The Stonker said:
It's about video games and it's about how they are art and should never be censored under any circumstances or changed for a specific country.
Why? Because it lets people who have no idea what a video game is control who we are and control what we want to do in our free time.
Also, if you want to change a game from violence to "none" for instance Street fighter but they would just hug each other to death, wouldn't that be like letting a toddler ruin an piece of art?
So escapists, wish me good luck and anything you want in my speech? (Yes I will reference you because I'm awesome).
But another question, what is your stance on censoring in general?
Wall of text incoming. I'm going to try to help you here.
Your speech is in some trouble if that's your speech. Not all films are art. "Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen" is not going to be remembered as a highpoint in our culture by historians for decades to come. Likewise not all games are art. Games
can be art yes. That doesn't mean they
all are. Some of them are just soul less cash grabs or utter dreck. That doesn't mean that backward claims of juvenility or comparisons to games that aren't art invalidate the entire spectrum. Just because "The Expendables" came out that doesn't mean there is no art in cinema. Just because people shoot pornography with cameras that doesn't mean
photography cannot be art. But you can't defend every picture as art, just as you can't defend every game. Pick your battles wisely. Avoid blanket statements. If you say "games are art" flatly then remember that you're also defending "Rape-lay" the Japanese rape-adventure. Nor does violence constitute or make art. The violence angle is easily dismissible and it just makes you look like a petulant child because you don't understand why it's objected to. Avoid that. It's distasteful and only opens you to attack. Public speaking is like martial arts. Good Jutsu is well-rounded and minds defense.
When making a public statement it is useful to be able to make comparisons between your claim and standing precedent. If you can draw a parallel between your position and what people know to be the law, your position becomes stronger. Be logical. Exercise critical thinking. If you're going to ask questions ask better lead questions. If you flatly ask "Isn't taking the violence out of videogames like letting a toddler ruin an [sic] piece of art?" Your listener can simply go "no." or may ask "Why?"
I would cut out the violence angle. I would focus on the evolving narrative in games. Games like Alan Wake and Heavy Rain that are narrative driven and every bit as involving as cinema and television shows and that people play for their plots alone. I would focus on the emotional responses they can evoke from us. From Psychological fear, to Sadness to Hilarity and the shades of those. People consider music art, and it's sole purpose is to evoke emotion from us. I would focus on the complex social and philosophical examinations in a game like Bioshock. Dead Rising, for instance, examines our consumerism, our capitalism which is running amok and our entertainment which the game argues is dehumanizing us. Which is very ironic for that game. All the more wry that characters call people who would pay to see zombies dismembered "sickos" when you've purchased the game to do just that. I'd look at complex intrapersonal interactions found in this medium that no other art form can match, such as the moral decisions in Mass effect, Fable, Infamous or New Vegas that inform us about what kind of individual we are in a way that books strive to do but have trouble doing in so directly and personally a manner. And lastly, I'd examine the fact that artists make games. Writers, character designers, 3d modelers, animators, painters, actors, directors, musicians. We would consider the fruits of these people's labors to be art in any other form it seems except for when we coalesce them and put them into a game. Why the exception?
Lastly, nobody can teach you how to speak. I was an excellent public speaker. But I was lucky that I went to church a lot when I was young. I could hold my audience down with the authoritative tone I learned from watching catholic priests as a boy and then suddenly, lighten the mood with a joke. That mix can keep an audience gripped. Priests haven't refined that style over 2000 years for nothing. They are like Jedis of speaking. But it has to come from you whatever you do. A note on jokes. Jokes are good. Work them in if you're funny. If not just be straight forward and emote. Nothing is worse than some one giving a speech who looks like they're reading the phonebook. Also alliteration is good if you're going for an authoritative tone. You can use anything I gave you man. And GL.
