Gromnir

Child abuse is child abuse. Changing the age of consent won't change that. If the victim doesn't give consent, or was coerced, that's extremely illegal under the law, regardless of the age. ... am thinking that you is misreading or missing point. "age of consent". consent cannot be given by persons younger than age of consent. if you have sex with somebody who did not give consent... HA! Good Fun!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-po...0,1100452.story am not a fan of la times, but they did an okie dokie job. HA! Good Fun!

"What the hell is 'American morality'. It sounds scary if you ask me. One can only hope it's at least similar to.... well morality." has "American" modify any word and many of you would be freighted and/or disgusted by the result. HA! Good Fun!

am doubting that polanski's fellow inmates woulda' had as much difficulty with the morality question as does many of you. polanski's trial got good amount o' coverage, and am confident that inmates would be aware of the facts o' the case. am wondering what luck polanski would have debating with some tatooed norteno or skinhead... defend self by pointing to the practices o' socialy progressive japanese businessmen on holiday in thailand? good luck. is our understanding that judge were gonna give polanski 48 days on top of time already served. 48 days ain't much. at the same time, am betting that those woulda' been 48 very long days. HA! Good Fun!

well, at least you admit that it is a "gut thing." people maybe expect more of Bioware, but that not mean that Bioware games is less good simply 'cause Bio got more experience and more resources than the competition. buy a $50,000 car built by mentally challenged orphans with no thumbs. how you measure quality o' the car? relative to any other $50,000 car, no? quality not change 'cause o' the resources o' the developer. expectations not change the quality o' game, car... whatever. *shrug* 'least you admit it is a gut thing... puts you ahead o' the curve 'round these parts. HA! Good Fun!

no relativist? you is kidding, right? review your homocide comments. our interest, is as we stated already: polanski polarizes. is a curiosity. is very difficult for folks on one side of argument to understand folks on the other side. is an odd issue to result in such divisiveness. kinda like OJ insofar as predictability o' guessing which pov a person will be choosing. as to whether we know something you don't... is another one we won't touch... too easy. HA! Good Fun!

am not gonna touch the suggestion that behavior can be legitimized through historical evidence... and slippery-slope relativism leads to even more unpleasant conclusions. however, am genuinely wondering where folks getting information 'bout the incident. have noticed some pretty varied descriptions o' the girl and the scenario. is you using the grand jury transcript (which is available numerous places online) or is you using newspaper, magazine or film source to get your facts? maybe you use multiple sources... or none. you feel comfortable with your source? HA! Good Fun!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/28/zurich...html#cnnSTCText am curious. polanski polarizes. victimized or villain? HA! Good Fun!

am gonna admit we didn't read the thread. saw a couple posts and the title. resulted in Gromnir confusion. me2 characters suck. me2 characters is great. me2 characters is... meh. ... am missing something. has me2 been released and we not heard? you base good v. bad on what? how on earth you judge good v. bad w/o playing? 'course Gromnir is getting the feeling that many of you not need to play game to make up mind 'bout characters in Any game. appearnce and character concept is more important than how character is developed. HA! Good Fun!

