October 13, 2006
( Note: we've bumped this story from last night's coverage.)
Will Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Ronald Friedman give Bully a wedgie?
Or will he decide that the game is not a public nuisance under Florida law?
We may know as early as
"Judge Friedman has seen the game played with me present, and... he has granted my motion to reconvene the hearing at 1:30pm tomorrow (Friday). After argument by both sides, he will rule."
Judge Friedman, of course, ordered Take Two officials to show him the game in chambers today at three o'clock on Thurday. Thompson's e-mail is stamped 7:47 PM Thursday, so, taking set up - and slow loads on the PS2 - into account, the judge had at most a little over four hours of watching the action at the game's fictitious Bulworth Academy.
Comments
Maybe, just maybe, now Jack has had a look at it he might even agree to end the case...
... INCOMING PIG! EVERYONE DUCK!
I also wonder if he who sent the email Is starting to sweat? Or is just ignoring the downfall of his case while trying to think of a way to bail out of the case and be able to still gripe and moan when it goe's belly up.
But who knows he may just completely luck out and win his case. But that's unlikely.
Andrew Eisen
The game was looked at for 4 hours, a relativly small time span. This could mean
a) the judge was shocked at what he saw, or
b) he accecpted TT's aguement after seeing the evidence
This will be interesting.
Of course, we'll really know for sure if this game was worth arguing over next week when the reviews come out.
I would presume a shortened review of the game means that the outcome is obvious one way or another.
I think i might want him to lose just as much for that.
Why was Jack there? Is it just me, or do these two sound like buddies?
... If nothing else, it would've been interesting to have been there.
I actually wish I knew how to do engraving ;)
anyways, either way I'm glad Jack thompson's happy, he obviously won't be happy for much longer.
ASSUMING that for the entire time, a maximum of 4 hours the game was played, I'd think Jack was right. but let's remember the way dennis worded it. Just because of WHEN JT fired off the email is a sign there.
I'm willing to bet it's gone opposite of Thompson's desired effect as 3-4 hours isn't really that much to go on for a game, I'm willing to bet Thompson was repimanded in the viewing of the game, and probably after overstepping himself the judge got tired of thompson, and thus will rule to allow bully.
But that's just my bet.
Out of curiosity, either way that this could go, wouldn't this be something appealed by either side?
Otherwise, I have to wonder if jack will keep his word and vouch for the game as he said he would.
After all, if you only watched a move for 15 minutes, could you judge the movie overall? by the same token, for a 100 plus hour game, 4 hours is a fraction of the games overall content.
Ergo, it implies that the game was either nothing like jack claimed, or was so shocking the judge was offended by it, something I find hard to imagine given what appears to be a consious effort by TT to undermine jack and end his crusade.
We shall see.
According to Destructoid, council from both sides were present but neither were allowed to speak.
http://www.destructoid.com/judge-to-take-two-produce-bully-at-3pm-and-il...
Andrew Eisen
Unfortunately, we could speculate that Jack broke the silence and the judge is throwing him out in contempt, or that the Judge saw the game for it's satirical truth, or was shocked and didn't want to see more or about a hundred other different resolutions. All I know is, the suspense is palpable. Can't wait to hear the decision, win or lose.
This case delivers.
Thats how I feel about now.
Had the judge seen how perposterous (sp?) the very notion of JT's claims, it would have been thrown out of court in ten minutes.
For JT to win tomorrow, regardless of a successful TT appeal, has DIRE consequences for creative freedom in videogames. Prepare for a world in which videogames can ascend no higher than Mario, Spongebob, and Bejeweled. :(
I'm suspicious even more now.
The order was supposedly 100 hours. At most, 4 hours were involved, unless it began before 3pm. Even so, less than 10 hours were involved.
Either the game is completely playable in less than 10 hours, or there is hypocrisy at play, once again.
After all, some of the major complaints against the ESRB is that games are not played COMPLETELY through to determine a rating. Even John Bruce has used such an argument against the ESRB.
Yet here, a game is being judged based on a fraction of the game (most likely). And John Bruce is ok with this, why? Because he believes the judgment is in HIS favor. It's ok if HE or someone who may be biased in HIS favor judges a product based on a fraction of the material. Just as long as it's HIS way of judging, it doesn't have to be complete. If they don't judge in HIS favor, then they are doing it wrong.
Once again, warning lights are flashing. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the judge saw the part where the headmaster called the abuse against some students as being "school spirit" and thought "oh heck yeah, I'd do some damage too" and made his decision right then and there. But based on prior acts and attitudes, I seriously doubt it.
So I remain suspicious of this judge's honor and ethics. If I'm wrong, fine and dandy. But I doubt it.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I know how you feel... but if push comes to shove I have a subscription to Gamefly that will come in handy or I could go to blockbuster.
Would have been nice to be a fly on the wall in that play test chamber ... to see and hear comments ... or the lack of them.
One of the more interesting outcomes would be to see the plaintiff withdraw his own case for lack of merit.
"Heads down again ... that pig is making a second pass!!"
Had the judge seen how perposterous (sp?) the very notion of JT’s claims, it would have been thrown out of court in ten minutes.
For JT to win tomorrow, regardless of a successful TT appeal, has DIRE consequences for creative freedom in videogames. Prepare for a world in which videogames can ascend no higher than Mario, Spongebob, and Bejeweled. " -zerodash
Tomorrow is probably gonna be a real big day...this will be a definite victory for either us or jack. It wont be the end of the war, but this is one of the first real battles of the whole situation. I think we shouldnt be so cocky as to think that this definately will go in our favor. Maybe its just me, but i think we should be ready for anything
Seems a bit unfair to claim public nusiance due to its theme/violence unless representative games, that are not in question, have been viewed also
WHAT will his verdict be? Don don don!
If the judge rules against Jack, I will laugh my head off.
Still, four hours doesn't surprise me. I can't imagine there's more to the game that can't be summarized in that span of time. Which is ironic, since as was pointed out, Mr. Thompson is claiming that the ESRB's system is flawed because they don't play the game through. JT's always been a liar and a hypocrite, though. Remember the time when he said he actually wasn't out to destroy Take Two, but only wanted to stop them from publishing violent games?
Yeah, I can.
He probably saw the loading screen and just said "What. This? This is what all the fuss is about...".
Since when? :P I mean hasn't he called out Bully before there was even any real in-game footage and it was all just short trailers?
This a big day for video games in the Us, and yet most people wouldnt know it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6046932.stm
For the sake of journalistic integrity, they don't really talk much about JT, but they give a looot of space to the R* spokesperson. Good ol' Beeb.
Yes, its reassuring to see some media quarters reporting an unbiased and factual account of the game and the court case. "bully 'targetted' in the US" also highlights the fact that it has been singled out by Thompson rather than it standing out as a particularly bad apple.
Of course knowing Jack's record on bitching at Dennis in the past, he will probably claim that the BBC don't have any journalistic credibility for not contacting him for a direct quote on the matter ;)
How many games are there where you can't work out the general nature and violence of the game in an hour of play?
Not to mention the counter suit to recoup legal fees associated with having to defend the game could potentially bankrupt him.
The difference with a "sandbox" game like Bully is, the game's central plot might not contain any of the really objectionable stuff. Let's face it, it's not Bully's violence that's the real issue here; it's the moral presentation of that violence.
In Grand Theft Auto, you can complete the game without picking up a hooker, having sex with her and then killing her to get your money back. It's rare that you have no choice but to shoot cops in the main missions either - . They're not central to the plot, but it is possible to do it - and it's those "immoral" player choices that cause the most consternation among legislators.
You rarely hear anyone complain about World War II games in which you run around killing every German you see; that's because in the context of history, that's the "right" thing to do.
The context and presentation of violent behaviour is much more important than it's level.