Sony implements new policy censoring Japanese games for possible fanservice content

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

altnameJag:
"patting someone's head"

Wait, am I reading that right? There's really a button to 'rapidly grope'? Ok then ... that's subtle.

For the record, I think that's really funny, really stupid and really creepy, all at once.

I don't like my name anymore:

hanselthecaretaker:

No, it?s people in general that are revolting. Ever seen Faces of Death? We don?t deserve to be at the top.

It?s disturbingly odd, how *most* people could acknowledge and even agree with the above sentiment, but somehow it?s human nature that a great number of people will manage to betray their better sensibilities, especially in large group settings.

You're right, fellow misanthropist, although I didn't want to find out such a movie existed.

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state. Every animal is a murderer rapist cannibal, even the cuddly ones. The only other animals that deserve to be on top are like sloths or something.

I'd say the African buffalo or elephants would be another good candidate, if we're going to consider mammals. Otherwise I really gotta give props to the saltwater crocodile and the great white shark, but the latter might be considered racist.

Speaking of, your username...ha, makes me think of I could change mine I think it would be compassionate misanthropist, or something close. That was the first thing that came to mind.

Having said that, I really am capable of liking and even loving several humans and generally want to, when the stupid doesn't get in the way.

altnameJag:

Specter Von Baren:
Is there something I'm missing here? Why is patting someone's head considered sexual now?

"patting someone's head"
image

That's not Fire Emblem: Fates.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Kyle Gaddo:
Please do not touch underage girlsCHILDREN, digital or otherwise. Thank you.

A fair edit.

Kyle Gaddo:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Kyle Gaddo:
Please do not touch underage girlsCHILDREN, digital or otherwise. Thank you.

A fair edit.

I'd take offense with the "or otherwise" part here personally. Think how it sounds when we say it about for example murder in games. The implication would be that people who like killing in videogames would need to be warned to not kill people in real life as though they'd not know not to do so already.

I'm pretty sure people can tell games from reality and that well adjusted people can enjoy doing things in games they'd never do in reality, even if those things are not just killing people or stealing cars.

Specter Von Baren:

altnameJag:

Specter Von Baren:
Is there something I'm missing here? Why is patting someone's head considered sexual now?

"patting someone's head"
image

That's not Fire Emblem: Fates.

And Nintendo isn't Sony, so what's your point?

Hell, the only "patting" scene left in Fates (they didn't take them all out), were the ones that were the most explicit. They took out the "having your generals over after a battle to pat their cheeks" ones. Probably because they thought it was weird. Because it's weird. Pokemon Amie is one thing, I mean, I pet my cat. It'd be weird if I pet the high school kid that works part time at my job.

If you think the weebs are bad in the West, try meeting the ones that actually manage to scam their way over to Asia. Fun watching their wonderful misconceptions about the countries they fetishize get destroyed by the harsh reality that whenever they go has problems all the same and that enthusiastically living abroad didn't magically make them cool or interesting.

That said, I've only very rarely met actual weebs. I rather suspect the really obnoxious ones are fairly rare IRL, thank fuck.

That comments on that post though. Good stuff. Nothing fills my heart with more joy than to see hardcore nerds crying about stupid shit.

Chewster:
If you think the weebs are bad in the West, try meeting the ones that actually manage to scam their way over to Asia. Fun watching their wonderful misconceptions about the countries they fetishize get destroyed by the harsh reality that whenever they go has problems all the same and that enthusiastically living abroad didn't magically make them cool or interesting.

That said, I've only very rarely met actual weebs. I rather suspect the really obnoxious ones are fairly rare IRL, thank fuck.

That comments on that post though. Good stuff. Nothing fills my heart with more joy than to see hardcore nerds crying about stupid shit.

My roommate was taking a "Japanese visual media" course at university, and the professor there wrote the course synopsis as a trap.

As in, "I know you nerds think we're gonna be talking about cartoons, and we will after 3 months of post-WW2 art films that are about surviving nuclear attacks and where Americans are conspicuously absent".

It's the university equivalent of taking someone who only knows about samurai culture from Legend of the Five Rings and laying out in exhaustive detail why that's bullshit. Which was the Japanese History class, which didn't touch on bushi until 3 months in. If you ever want to see disappointment, ask a prof to sit in on those types of 101 courses at the beginning of a semester.

