Support NeoGAF

[Angry_Megalodon]

The Oscar awarded movie Poor Creatures features a 5 year old girl in the body of a woman having sex and then becoming a prostitute, which is portrayed as "female liberation". That is a sick pedo movie hundred times more abhorrent than everything available on Steam right now.

The level of hypocrisy reaches beyond the sky. You know this is bad when people try to confuse ILEGAL with IMMORAL. Really pathetic.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Should games be allowed to display real people's information that the creator doesn't like, such as photos, address, credit card information?

If killing, rape, etc are ok yes, they should be allowed to. It's fiction, like in movies, books, etc.

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

 

[The Lunch Legend]

Isn't that like one of the most popular categories in porn sites?

Are you thinking of bbc's?

 

[near]

But when it promotes killing is ok, right?


Killing is ok? Cancel CoD, GTA, Mario, Zelda and almost everything else.

They're not fundamentally the same thing. No Mercy is a visual novel where the goal is to abuse, and you're rewarded for dominating and exploiting a woman, it's just exploitation packaged as entertainment. Look at the games you mentioned - Zelda and GTA aren't designed as violent games, it's within a sandbox and the action of killing doesn't linger on suffering or torture. That includes COD. COD is in a competitive setting, and pushes skill-based challenges, not sadism or domination for pleasure. Those games don't build a narrative around real world abuse fantasies. You have to draw the line. You're not a hypocrite if you disagree with one and not the other, not all controversial content is the same.

If killing, rape, etc are ok yes, they should be allowed to. It's fiction, like in movies, books, etc.

The difference between books/films and games is obvious. One is interactive, meaning you're an active participant (you make the choices) and it's built on a reward system. With books and films, you're just an observer.

Good.

 

[adamsapple]

Good.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Zelda and GTA aren't designed as violent games

Suuuuuuuuuure.

One is interactive, meaning you're an active participant (you make the choices) and it's built on a reward system. With books and films, you're just an observer.

Make ZERO difference being interactive or not. The "promotion" is the same.

 

[Lokaum D+]

pussies

 

[Zeusexy]

And I call on women in games to remove themselves from this world.

 

[near]

Make ZERO difference being interactive or not. The "promotion" is the same.

That's just not true. Interactivity makes a massive difference, that's not an opinion, it's common sense and backed by psychology and game design. When you're playing a game, you're not just watching or reading, you're making decisions and taking action and being rewarded for those choices. It deepens your emotional investment and makes the experience more personal. Interactivity doesn't just present content it makes you complicit in it.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

But laws change, no morals are ever set in stone, and art isn't created or enjoyed in a vacuum.
It is not about banning something you don't like, it is about having a modicum of shared morals/ethics which is mandatory for a society to work.

Why would you try to link morals, which you admitted are subjective, to arbitrate what someone fantasizes or writes about?

We don't do thought policing. The notion of it is absolutely contrary to free expression and artistic freedom. The point of art is to allow an escape route to all kinds of impulses we feel as humans. Explore the ideas that are some times extreme and completely outside the norm.

It would be absolutely objectionable to pick up some weapons and randomly murder all kind of people in the streets in comically horrific ways. But we not only don't ban GTA, but actually make it the most successful piece of gaming media of all time.

Easier to say we're against censorship when it's about censoring stuff we like (big tits, small waists, etc), but if we're principled, we have to defend just as strongly the media we don't like from the forces of censorship.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

GTA aren't designed as violent games,

Dude, wtf. This is borderline Orweallian double-think.

 

[near]

Dude, wtf. This is borderline Orweallian double-think.

I didn't deny that violence is in the game. I was making a nuanced point - that violence isn't the core message or goal of the experience.

 

[rodrigolfp]

That's just not true. Interactivity makes a massive difference, that's not an opinion, it's common sense and backed by psychology and game design. When you're playing a game, you're not just watching or reading, you're making decisions and taking action and being rewarded for those choices. It deepens your emotional investment and makes the experience more personal. Interactivity doesn't just present content it makes you complicit in it.

Thor chopping Thanos head made feel very rewarded, with deep emotions and very personal. So again, makes zero difference.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Hate to see they caved.

Freedom is scary. Let the market sort it out. Stop censoring content.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

Are you thinking of bbc's?

No, I don't think of that.

 

[Zacfoldor]

I didn't deny that violence is in the game. I was making a nuanced point - that violence isn't the core message or goal of the experience.

Manhunt, Max Payne, many other games were great games that are centered around violence, should they remove that from Steam too?

