important article on videogames and the constitution

i'm not sure if this was already posted.. it's fairly recent, and i just found it tonight..

it's a really REALLY good article on videogames and freedom of speech, etc..

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...kins060702.asp

enjoy

Ok, though I appreciate this guy's defense of gaming, and he makes a load of really good points and has some very well reasoned bits in here, one thing really stands out-

"But, somehow, games are different. Saint Louis County had presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all first-person shooters and all the subject of previous controversy. The IDSA had submitted videogame scripts designed to show their underlying dramatic structure. What does it suggest that neither side asked that the judge to actually play the games? His ruling misidentified Resident Evil as the Resident of Evil Creek, misspelled Mortal Kombat, and incorrectly capitalized Doom."

Since when are Resident Evil and especially Mortal Kombat first person shooters? This isn't a nitpick, earlier in the article he says-

"Suppose a Federal Judge was asked to determine whether books were protected by the First Amendment. Suppose instead of seeking testimony from noted literary scholars, examining the historical evolution of the novel, or surveying the range of content at the local bookstore, the judge choose four books, all within the same genre, to stand in for the medium as a whole."

So one of the points he's making in his argument is that all the games are from one small section of gaming. Actually you've got one FPS, two adventure/sruvival horror games (Resident Evil and Fear Effect, which is the unmentioned 4th one), and a fighting game, albeit a crappy one. He also goes on to say-

"As a close observer of the games industry over the past decade, I have witnessed a medium take shape, master its vocabulary, diversify content, enlarge its audience, deepen thematic ambitions, and confront ethical responsibilities."

He's presenting himself as an expert at the history of gaming but makes an incredibly blatant screw-up at the start of the article, completely undermining his credibility.

Other than that, it's a good read.

James

I'd say this fellow is in the fortunate position of stating the obvious, in a situation where people do not know what that is.

DiffusionX. in any "artform", the majority of what is produced will be trivial rubbish. if somethings goal isn't to introduce a sense of ethics, I don't see why it would be criticized for that. They should be judged for their independent intents and success. it is not as if there is one singular form of "speech."

Most video games are trash. I don't think we need a judge to tell us that. And no, it's not going to be a "wake-up call", when the industry actively and consciously seeks to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Books and films aren't really in much better shape now-days anyway; let's face it, our culture is in a state of pronounced decay and everybody with some historical sense is well aware of it.

The solution is not abridging what rights we still have or setting any precedents for the systematic elimination of those rights. Anyone who thinks that's a melodramatic analysis needs to pick up a paper about the latest civil liberties we're being forced to sacrifice.

Videogames may not say much, but then again neither do most paintings or sculpture. There are all sorts of art forms that don't actually "speak" but are protected by the first amendment. An idea doesn't have to be presented in story form to be worthy of the term "speech".

What I want from games isn't so much an "exression of ideas" in the usual sense of story/moral, but rather something more abstract in terms of game design. A good game is a mental stimulator, but if a world or story is part of that it's merely a bonus. What I'm doing when learning a game is uncovering a new way of interaction with whatever the game designer has put in there for me to interact with, and much like the standard arts of storytelling, singing, painting, or whatever, game design is an abstract art worthy of calling an art.

My example is going to be GTA3. Hold your groans, please, everyone who's sick of hearing about it. What GTA3 expressed, to me, wasn't the thug way of life, that was merely a theme wrapped around the gameplay. What it did express to me, and why it's one of my favorite games, is exploration, in much the same way that the Zeldas did. Seriously. It's a big world, it's open for your exploration, the more you find the more you can do with it, and there seems to be almost no end to the experiments you can try. It encourages a creativity of experience in the player, urging you to try something new every time you pick it up. You may think the whole violence thing is overdone, and I won't argue even though I had a great time with it, but the main theme of the game is "do anything", and that's an expression very much worth the first amendment protections.

James

Judge Limbaugh is behind the times and obviously has no business deciding this matter. IDSA should've asked the judge to play the games- well actually, some newer games than Mortal Kombat, RE1, and DOOM. Unfortunately, the judge probably has that McJustice Sandwich mentality and wants to end the case ASAP.

The media are too sensationalistic about violence in games, also. Sometimes, the evening news shows (and also books like "Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill" which refers to games like House of the Dead and DOOM as "Murder Simulators") get worse than the tabloids you see on the grocery store shelf.

Well, first here's my take on the general issue at hand: when dealing with any sort of constitutional quandry, I feel it's better to side with "the constitution IS in effect", because the other way has the potential to be a very slippery slope.

Now as for the specific issue of video games as protected speech... no judge can be competent to decide that unless they've played (NOT WATCHED MIND YOU, PLAYED) all the way through Xenogears. Tell me that doesn't qualify as protected speech, and I'll put you under citizen's arrest for the high crime of treason for your blatant attempt to ass-rape the First Ammendment. :evil: