Planescape: Torment Topic

[Gromnir]

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.

 

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!

Edited September 23, 2009 by Gromnir

[entrerix]

i wrote an appellate brief on an obscenity case, so im going to go ahead and say i know more about, and am far more qualified to discuss the issue than nearly all nonlawyers and a big chunk of the legal profession as well. no art and no vice categories? i call bs on that. it hasnt been said as such by the courts but clearly "vice" has always gotten the shaft.

 

adult bookstores given different zoning rights because of "seedy elements"

 

cigarette ad limitations and extra taxes?

 

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)

 

and what you call simplicity of impossibility, i call the complexity of the unknown, writing an argument for a pre-miller case would have been an absolute horror because knowing which way to frame your argument would be pure estimate and a big gamble. things became more reliable, and thus simpler, after miller. unless you're trying to tell me that you personally were an attorney involved in a pre-miller case, im going to go ahead and continue to believe as myself, and as most of the profession does, that miller made things more clear.

 

and as for no "art" category in the miller test itself? you're basically just arguing semantics, you agree that there is an art category/prong/element but complain that i didnt mention science and political are in the same element? they dont have to be. you can win that case on art value alone. so yes, art IS a category, even if its part of a larger element of a larger test.

Edited September 24, 2009 by entrerix

[Enoch]

third prong is question of law, not fact. prong one and two is for fact finder (judge or jury).

I had forgotten that. Or maybe I never knew it in the first place, and it's one of the reasons that I only managed a B+ in that class...

 

My point about Miller wasn't that it made the litigation easier, but that (as I recall) it was intended, at least in part, to reduce the flow of obscenity-based appeals that the SCOTUS was seeing every year.

 

 

 

Speaking of obscenity...

 

Prurient, indeed...

[Gromnir]

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!

Edited September 24, 2009 by Gromnir

[entrerix]

the medium COULD be relevant. in cases where videogame censorship laws have been struck down the courts have specifically compared them to books and film in their ability to be of artistic merit sufficient enough to overcome any miller issues.

 

art is not a named category, but anything which can be readily seen by the courts to be "art" automatically will pass the miller test. which is why i shortened the test to just "art" for simplicity sake. because i didnt think anyone here wanted to hear the whole test, when again i forgot about you.

 

 

- "vice" is not a named category, obviously. but those things which one would imagine might fall under "vices" tend, more often than not, to be given less favorable treatment by the courts than something that falls closer to "artistic". It's true. "but don't get confused with the level o' protection the speech is getting" - you're flat out wrong here, vices - ie cigarette ads etc, DO get different treatment than films or books. there is no qualified standard which gets applied necessarily, but the court will readily limit the ad, when they wont touch book censorship with a ten foot pole. i dont know if you limit your legal study to only some areas, but seriously, you're dead wrong if you think that those "vice" items get the same protection in reality that novels or films do. some of that is because its an advertisement, which gets different treatment but not all of it.

 

just because its not a named category doesnt mean it gets treated differently. it hasnt been called out by commentators really, but its pretty obvious to anyone who looks. 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. which again, is pretty obviously the case right now. which is why i said at the beginning of all this that the courts are readily putting games in the same category of protection that they put film and books. and i know you say it doesnt matter if its a book or a film or whatever, but thats just not true, to a court which is on overload handling more cases than they have time for, its a lot easier for them to quickly look at something and say "it looks like an old western movie, this isnt porn. it passes the test." they dont have to even run through miller because it so obviously meets the artistic element. even if it has nudity. if the medium were something different, some new form of entertainment that couldnt be easily compared to film or books, then you can bet the court would spend a lot more time and effort examining whether it actually has artistic merit.

 

you seem to be very focused on just what the definitions are without looking at what it is the court is actually DOING. but your definitions are dandy enough so this is the last i'll speak to this issue i guess.

[Gromnir]

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!

Edited September 24, 2009 by Gromnir

[entrerix]

i guess we just disagree on the issue then. I see different treatment for adult bookstores than normal bookstores, you dont. I see strip clubs having a hard time passing muster when the ballet does not. porn always has a tougher time passing the test than non-porn. I'm just surprised you've never noticed, let alone the idea that you think it's a ridiculous thought that im just conjuring up out of no where.

 

i see different treatment for cigarette billboards than ones for the next transformers movie, you don't. both are commercial speech, yet one has limitations and the other doesnt. state interest is stronger against cigarettes BECAUSE ITS A VICE ie bad for children. just because i'm using a word that you dont see the court use doesnt mean it can't apply. like i said, its not the phrasing i'd use in a brief, but it sums up the general realities.

