Planescape: Torment Topic

[Hell Kitty]

Alternatively, how does being viewed as the pastime of horny 17-year-olds and maladjusted man-children help games?

 

That's a strange question, does anyone think that?

 

A greater tolerance for experimentation from consumers, and eventually the expectation and loyal support for that experimentation from a solid base of customers.

 

No way. People will whine about the same old things whether or not games are art. The "art" label isn't going to get rid of the sense of entitlement folks have.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Oner]

Alternatively, how does being viewed as the pastime of horny 17-year-olds and maladjusted man-children help games?

That's a strange question, does anyone think that?

Nope.

[Maria Caliban]

A greater tolerance for experimentation from consumers, and eventually the expectation and loyal support for that experimentation from a solid base of customers.

 

No way. People will whine about the same old things whether or not games are art. The "art" label isn't going to get rid of the sense of entitlement folks have.

 

I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said. Art snobs have a sense of entitlement, yes. Regular slobs have a sense of entitlement, yes.

[Hell Kitty]

A greater tolerance for experimentation from consumers, and eventually the expectation and loyal support for that experimentation from a solid base of customers.

 

No way. People will whine about the same old things whether or not games are art. The "art" label isn't going to get rid of the sense of entitlement folks have.

 

I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said.

 

Why would the "art" label lead to people having a greater tolerance or support for experimentation when they're currently so intolerant when it comes to change?

[Gizmo]

You're simply playing semantics, Gromnir. Games these days bear little resemblances to primitive childhood games like hide and go seek other than that they share a mechanic of entertainment. To pretend that today's computer games are no different to the childhood games of cro magnons because we call them both 'games' is disingenuous. Certainly, computer games these days often involve elements of abstraction and storytelling - classic traits of art. I'd be hard-pressed to define hide and go seek as art.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, some computer games are barely worthy of the title 'art', like cheap $1 comics written by somebody studying ESL are themselves stretching the definition of art.

I see no difference between one game or another ~except complexity... but even a game of Hide & Seek can be made complex, and there are those that have it down to an art.

 

Games of the cro-magnon, and all young things that play, are usually prelude to life lessons... Alas it is the same in the 21'st century... All the kids drive like they learned how by playing GTA.

 

*I would also say that [computer] games these days are leaning well away from abstraction, and going for limited realism as the norm (which is unfortunate IMO).

 

While I'd certainly agree that modern computer games are far more complex internally... the fact is most modern games are hardly complex at all in their expectations of the player.

 

*As a joking aside...just compare Fallout to Fallout 3.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Gizmo

[entrerix]

for the record, in the us - videogames are legally defined as an art, the same as books and movies, and have the same protections... for now. if hillary clinton or mitt romney or one of the other million conservatives who hate free speech had their way then video games would be taken out of the "art" category and put in the "vice" category like cigarettes and porn.

 

 

not looking to start political war, both dems and repubs have plenty of members who support unconstitutional censorship laws.

[Slowtrain]

not looking to start political war, both dems and repubs have plenty of members who support unconstitutional censorship laws.

 

 

I've always wondered what causes this desire in people. Not so much the political side of it right now, but in general the desire to control what others say/do, especially in something as especially meaningless as a video game. Is it simply a political vote getting thing? Or do people really care that much abotu regulating others. Is that one of the atttactions of power?

[Purkake]

Doesn't everyone want to at least control that which they cannot understand?

[HoonDing]

Doesn't everyone want to at least control that which they cannot understand?

Bah... destroying that which one cannot understand is the way to go.

[Purkake]

Doesn't everyone want to at least control that which they cannot understand?

Bah... destroying that which one cannot understand is the way to go.

 

I guess that damn constitution is in the way.

 

Maybe they need a new one, it's like 200 years old by now.

[Oner]

Doesn't everyone want to at least control that which they cannot understand?

Bah... destroying that which one cannot understand is the way to go.

I guess that damn constitution is in the way.

 

Maybe they need a new one, it's like 200 years old by now.

Do barbarians have constitutions? No.

Do they destroy what they cannot understand? LIKE HELL THEY DO.

[Purkake]

So you're saying the Brits are barbarians?

[Morgoth]

So you're saying the Brits are barbarians?

Well their drinking behavior certainly is.

[Purkake]

And what's up with all the football hooligans?

 

Crazy!

[Oner]

And what's up with all the football hooligans?

 

Crazy!

Aren't the hooligans from Ireland?

...

*thinks*

...

OH right, that's just the origin of the word, not the people.

[entrerix]

Crom laughs at the constitution. He laughs from his mountain.

[Gromnir]

for the record, in the us - videogames are legally defined as an art, the same as books and movies, and have the same protections... for now. if hillary clinton or mitt romney or one of the other million conservatives who hate free speech had their way then video games would be taken out of the "art" category and put in the "vice" category like cigarettes and porn.

 

 

not looking to start political war, both dems and repubs have plenty of members who support unconstitutional censorship laws.

 

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!

[Darth InSidious]

Doesn't everyone want to at least control that which they cannot understand?

Erm... I may be a peculiar and old-fashioned character, but personally I prefer to study what I don't understand. This has the added bonus of making it no longer not-understood.

 

Nevertheless, sciences and maths should be banned from schools as boring, while the Classics should be made compulsory.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Purkake]

Obviously you are not a politician. Understanding doesn't get you any votes.

 

EDIT: Higher math does suck.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Purkake

[Maria Caliban]

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!

 

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

[Gromnir]

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!

 

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

[Enoch]

I look away from this thread for a few days, and it goes all Miller v. California? The internet is weird.

 

Anyhow, I thought the whole point of the Miller test (including the SLAPS element) was that the Court wouldn't be asked to determine stuff like that anymore-- render it down to questions of fact to be presented to the juries at the trial level.

 

 

Special on-topic addendum: I liked Torment. Replayed it a few months ago (hi-res mods are cool). I still like it.

[Gromnir]

I look away from this thread for a few days, and it goes all Miller v. California? The internet is weird.

 

Anyhow, I thought the whole point of the Miller test (including the SLAPS element) was that the Court wouldn't be asked to determine stuff like that anymore-- render it down to questions of fact to be presented to the juries at the trial level.

 

 

Special on-topic addendum: I liked Torment. Replayed it a few months ago (hi-res mods are cool). I still like it.

 

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!

[entrerix]

for the record, in the us - videogames are legally defined as an art, the same as books and movies, and have the same protections... for now. if hillary clinton or mitt romney or one of the other million conservatives who hate free speech had their way then video games would be taken out of the "art" category and put in the "vice" category like cigarettes and porn.

 

 

not looking to start political war, both dems and repubs have plenty of members who support unconstitutional censorship laws.

 

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!

 

 

 

 

 

thanks grom for doing exactly what i was avoiding. i called it "art" because i didnt want to confuse people with the legal parameters of our first amendment. i was speaking generally, but i am honestly surprised to see you have a sophisticated understanding of the first amendment, are you an attorney as well? i pictured you as an elementary school teacher with a penchant for torturing children with bizarre activities.

 

edit: ok you must be now that i've read your "prong" statement, only people who have read way to many court cases describe legal analysis that way.

Edited September 23, 2009 by entrerix

[entrerix]

also i have to add. miller DID make this determination easier. i completely disagree with the notion it did the reverse. Ever since miller it's been a very simple argument for both sides of a dispute to try and best show how the miller test does/does not apply, and if it does, then whether or not the piece is obscene under the test.

 

and yes, it really does usually come down to "is it art" because it wouldnt even have reached the courts if it didnt at least come close to the other parts of the test.

 

so i stand by my original, much simpler statement of : art has protection, non - art does not.