Movies weren't around when the First Amendment was drafted, so why are you using that logic as a point against Video Game protection?
Supreme Court Case Transcripts Now Online
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Alright, read the whole thing; it seems to be leaning towards our side, although the judges were pretty much equally scrutinizing of both arguments. Morazzini ticks me off; it's clear he has absolutely no clue about video games, art, law or, well, anything actually useful. He had no hard evidence, no clear points, and never moved an inch from his views regardless of how stupid they made them sound. Smith was much better at this, and I really think that'll be a significant factor in swing the case our way.
Now, if you'll allow me to rant a bit;
The whole artistic expression bit was absolutely stupid. Although it was kind of shot down, it definitely felt like the consensus was that artistic expression, for a game, lies solely in plot, which is ridiculous. Let's take a game they briefly mentioned in the case; MadWorld. Yes, it has plot, but the plot, being strictly about killing for entertainment, isn't proper artistic expression, right? What about the fantastic art style and animation? What about the depth and nuances of the design of the combat and reward system? What about the fact that the violence actually means something, subtlety brilliant commentary on the obsession we have with violence in media, as well as excellent parody on the crazy amount of violence in modern video games?
That's my main problem with this law; that violence can, and often does, genuinely mean something, and by strangling that, even in such a small way, you genuinely are restricting the expressive possibility of the medium. And for a medium that has just started really getting off the ground this last century, this is the last thing we should do.
Now, if you'll allow me to rant a bit;
The whole artistic expression bit was absolutely stupid. Although it was kind of shot down, it definitely felt like the consensus was that artistic expression, for a game, lies solely in plot, which is ridiculous. Let's take a game they briefly mentioned in the case; MadWorld. Yes, it has plot, but the plot, being strictly about killing for entertainment, isn't proper artistic expression, right? What about the fantastic art style and animation? What about the depth and nuances of the design of the combat and reward system? What about the fact that the violence actually means something, subtlety brilliant commentary on the obsession we have with violence in media, as well as excellent parody on the crazy amount of violence in modern video games?
That's my main problem with this law; that violence can, and often does, genuinely mean something, and by strangling that, even in such a small way, you genuinely are restricting the expressive possibility of the medium. And for a medium that has just started really getting off the ground this last century, this is the last thing we should do.
If only...They actually are not allowed to display the Supreme Courtroom on television, at least thats what I was told by the tour guide. Really it looks pretty plain in comparison to some portrales Ive seen in movies.z121231211 said:
That is one of the best things I have heard. Ever.ProfessorLayton said:
OT: This law could literally destroy video games as an artistic medium, or at the very least will severely slow its development as such. It is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to video games and art as a whole. I'll devote a long time to studying that transcript.
There still a lot of fighting going on. We have some support, but there are harsh criticisms being levied against are argument as well. I was reading the transcripts though and got a feeling of cautious optimism. The opposition has no case (though, that doesn't guarantee a victory for us).
very interesting read
Is it just me that found it mildly annoying that they spelt Mortal Kombat "Mortal Combat"?
Must be the gamer in me
Is it just me that found it mildly annoying that they spelt Mortal Kombat "Mortal Combat"?
Must be the gamer in me
I think we're safe. The argument on our side felt much more stable than the opposition, because we weren't getting cut off half the time. And even if we lose, by some miracle, we would have mass petitions across the country.