Dreiko:

Kyle Gaddo:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

A fair edit.

I'd take offense with the "or otherwise" part here personally. Think how it sounds when we say it about for example murder in games. The implication would be that people who like killing in videogames would need to be warned to not kill people in real life as though they'd not know not to do so already.

I'm pretty sure people can tell games from reality and that well adjusted people can enjoy doing things in games they'd never do in reality, even if those things are not just killing people or stealing cars.

It's a fair point you make, on principle I have to agree.
In this case though my honest advise is to not do it in video games, for your own mental health sake and integrity (I acknowledge that you harm perfectly no entity beside potentially yourself while playing games and so if you are an adult it's your business what you do I am not going to judge you). On the other hand if you would try to do that in reality... well description of what I wish to such person is likely to get me banned.

I don't like my name anymore:

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state. Every animal is a murderer rapist cannibal, even the cuddly ones. The only other animals that deserve to be on top are like sloths or something.

Um ... no. Seriously, dude. The homicide rate is <1 person per 100,000 in Australia. And the state is too busy harassing poor people from lowering nearby residential land prices by having the audacity to sleep in nearby parks than actually deal with real criminals.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Dreiko:

Kyle Gaddo:

A fair edit.

I'd take offense with the "or otherwise" part here personally. Think how it sounds when we say it about for example murder in games. The implication would be that people who like killing in videogames would need to be warned to not kill people in real life as though they'd not know not to do so already.

I'm pretty sure people can tell games from reality and that well adjusted people can enjoy doing things in games they'd never do in reality, even if those things are not just killing people or stealing cars.

It's a fair point you make, on principle I have to agree.
In this case though my honest advise is to not do it in video games, for your own mental health sake and integrity (I acknowledge that you harm perfectly no entity beside potentially yourself while playing games and so if you are an adult it's your business what you do I am not going to judge you). On the other hand if you would try to do that in reality... well description of what I wish to such person is likely to get me banned.

Yeah see, again, if you also try to murder someone in reality that is also befitting of such a description.

If you say "don't kill in games cause that desensitizes you to murder and makes you more likely to feel ok about murdering someone in real life" you'd sound like a mid-90s religious nut trying to ban perfectly harmless videogames.

I think people seem to think that whoever can have fun with such a game is someone who is secretly wishing to enact it in real life but those same people recognize that people who enjoy games in which you kill people are not secret psychos fantasizing about enacting murder in real life who are getting their murder-fix in games but are just normal people having normal fun, which is a mental disconnect that I can't avoid being annoyed by with regards to this topic.

You can't hold both positions at the same time, and since the question about games causing violence is pretty much settled, I'd extend it to all other forms of lawbreaking enacted in gaming too.

Ultimately, what is really happening here is some people (not talking about you specifically but a general climate) are uncomfortable that other people are enjoying something that they find offensive on some level and can't mind their own business but have to bother them, which causes friction for no reason.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

I don't like my name anymore:

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state. Every animal is a murderer rapist cannibal, even the cuddly ones. The only other animals that deserve to be on top are like sloths or something.

Um ... no. Seriously, dude. The homicide rate is <1 person per 100,000 in Australia. And the state is too busy harassing poor people from lowering nearby residential land prices by having the audacity to sleep in nearby parks than actually deal with real criminals.

Okay, and the hunter-gatherers of Australia have like a homicide/warfare death rate at up to 20,000 per 100,000. This is from archeological digs, so while not a good indicator, it is still common among digs that tribal societies have a very high rate of violent deaths. Primitive societies usually go around wiping out all the males and children in neighboring tribes and keep the females for themselves.

The state goes around as a third party arbitrating justice. As long as law enforcement is not so corrupt that it can't perform it's duties, violence goes down. Take away that and leave justice in the hands of the people, what you get is gang warfare, murder, duels, and lynch mobs.

If you have no deterrent or consequence, it's obvious what is going to happen, especially with bored, young males with no wives and children of their own. Let's make it easier and give them a watch that stops time. Whatever they do, there are no social consequences at all. What exactly will they use it for? Awful things, no doubt.