am quite familiar with what Court is doing. First Amendment speech might seem complex to the neophyte or the inexperienced, but those crazy arsed Justices and judges doesn't just ignore precedent in favor o' expedience as you would suggest. "oh sure, there isn't a vice category, but we all know what the Court is REALLY doing." hogwash. how many times does we see O'brien get applied to nudie bars and p0rn shops? if vice were summarily dismissed as obscenity, O'brien would never get no mention in context o' pr0n. unprotected speech not require application of O'brien. make some crazy distinction 'tween case law and the manner in which courts actual apply the law? *chuckle* 'cause judges loves being overturned on appeal. the strength of the State interest does not in any way, shape or form, decrease Constitutional protection or the level o' scrutiny required for State to successful limit free speech rights. and again, single out art in Miller is wacky and wrong... is Serious art, lit, science and political that is making up prong 3. to continue to identify as an "art" exception or category is more than a little inaccurate. and as for cigarettes... you is again complete wrong. commercial speech does get a different level o' scrutiny, but has nothing to do with cigarettes v. books. cigarette related speech not get any less protection than any other kinda commercial speech. is the State interest part o' the test that is easier for the State to meet. and no, art doesn't get an automatic win. if art falls in another category of unprotected speech, then you lose... regardless o' artistic merit. btw, medium is gonna be a factor that hurts video games as 'posed to helps. in Pacifica we get the indecent speech sub-category 'cause o' the nature o' the medium and the increased likelihood of affecting children... always gotta be wary of the cute case. am thankful that is tougher to spin the pervasive nature o' video games 'posed to radio, but you got a complete distorted notion o' how medium affects. "so it serves the interest of video game developers and publishers to make sure that they never get put into the same boat as smoking and porn, but instead are compared to novels and films." wacky. even the non-lawyers on the board is gonna see that your pr0n v. books and film distinction is ridiculous... really. Miller made life easier for SCOTUS 'cause only prong 3 is a question o' law... and Court got tired of constant state and local appeals post Roth... but post Miller world ain't genuine more simple for lawyers with an obscenity question... not by a long shot. regardless... is getting pretty far off-base of actual topic. take your final shot at the issue before the inevitable mod warning. HA! Good Fun!

there were no complexity in the unknown. state lost. is one reason why Miller Court changed. state were tired of losing. "they call it something else everytime, but when you get down to it, vice activities are given less protection by the courts. still i do absolutely recognize that they themselves won't admit to these categories (and thus i wouldnt bring them up in these exact words in a brief), but don't kid yourself about reality (i may be a bit cynical here so pardon me)" am sure you don't write up the brief that way. *chuckle* in point o' fact, Court is real careful not to make no art distinction. Chaplinsky and other cases makes real clear that there is a Very limited number o' categories o' expression that is unprotected, and "vice" ain't unprotected 'less is obscene (or kiddie pr0n). the state interest may be public morality, but don't get confused with the level o' protection the speech is getting. and again, as stated first place, the medium got zero relevance. enoch: am wondering if gravity is different in sigil. those girls is gonna have some serious back problems. it is kinda funny that the brothel in ps:t did less to t!tillate the prurient interests of the player than any other game brothel we can recall. HA! Good Fun!

1) initial you make a distinction 'tween books, movies and video games as art v. pr0n and cigarettes as vice. is no such distinction. the medium has no immediate relevance. wanna discuss Pacifica? neither does Gromnir... and it not help you in any event. 2) anybody who thinks Miller made simple has never had 1st hand experience with an obscenity case. pre-Miller the state had burden o' showing that the material in question were utter without redeeming social value. were almost impossible for state to prove. made simple. maybe you not like the simplicity of impossible, but simple it was. in addition to the vagueness o' "serious" we got the damnably myopic community standard... which is indeed effective if all you is concerned 'bout is shutting down strip clubs and nudie bars, but in 2009 with internet and mass media... pre-miller were easier on judge, but only marginally so. "whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." *snort* regardless, is no art category... not in any way shape or form. non-art gets loads o' protection. again, non-protected speech is limited to some very limited categories. art rarely gets mentioned save for in the obscenity context... and even so is mentioned equal with political, literary and scientific.. HA! Good Fun!

was easier before Miller. no "serious" language and community standard is now more headache than help. third prong is question of law, not fact. prong one and two is for fact finder (judge or jury). HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir is right here. Though I'd suggest that most obscenity rulings boil down to 'is it art?

there is no "art" category for first amendment. there is protected speech and unprotected speech. obscenity, kiddie pr0n, and fighting words is examples o' unprotected speech. is no books, music and video games distinction. pr0n gets just as much first protection as does War & Peace or Gone With the Wind. is only when pron is obscene that it not get protection of amendment 1. for instance, is more than a few japanese video games that is considered obscene and does not get first amendment protection. similarly, there is books and movies that is considered obscene. has nothing to do with the medium. HA! Good Fun!

"Some books are, some movies are, there is absolutely no reason, why at some point in time an excellent game could be considered by renown art critics as a masterpiece of art..." am not recalling where we argued 'gainst your point. lord knows we never claimed that all books and movies is art. what we did note is that in millions o' years, games ain't been able to overcome perception that they can't be art. video games IS games. fact that checkers can be played on a computer not make fundamental different than checkers played with tangible game pieces. fact that millions o' years has produced no games=art not mean that it won't happen in future, but is a damned discouraging for those who is expecting sudden appreciation o' the video game as art. am also wondering if you is willful obtuse. is a reason we bring up D. H. Lawrence and pr0n. as long as Lady Chatterley were viewed as pr0n it weren't gonna be accepted as art by the majority... or even my a noteworthy minority. Lady Chatterley not change since it were written, but perception as pr0n has. as long as video games is seen primarily Games, then we not see much hope for the art label sticking in near future. even so, we gotta thank you for the chess piece ploy... genuine laughed. "What does that mean? What would that change? What purpose does being labeled "art" serve?" for some folks it could mean lots. imagine getting your MFA in video games? heck, become a professor o' video games. am s'posing there would be some grant monies involved. new class o' dweebs is able to terrorize and exploit their grad students. personally, am not caring. call art or not won't change how much we enjoys games. nevertheless, as the question of when/if games will eventual get widespread recognition as art were raised, Gromnir thought it were fun to challenge the rather biased and optimistic pov o' a bunch gamers posting at a computer game developer board. HA! Good Fun!

the only one distracting here is you, comparing videogames with normal games... they are both games sure but of totaly different kind... it's the same like you would said that movies and porn is the same kind of entertainment... one reason why video games is unlikely to be taken serious as art is 'cause they is games. you not get that? apparently not. heck, the word "game" is right there in your video game label. am recalling that chrisA, in an interview talking 'bout crpgs, recognized that you could take the writing out o' a video game and still has a quality game as long as the gameplay were engaging... but reverse were not true. take gameplay out o' the game and keep the writing and you got... nothing. Game not ceases to be a game because is video. and pr0n film is film. pr0n literature is literature. is not totally different at all. the definition o' pr0n changes depending on time, and location, audience and community. maybe you read up on Lady Chatterley's Lover as a start. is 'bout perception. d.h. lawrence book ain't changed, but perception has. is no way that pr0n will be viewed as art, but sometimes what is viewed as pr0n does change. sheesh. HA! Good Fun!

don't be ridiculous... or more ridiculous. you is talking 'bout individual works o' sculpture. am not suspecting you realize just how silly your observation is... 'cause ANY tangible object has just as much potential to be rendered as art. is not that the game is art. am suspecting you already forgot the call o' the question. when/is computer games gonna be taken serious as an art form. try not to distract yourself. HA! Good Fun!

You know very good i was talking about computer/console games... and they are definately not older than human species doesn't matter what you were talking 'bout. games has been 'round probable back before cro magnon, and games ain't gotten the benefit of doubt as an art form in all that time. makes harder for computer/console games to somehow change. HA! Good Fun! All right, then. Backgammon: is it art? no. neither is chess or monopoly or poker or any other game we can think of at the moment. maybe some folks consider chess an art, but not most folks. computer games can combine elements o' film and literature, but they is still viewed as games. no matter how good the game there is gonna be some resistance to use o' the art label. HA! Good Fun!

You know very good i was talking about computer/console games... and they are definately not older than human species doesn't matter what you were talking 'bout. games has been 'round probable back before cro magnon, and games ain't gotten the benefit of doubt as an art form in all that time. makes harder for computer/console games to somehow change. HA! Good Fun!

