I don't trust in the censorship given on the majority of these games. Take 'Crisis Core' for example, it is said that it contains foul language on the censorship lable, which is laughable. Some parents might have a problem with their child playing something with offensive language (which certain games are nutorious for) and therefore the censorship lable has done this game a disservice. As we all know the strongest word used in Crisis Core is 'shut up' (I kid you not!). So the lable is completely incorrect.
In Mortal Kombat (at least for Unchained, which is the only MK title I've played) you can switch the 'blood and gore content' off, if one had a problem with it.

I know that they can't go in depth for every game for an accurate censorship, therefore how do they hope to monitor them at all? They already give a general (if not at times misguided) outline for the age barrier, so it seems to me as if the rest is up to the individual/ parents. Anyway, the chances are, that if the parents couldn't give a crap about what their child is playing then a violent game probably won't be scaring the child's life as much as their domestic situation does. And if the parent does care, then all they need do is what Smarty suggested; check it for themselves. So all the pollitical interference is unneccessary at the end of the day.

Well that's all I've got to say about that for now.

@TK

Oh, now we have to define what a video game is... Great.

To be honest, I never gave it much thought because I never felt the need to. Games have so far been defined by their interactive element, and to an extent I agree that if films and other mediums start adopting it, the line might get blurry concerning what exactly is a video game and what isn't. For now, however, I don't think that's a distinction we need to start making. But for the sake of conversation, I'll roll with it.

Branching plot paths are alright I guess but simply choosing the way the story progresses isn't what makes a game. I mean, a lot of people accused Heavy Rain of not being a game and they wouldn't be all that wrong.

Games are interactive from the ground up. Everything is interactive. Even minor choices that might not seem all that important at first make the difference. Will I use a light attack or a heavy attack to kill this monster? Will I use my pistol or my shotgun? Will crouch behind this crate or hide behind the wall? I know they don't seem important, but take them away and you're left with an interactive movie. Hardly a game.

It's true that a lot of games don't have an interactive plot, but everything else is, and that's usually what sets them apart. Some more than others. All of them have it to an extent. Even if its only an illusion. But, hypothetically, if a game came out and the main character only had 1 weapon for each situation, only had one chest-high wall to hide behind, was forced to kill enemies in a specific order, had to run in a very specific direction. I don't care what the graphics are on that game, it would get old very, very fast. Because it's not interactive. It's predetermined plot and action that refuses to proceed unless you press buttons. That's not how games work.

Visual novels and games like Heavy Rain are coming on game consoles because (like I said) only games offer interactivity right now. If cinema offered it, then I think they would belong more there. An experience that isn't, as a whole, interactive, isn't what I'd call a game.

But still, it's not really a distinction we need make. At least not right now.

Supreme Court of the United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=08-1448)

Justice Scalia be trolling.

[QUOTE]Justice Scalia be trolling.[/QUOTE

You think? I thought he made some valid points. Especially when it came to differentiating between what exactly was and wasn't exceptable viewing for minors.

Justice Scalia be trolling.

You think? I thought he made some valid points. Especially when it came to differentiating between what exactly was and wasn't exceptable viewing for minors.

Oh, he did. I'm just talking about 1 very specific moment early on...

OK you got a point :D

deleted.