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

So only in the UK? Because nothing in this game is illegal in the US content wise.

 

[Mayor_McCheeze]

If they tried it, they might like it

 

[Cert.in.Death]

But what about tolerance for the views of others? (The heinousness of this particular viewpoint notwithstanding)

 

[nkarafo]

I'm against most censorship, but saying 100% nothing should ever be subject to censorship is ignorant.

As long as something is legal and you are an adult, then it should be OK 100% of the time.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Valve decided to remove it apparently. I fully disagree with that, but being a private company they have complete right to do so.

For those celebrating it as a W, keep that energy up next time you throw a fit because "they censored X game, bad corporation, boycott...". Complete hypocrisy

 

[near]

Thor chopping Thanos head made feel very rewarded, with deep emotions and very personal. So again, makes zero difference.

You're just reinforcing my point. You're comparing a cinematic moment in a film to a player driven experience in a game, it isn't a 1-1 comparison. No one is denying that films can make us feel things or move us one way or the other, but watching Thor kill Thanos isn't the same as you making that choice, you pressing the button and you being rewarded for it. In the film you are watching the characters actions, in a game you are the one acting. That is a fundamental difference that matters, it's what makes games unique to any other medium. Interactivity doesn't just tell a story, it makes you part of it. That's not "ZERO" difference.

 

[Boss Mog]

The most retarded hypocrisy ever.

You're actually double-downing on your retardedness? Here's the thing about killing in videogames: the vast majority is killing bad guys and also the vast majority is self-defense (the enemies are trying to kill you). And so you want to compare that to forcibly raping your family members for fun? If so then you're just as big of a degenerate as the people who made the game.

You'd have a valid point when it comes to nudity in a game or even sex between consenting adults, but trying to use it to try to defend evil shit like rape, pedo, incest, etc... is just sick.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

You're just reinforcing my point. You're comparing a cinematic moment in a film to a player driven experience in a game, it isn't a 1-1 comparison. No one is denying that films can make us feel things or move us one way or the other, but watching Thor kill Thanos isn't the same as you making that choice, you pressing the button and you being rewarded for it. In the film you are watching the characters actions, in a game you are the one acting. That is a fundamental difference that matters, it's what makes games unique to any other medium. Interactivity doesn't just tell a story, it makes you part of it. That's not "ZERO" difference.

Jack Thompson, is that you? How's it going man?

 

[Zacfoldor]

So only in the UK? Because nothing in this game is illegal in the US content wise.

Good. Land of the free.

 

[near]

Jack Thompson, is that you? How's it going man?

I don't know who that is. Is this an insult or compliment?

 

[Boss Mog]

Valve decided to remove it apparently. I fully disagree with that, but being a private company they have complete right to do so.

For those celebrating it as a W, keep that energy up next time you throw a fit because "they censored X game, bad corporation, boycott...". Complete hypocrisy

And for those lamenting it as an L, well... better luck next time degenerates.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

I don't know who that is. Is this an insult or compliment?

Jack Thompson

"Thompson has rejected arguments that such video games are protected by freedom of expression, saying, "Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They're not even speech. They're dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it," as well as simply calling video games "mental masturbation""

Sounds familiar?

 

[Zacfoldor]

You're just reinforcing my point. You're comparing a cinematic moment in a film to a player driven experience in a game, it isn't a 1-1 comparison. No one is denying that films can make us feel things or move us one way or the other, but watching Thor kill Thanos isn't the same as you making that choice, you pressing the button and you being rewarded for it. In the film you are watching the characters actions, in a game you are the one acting. That is a fundamental difference that matters, it's what makes games unique to any other medium. Interactivity doesn't just tell a story, it makes you part of it. That's not "ZERO" difference.

Sir, I'm sorry but that is full of crap imho.

Are you saying that games should be censored more than movies, books, tv, music because they are an interactive medium?

If so, thank you for handicapping our hobby based on your arbitrary and strange beliefs.

I, for one, think games should be held to the same standard as other forms of entertainment.

I also believe that if you believe that other forms of entertainment can't be as influential on the human psyche as videogames then you have quite the inflated view of videogames, probably because you are a fan. I suspect fans of books would disagree with you. If you are right, I guess it makes sense why games like AC Shadows, Dustborn, and South of Midnight exist. Propaganda must be much more effective in video games if you are correct....I for one believe that all forms of entertainment should be judged by the same standards and videogames should not be handicapped. Should they ban Manhunt then?