The people that do bad things despite the threat of the law or social ostracization, are people who know they can get away with it, or they think they can get away with it, or it's worth the risk. Very few people are actually sadists and sociopaths, but a lot of people are opportunistic, and some want to beat you into a coma or straight up kill you if you cut them off in traffic.

I don't like my name anymore:

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state.

Err... remember the state is made of people too. Or are you saying the state is free of murderers and rapists?

Dreiko:

Ultimately, what is really happening here is some people (not talking about you specifically but a general climate) are uncomfortable that other people are enjoying something that they find offensive on some level and can't mind their own business but have to bother them, which causes friction for no reason.

While I generally agree with you, I, an anime hater, will offer my perspective here.

The anime style depicts people with tiny noses and big, expressive eyes. Most people in real life aren't too much like this, and in fact this quality, the size of eyes in comparison to the whole face, decreases as children grow up and become adults. Keeping this in mind, the mature -- hot -- bodies of anime girls are often contrasted by their childlike faces (not to mention behavior). Whether pedobait or not, it's fine as a fantasy, but while normal people will separate these images from reality, it will have an effect on their minds. Subtly, the fantasies will creep into dreams, into your subconscious, and you will begin to look for things that your mind wants to see.

Even if it was harmless, I hate it all the same. (note: I hate anime for plenty of reasons, not just this one)

McElroy:

Dreiko:

Ultimately, what is really happening here is some people (not talking about you specifically but a general climate) are uncomfortable that other people are enjoying something that they find offensive on some level and can't mind their own business but have to bother them, which causes friction for no reason.

While I generally agree with you, I, an anime hater, will offer my perspective here.

The anime style depicts people with tiny noses and big, expressive eyes. Most people in real life aren't too much like this, and in fact this quality, the size of eyes in comparison to the whole face, decreases as children grow up and become adults. Keeping this in mind, the mature -- hot -- bodies of anime girls are often contrasted by their childlike faces (not to mention behavior). Whether pedobait or not, it's fine as a fantasy, but while normal people will separate these images from reality, it will have an effect on their minds. Subtly, the fantasies will creep into dreams, into your subconscious, and you will begin to look for things that your mind wants to see.

Even if it was harmless, I hate it all the same. (note: I hate anime for plenty of reasons, not just this one)

I just want to make it very clear; it is absolutely fine to hate anime with the fury of a thousand suns. Not tackling that part at all in any of my replies here. Just, don't go meddling in other people's business for no reason. That's literally all my point is. I'm not trying to make people like anime here, not everyone can like everything haha.

As for what you accurately describe as the way anime diverges with reality, I agree with the surface description you offer but not your ultimate conclusion. Anime chars do look not akin to how normal people of that age would look in "some" art styles (anime has tons of art styles so you really shouldn't generalize but we'll tackle what a stereotype of anime is akin to here for expedience). That, however, does not have to mean that reality is somehow being affected by anything here. In fact, most anime fans consider anime chars as a specific other type of being completely irrelevant to real humans but akin to them. This has the effect of removing any relation with the two, hence, no normal anime fan would expect humans to behave like anime chars, of any age or appearance.

Simply put, because anime chars are not like real humans that really exist, they're interesting. Hence, you can't apply anime char traits to real humans by default, so nobody would expect humans to behave as such.

And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

CaitSeith:

I don't like my name anymore:

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state.

Err... remember the state is made of people too. Or are you saying the state is free of murderers and rapists?

Most people includes people in the state. The state doesn't solve all violence, but it solves a large amount of it. States with high centralization are better than city states, feudal states, and warlord states, where some rich people are constantly conquering and chevauch?e-ing each other with their private armies.

Dreiko:
And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

Huh...

I guess you'd better go inform everyone who is employed in the fields of PR, advertising, and propaganda that their fields (the use of media to influence and alter people's thoughts and behaviors) and the research upon which their work is built (dating back millennia) are simply "the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid [19]90s[ce]."

Avnger:

Dreiko:
And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

Huh...

I guess you'd better go inform everyone who is employed in the fields of PR, advertising, and propaganda that their fields (the use of media to influence and alter people's thoughts and behaviors) and the research upon which their work is built (dating back millennia) are simply "the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid [19]90s[ce]."

Those things indicate that with enough advertising you're more likely to do something that's not all that big of a deal anyhow, like buying a soda when you wouldn't or eating a burger when you'd eat a salad. Not that you'd be magically fine with murder or other such abhorrent acts out of nowhere because you played one too many call of duty games.

You'd need a campaign of active brainwashing throughout your entire life like singing the pro murder song before breakfast every day since you're 3 to arrive at a place where you're fine with such horrible things and even then you have people's innate nature that finds them abnormal that will revolt against it in some cases so when all you have is a couple of hours of entertainment here and now there's no effect worth noting at all.

Dreiko:

Simply put, because anime chars are not like real humans that really exist, they're interesting. Hence, you can't apply anime char traits to real humans by default, so nobody would expect humans to behave as such.

And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

You're right, but you twisted my words just a bit. What I said is one will start to look for things they are familiar with. It's not for good or bad, but from the point of view of "anime was a mistake"... it's all bad every time (and yes, since we're here -- technically not all anime, only 98-99% of it). I'm not exactly unbiased here :^)

McElroy:

Dreiko:

Simply put, because anime chars are not like real humans that really exist, they're interesting. Hence, you can't apply anime char traits to real humans by default, so nobody would expect humans to behave as such.

And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

You're right, but you twisted my words just a bit. What I said is one will start to look for things they are familiar with. It's not for good or bad, but from the point of view of "anime was a mistake"... it's all bad every time (and yes, since we're here -- technically not all anime, only 98-99% of it). I'm not exactly unbiased here :^)

Hmm well, I take that as more of a natural "this thing is awesome and it is normal to like awesome things hence I will further pursue this thing I find awesome" process that occurs with all sorts of subjects that you're describing here. It's not something unique to anime, it can apply to literally anything anyone finds likeable. Hence, it is illogical to single out anime stuff for having this effect of essentially making people fans of it if we aren't willing to condemn any an all fandom with the same breath.

Ultimately, as long as people are engaging in what they find awesome in solitary or welcoming environments and are bothering nobody, nobody has the right to say anything to them either.

Dreiko:

McElroy:

Dreiko:

Simply put, because anime chars are not like real humans that really exist, they're interesting. Hence, you can't apply anime char traits to real humans by default, so nobody would expect humans to behave as such.

And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

You're right, but you twisted my words just a bit. What I said is one will start to look for things they are familiar with. It's not for good or bad, but from the point of view of "anime was a mistake"... it's all bad every time (and yes, since we're here -- technically not all anime, only 98-99% of it). I'm not exactly unbiased here :^)

Hmm well, I take that as more of a natural "this thing is awesome and it is normal to like awesome things hence I will further pursue this thing I find awesome" process that occurs with all sorts of subjects that you're describing here. It's not something unique to anime, it can apply to literally anything anyone finds likeable. Hence, it is illogical to single out anime stuff for having this effect of essentially making people fans of it if we aren't willing to condemn any an all fandom with the same breath.

Not singling out anime because of a general psychological effect, but because of characteristics more or less unique to anime.

Ultimately, as long as people are engaging in what they find awesome in solitary or welcoming environments and are bothering nobody, nobody has the right to say anything to them either.

But it all bothers me so damn much.

McElroy:

Dreiko:

Simply put, because anime chars are not like real humans that really exist, they're interesting. Hence, you can't apply anime char traits to real humans by default, so nobody would expect humans to behave as such.

And again, the whole "fantasies will seep into your mind and secretly alter your behavior" thing, when said about murder in videogames, is the ravings of moral-panic-having religious conservatives from the mid 90s, so I say we keep rejecting it even when it applies to things we are personally morally outraged about, too.

You're right, but you twisted my words just a bit. What I said is one will start to look for things they are familiar with. It's not for good or bad, but from the point of view of "anime was a mistake"... it's all bad every time (and yes, since we're here -- technically not all anime, only 98-99% of it). I'm not exactly unbiased here :^)

The "anime was a mistake..." thing I hate and is generally taken out of context from Miyazaki words. Here and now, it's been a catch all phrase for people who have a strong distaste for certain shows or genres in the medium, or are blinded by nostalgia and think all anime from the Wild West era (80s, 90s, and some of the early 2000s) perfect with next to no flaws. It's bullshit and is use nothing more than to put others down for liking or disliking shows. People tend to forget that everything wasn't perfect back then, and the medium and business side of things had enormous amounts of problems, and still do till this day.