1) you is dreaming if you believe that ps:t will ever be considered an artistic masterpiece = starry night. ... really. am not even gonna argue this. ps:t is our fave game, but if you thinks ps:t ever gets cred as genuine art from some significant portion o' public and academia, then you is deluded. HA! Good Fun! To be fair, no videogame has managed something of that magnitude yet. because games are about 70 years younger than movies and more than few hundred years younger than books games is probable older than human species. HA! Good Fun!

what greater population is you talking 'bout? the greater population that Gromnir knows does not think that writing without pictures equals art. get a bill in the mail from electric company. not art. memo from boss 'bout excessive bathroom breaks or misuse o' lunchroom microwave. not art. similarly, am not certain o' the public you reference that believes pictures without writing is art. picture of a crappy desk that somebody is trying to sell on craigslist for $200. not art. picture of what your lawn will look like if you use Miracle-Gro. not art. you people is being silly. pictures and writing not got some kinda wacky Art free pass from... anybody. has nothing to do with pictures and writing. is more than a few illustrated kids books that is probably considered art by mainstream. ever seen what some o' those pre-printing press illustrated bibles auction for? is Comics that ain't easily embraced as art. what is difference 'tween comics and other forms o' illustrated books? not much, but perception is hard to shake. even so, is no writing + pictures = crap. is Comics = crap. is no different than pr0n. is any reason that pr0n can't be art? probable not, but given the target audience and fact that there ain't no widely accepted Art pr0n, the genre faces a serious uphill battle in gaining recognition... not that the pr0n industry is concerned 'bout lack o' academic respect. regardless, quit with the silly pictures + writing nonsense. HA! Good Fun!

who refers to comics as the 9th art? is probable some euro-trash affectation. we thinks some comics has risen to level o' art, but am not gonna go so far as to suggest that our personal belief is common or accepted by a significant % o' academics. however, the numbers o' academics who has begun to accept comics as potential art is growing. we saw the beginnings of a shift occur during late 80s. weren't no sea change or anything... HA! Good Fun!

1) you is dreaming if you believe that ps:t will ever be considered an artistic masterpiece = starry night. ... really. am not even gonna argue this. ps:t is our fave game, but if you thinks ps:t ever gets cred as genuine art from some significant portion o' public and academia, then you is deluded. 2) van gogh were a single artist a single artist can live and die for his work. james joyce had many offers to publish Dubliners, but every publisher wished to fix. joyce refused. 10 years joyce refused til he finally met a publisher who would print and distribute Dubliners without revision or alterations. can you imagine an indie developer doing same? black isle is a particularly bad example 'cause they were the crpg development arm of interplay, a for-profit company with stock... public traded stock. the goal o' interplay, first and foremost, were to be making money/profit for stockholders. maybe some years down the line you can get 'nuff money into game industry such that a developer or publisher is willing to release one or two art films each year... prestige pieces. or maybe some developer manages to slip an art game past publisher and such release complete alters the industry as a whole. dunno. what we does know is that ps:t did not make interplay stock more valuable... on contrary, it helped push interplay closer to brink o' collapse. again, ps:t is our favorite crpg, but as a commercial product it were a miserable failure. interplay weren't trying to sell ps:t to posterity... were trying to sell to customers in winter of 99. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure what you is talking 'bout. there were loads o' print and on-line previews for ps:t leading up to release of game... is a long time past, but you can still dig up the multi-page and extreme positive previews of ps:t from ign and gamespot. am recalling 1 and 2 page advertisements in cgw... and those ain't cheap. there were a 5' tall cardboard ps:t display at our local game store... had nameless one and most o' the joinables near life-size and in bright shiny colors. traffic at interplay's ps:t boards were pretty good--josh were the interplay board monkey at time. ps:t were hardly some unknown enterprise on the fringe o' the gaming world. btw, one reason why ps:t were such a disappointment were 'cause it were not simply a small budget endeavor. sales for ps:t were particular disappointing 'cause o' the Big investment by interplay. ps:t failed. is many reasons why it were a commercial failure. revisionist history won't make it any less of a failure 10 years removed. HA! Good Fun! side-note: am willing to concede that the ps:t advertising were poorly conceived. is not that there weren't enough advertising, but is possible/probable that many were confused by interplay's adverts. if you were not familiar with the planescape setting, then ps:t advertisements maybe did little to create anticipation for game.