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

And for those lamenting it as an L, well... better luck next time degenerates.

Happy to stand on principle even if not at all affected by this.

 

[nkarafo]

With books and films, you're just an observer.

That's a bullshit double standard.

You may be the observer but the actors are surely not.

Let's all go and ban half of the porn industry then. BDSM stuff? Oh no! Ban all the films that depict rape too, how dare Joe Prestia pretend he is raping Monica Bellucci on screen? That guy should be behind bars.

 

[Draugoth]

Streisand Effect at it's best

Just free advertisment for the developer, probably won't even affect the developer, most H games revenue come from pixiv, itchi.o and Patreon and other websites. Steam is a bonus.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Me enjoying this thread.

I think we have different beliefs on this based on where we live. Freedom is scary. Should we trade it for security?

 

[nkarafo]

Look at those sick people crafting their filth



But it's OK to watch, as long as we don't "actively participate", am i right?

 

[Boss Mog]

Happy to stand on principle even if not at all affected by this.

I'm sure the rapists and pedos are happy to know you stand with them.

 

[nkarafo]

And for those lamenting it as an L, well... better luck next time degenerates.

It's cool that you finally have internet access in monasteries. But there's a lot of stuff about the world you have missed.

 

[near]

Jack Thompson

"Thompson has rejected arguments that such video games are protected by freedom of expression, saying, "Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They're not even speech. They're dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it," as well as simply calling video games "mental masturbation""

Sounds familiar?

So rather than engaging with what I'm saying you'd rather discredit it by association with an extreme and discredited figure? Are you retarded by chance? What sort of deflection is this? So because I think interactivity matters in how content is experience, I must be Jack Thompson? So if I criticize fast food, I want to ban restaurants? lmao.

Thank you for the history lesson, but comparing my point to Jack Thompson is beyond a reach. I've not said all games should be banned nor am I denying freedom of expression. I'm saying that interactivity changes how we experience content, especially when games make players active participants in something abusive or exploitative. That's not a moral panic, that's acknowledging the difference between depicting something and participating in it. This is a conversation worth having without dragging in discredited arguments for 2 decades ago.

Sir, I'm sorry but that is full of crap imho.

Are you saying that games should be censored more than movies, books, tv, music because they are an interactive medium?

If so, thank you for handicapping our hobby based on your arbitrary and strange beliefs.

I, for one, think games should be held to the same standard as other forms of entertainment.

I also believe that if you believe that other forms of entertainment can't be as influential on the human psyche as videogames then you have quite the inflated view of videogames, probably because you are a fan. I suspect fans of books would disagree with you. If you are right, I guess it makes sense why games like AC Shadows, Dustborn, and South of Midnight exist. Propaganda must be much more effective in video games if you are correct....I for one believe that all forms of entertainment should be judged by the same standards and videogames should not be handicapped. Should they ban Manhunt then?

I'm not going to dignify this with a thoughtful reply, since you cannot be bothered to read the thread and the discussion trail. You should meet the actual arguments I'm making, not flatten it.

That's a bullshit double standard.

You may be the observer but the actors are surely not.

Let's all go and ban half of the porn industry then. BDSM stuff? Oh no! Ban all the films that depict rape too, how dare Joe Prestia pretend he is raping Monica Bellucci on screen? That guy should be behind bars.

It's not a double standard - it's a distinction between mediums. A film depicts an act. A game can simulate it by placing the player in control and reinforcing choices with progression and rewards. That's a fundamental differnce in how the content is experience.

I'm not calling for banning all dark or controversial media, not books, not films and not even games that deal with disturbing content in thoughtful or narrative driven ways. But when a game exists purely to let someone act out abusive scenarios for gratification with no commentary or artistic merit - thats where I draw the line.

Comparing that to actors in a film portraying a traumatic scene for the purpose of telling a story is a false equivalence.

 

[DaciaJC]

Look at the games you mentioned - Zelda and GTA aren't designed as violent games, it's within a sandbox and the action of killing doesn't linger on suffering or torture.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

I'm sure the rapists and pedos are happy to know you stand with them.

 

[nkarafo]

I'm not calling for banning all dark or controversial media, not books, not films and not even games that deal with disturbing content in thoughtful or narrative driven ways. But when a game exists purely to let someone act out abusive scenarios for gratification with no commentary or artistic merit - thats where I draw the line.

Personally, i draw the line between what's legal and what's not.

As an adult i won't accept anyone telling me i can't do something that's legal.

