osamanobama said:
and should it? it can easily apply for the grant and get it. why wouldnt call of duty be art, while some other game is |
no it cannot. You are either inentionally or accidentally blurring the details to suit your own arguments.
This is for independant developers to qualify for art grants for educational projects. There are literally thousands of indie developers who are competing for these kinds of grants (independantly funded ones) to fund their projects. Not everyone gets it. You say, "it can easily apply for it and get it".
With what imaginary criteria are you now basing your argument on?
You remind me exactly of the video, because just like them, your overexaggerations and spin is just a distraction, requiring opponents to spell out what it actually is without getting to say any real argument for it. The nerdy guy in the vid has to devote his whole first portion to explaining how the announcer is wrong (which he is).
Now, people like you just make arbitrary decisions on whatever you feel like thinking. "It can easily apply for the grant and get it". This quote flies directly in the face of that guest, and tells him he's a liar. Without basis, without evidence, without logic, you decide what is right and what is wrong.
It's appalling that this is the kind of vocal majority I hear every day.
No facts, nothing. Just blurring the lines between what things really are, and what you can scare us into thinking they are.
This bill is to allow indie developers to compete for NEA funding where they once weren't allowed to. They are not spending more money for funding. They are including different competitors. They are for educational games.
Of course, this great chunk of fact just above, will be ignored, replaced by an overly muddy "some people would call CoD educational". Right>?