 

i see the courts consistently striking down censorship laws for video games using the third prong's "art" element, you only see that being used if they also talk about political and science aspects of that prong as well. (i know the official test names more than just art, but if you're talking about a piece of entertainment the courts dont bring up science and politics, they just talk about art because that's the one of those three that applies.) maybe its that you dont understand that the art/politics/science aspect requires only ONE of those three to be hit. not all of them, so there are essentially three categories within that prong.

 

as for art piece failing becuase its fighting words or some other type of unprotected speech, i meant art always* will pass the obscenity test because of the third prong. not that it will be able to escape the other categories (which honestly i can't remember any except fighting words and obscenity off the top of my head, its been a few years since con law).

 

 

i just don't have it in me to convince you that were video games considered to have no greater artistic merit than porn that they would have more limitations than they do now. It's something I believe, and I'm glad it's not the case. you can obviously feel free to believe that hustler has the same rights in the eyes of the law that pride and prejudice does.

[Lady Evenstar]

A hint that Torment may be added to the GOG catalog?

 

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/sh...;postcount=1734

[Guest Slinky]

Just got the new re-release of Torment from amazon.co.uk. It's the original 4cd v1.0 packed into DVD. No need for me to loan PS:T from a friend once a year any longer

[jero cvmi]

Just got the new re-release of Torment from amazon.co.uk. It's the original 4cd v1.0 packed into DVD. No need for me to loan PS:T from a friend once a year any longer

Did you try to apply the patches and high resolution mod to it? i've ordered it mainly because the high resolution mod doesn't work with my old copy...

[Guest Slinky]

Did you try to apply the patches and high resolution mod to it? i've ordered it mainly because the high resolution mod doesn't work with my old copy...

No, but it looks like 1:1 copy of the original 4cd version just packed in DVD, so I'm sure that the patch and mods will work just fine. Strange that the resolution mod doesn't work for you, I thought it worked just fine with 2cd and 4cd versions?

 

Edit:

And how exactly your name here is jero cvmi and your name in quote is Ziggy the Atomic Granpa

Edited November 23, 2009 by Slinky

[Jaesun]

If this was not mentioned before there is a very good guide on setting up PST with all mods and such (2 or 4 disk versions). Very well documented.

 

http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/0...lly-modded.html

[Walsingham]

If this was not mentioned before there is a very good guide on setting up PST with all mods and such (2 or 4 disk versions). Very well documented.

 

http://thunderpeel2001.blogspot.com/2009/0...lly-modded.html

 

Thanks

[jero cvmi]

Edit:

And how exactly your name here is jero cvmi and your name in quote is Ziggy the Atomic Granpa

i asked nicely

Edited November 24, 2009 by jero cvmi

[jero cvmi]

i just got it, mods work like a charm.

[Daaave]

This thread has reminded me I have this game on my shelf and still haven't bothered installing it, should probably get around to that sometime...

[yay230]

I would just like to say that the sexy Chris Avellone is gracing the front page of Wikipedia today (as of 8:26pm MST, December 11th, 2009) because Planescape: Torment is today's featured article. Well, technically it is the December 12th featured article, to coincide with Torment's release.

 

See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Edited December 12, 2009 by yay230

[Oner]

\o/

[Starwars]

Hehe, that is awesome.

[Gromnir]

I would just like to say that the sexy Chris Avellone is gracing the front page of Wikipedia today (as of 8:26pm MST, December 11th, 2009) because Planescape: Torment is today's featured article. Well, technically it is the December 12th featured article, to coincide with Torment's release.

 

See for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

1 post.

 

now chris, does you really needs to create an alt just to do a little internet guerrilla ego boosting? is kinda gauche, no?

 

HA!

 

we kid, but if you encouraged your significant other (am leaving gender neutral as we not know his preferences in such matters) to do your dirty work is it not just as bad?

 

HA! Good Fun!

[sorophx]

MCA talking about design decisions in PST

 

amazingly, this forum has a dozen of open PST topics, so I decided to resurrect the most recent one.

[C2B]

MCA talking about design decisions in PST

 

amazingly, this forum has a dozen of open PST topics, so I decided to resurrect the most recent one.

 

Crap, didn't see this.

[greylord]

On a related note to the OLD discussions, I've never played the mods, what exactly do they do for PS:T?

[Gorth]

On a related note to the OLD discussions, I've never played the mods, what exactly do they do for PS:T?

Depends on what mods you are talking about. For me, the Unfinished Business and the Fixpack are must haves. They fix stuff and add cut content back in. Little else.

 

Edit to add: The tweak pack is pretty neat too, although I'm not installing everything from it.

[ShadowScythe]

What kind of quests are re-added with Unfinished Business? Just interesting sidequests or stuff that is key to TNO's character and provides more info on his past incarnations?