On the other hand, STEAM has the right to ban whatever content they want in their own service. But i still think it's a bullshit double standard. Either ban all the harmful content of none of it.

 

[pachura]

Then they came to remove Sex With Hitler from the store, and I did not speak out - because it was not in my library.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

So rather than engaging with what I'm saying you'd rather discredit it by association with an extreme and discredited figure? Are you retarded by chance? What sort of deflection is this? So because I think interactivity matters in how content is experience, I must be Jack Thompson? So if I criticize fast food, I want to ban restaurants? lmao.

Thank you for the history lesson, but comparing my point to Jack Thompson is beyond a reach. I've not said all games should be banned nor am I denying freedom of expression. I'm saying that interactivity changes how we experience content, especially when games make players active participants in something abusive or exploitative. That's not a moral panic, that's acknowledging the difference between depicting something and participating in it. This is a conversation worth having without dragging in discredited arguments for 2 decades ago.

I made my point abundantly clear in the posts above. Artistic freedom only makes sense to protect controversial and fringe content. Unless someone is actually being hurt (e.g. snuff films, etc) which is actually illegal, all artistic expression should be uncensored. Period.

Mainstream, vanilla, banal expressions do not require any defense as they are already the norm.

 

[rodrigolfp]

You're actually double-downing on your retardedness? Here's the thing about killing in videogames: the vast majority is killing bad guys and also the vast majority is self-defense (the enemies are trying to kill you). And so you want to compare that to forcibly raping your family members for fun? If so then you're just as big of a degenerate as the people who made the game.

You'd have a valid point when it comes to nudity in a game or even sex between consenting adults, but trying to use it to try to defend evil shit like rape, pedo, incest, etc... is just sick.

You enter an airport and shoot everyone in "no russian". Mario is killing goombas that are simple walking around minding their own business.

You defending this shit is just sick.

 

[near]

Personally, i draw the line between what's legal and what's not.

As an adult i won't accept anyone telling me i can't do something that's legal.

On the other hand, STEAM has the right to ban whatever content they want in their own service. But i still think it's a bullshit double standard. Either ban all the harmful content of none of it.

I can respect that, you drawing the line at legality is a more consistent position, and you're right that Steam have the right to set their own standards. But that said, legality is a floor not a ceiling for ethical responsibility. There are plenty of things that are legal but still morally questionable, especially when it comes to entertainment that simulates abuse. Like I said not every piece of dark content needs to be banned, just that context and intent matter. Games that use violence or taboo content to tell stories or explore human behaviour and challenge the gamer morally are very different from games that off abuse purely for pleasure.

"Either ban all the harmful content of none of it." is a principled stance, but it ignores nuance. We can make distinctions between satire and hate speech, between violent films and torture porn.

I'm drawing an ethical line, and that isn't censorship. It's living in a society that values both freedom and responsibility.

 

[FalconPunch]

I would have never heard about this game if not for these people making so much noise about it.

 

[xrnzaaas]

I don't think that games should be treated worse just because they're an interactive medium. People use their imagination and they don't need video games to fantasize about being either the victim or the assaulting party. Plus in movies or porn there are always real actors involved, should we ignore how they felt when they shot the scenes for other people to watch?
I'm not saying that sick shit should be allowed, but if we're thinking about banning stuff then it should treat all mediums equally.

 

[nkarafo]

I'm drawing an ethical line, and that isn't censorship. It's living in a society that values both freedom and responsibility.

It is censorship because what's ethical and what's not is completely subjective for every different person. I don't agree that you, or anyone else, should be the authority of what's ethical for me and what should i consume or not. You don't like it? That's fine, nobody is forcing you to consume it. But what's with the obsession of making sure i also won't consume it?

This is a job for my parents and only for the short time while i'm still a minor.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

"Either ban all the harmful content of none of it." is a principled stance, but it ignores nuance. We can make distinctions between satire and hate speech, between violent films and torture porn.

I'm drawing an ethical line, and that isn't censorship. It's living in a society that values both freedom and responsibility.

Depending on where you live, hate speech might be actually protected under the law. The principled position regarding this is whether you realize it's important to protect the speech and expression of opinions opposite to your own.

Regarding the ethical line, you can draw any lines you want for personal consumption or to change how you view any person based on the consumption of whatever content... as long as you don't take steps to promote actual censorship of those people.

There's a famous quote attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to Voltaire, more people should know about, especially those always concerned about free speech and anti censorship topics: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

[Arachnid]

Too late lady, can't remove it from my steam library now