I don't like my name anymore:

Okay, and the hunter-gatherers of Australia have like a homicide/warfare death rate at up to 20,000 per 100,000. This is from archeological digs, so while not a good indicator, it is still common among digs that tribal societies have a very high rate of violent deaths. Primitive societies usually go around wiping out all the males and children in neighboring tribes and keep the females for themselves.

The state goes around as a third party arbitrating justice. As long as law enforcement is not so corrupt that it can't perform it's duties, violence goes down. Take away that and leave justice in the hands of the people, what you get is gang warfare, murder, duels, and lynch mobs.

If you have no deterrent or consequence, it's obvious what is going to happen, especially with bored, young males with no wives and children of their own. Let's make it easier and give them a watch that stops time. Whatever they do, there are no social consequences at all. What exactly will they use it for? Awful things, no doubt.

The people that do bad things despite the threat of the law or social ostracization, are people who know they can get away with it, or they think they can get away with it, or it's worth the risk. Very few people are actually sadists and sociopaths, but a lot of people are opportunistic, and some want to beat you into a coma or straight up kill you if you cut them off in traffic.

For starters, indigenous Australians were not 'hunter-gatherers' ... there is archaeological evidence of agriculture, aquaculture, and complex bushcraft. The primary limitation to indigenous development is the lack of draft animals beyond people ... and even then we still have evidence of complex understanding of horticulture. Secondly that attrition rate is wholly unsupportive of human development at all.

Seriously, 1 in 5 people being actively murdered over 40,000+ years would lead to massive systemic problems in a world without antibiotics and antiseptics. Warfare is tragic and often lead to the wholesale slaughter of people anywhere in the globe, but 1 in 5 people everywhere in a given population over a period of generations, much less 40,000 years, would be unsustainable rates of human attrition.

The thing is unless there were deeply personal, strategic reason for a group of people to fight another group of people wholesale beyond idividual duels (feuds between particular groups within a larger intra-clan identity to outsiders), they would be actively averted. Because in a world where antiseptics and antibiotics are lacking, wounds become dangerous on their own. One of the primary reasons why ambush tactics of a larger group versus a smaller congregation formulate much of the military planning of these societies is precisely to avoid excessive wounding that would often occasion in death regardless.

Moreover, due to the hard lack of draft animals, you could not even support pre-modern ideas of logistics in order to keep soldiers fed in the first place.

Such attitudes of 'wars of religion' or 'wars over title' are lacking in Aboriginal communities. Fights broke out over land claims, or what was considered egregious trespass. But we have proof that not all forms of transgression of borders by dgroups was hostile. Whether by cultural exchanges, diplomatic terms and conditions, and through share customs of of Aboriginal Songlines that helped any person from any clan navigate the entire continent on foot in relative safety.

And we know this from Aboriginal Songlines that individual Aboriginal nation-clans that there was a complexity of individual relationships that went on to form an extensively indepth system of diplomacy, religiosity and cartography combined that suggests a highly integrated network of basic trade and cultural exchange.

The base minimum Indigenous Australian population prior European settlement is estimated at 330,000 people. Realistically, we're talking likely over 900,000. Which is an incredibly high number of people given the limited technology base and the nature of the landscapes. That being said, while there is evidence of the usage of shields (a defensive tool solely for defensive uses) ... their general lack of uptake actually suggests fairly peacable inter-clan activities.

These are a group of people that didn't have access to draft animals. Didn't have access to true flour-grade grain stocks (though there is evidence of native grain production and cultivation, as well as topsoil movement to improve fertility of suitable lands). Without the diversity of orchard stock of European or American societies. Transport them over largely arid or tropical zones which themselves often berefft of the same concentration of edible plants and animal populations. All without demesticable animal herds to drive as part of the war effort.

Basically the best non-perishable they had was 'kangaroo grass'. Which we know various Indigenous Australians cultivated where they could and used grinding stones to turned into something like a paste with water that could be eaten. But it was hardly as productive or as nutritious as Eurasian barley or rice stock.

So your standard kit for Indigenous Australians was three types of shield (a parrying dual weapon shield, a broad shield for dealing with blunt weapons, and a light shield for deflecting spears) ... So you need to supply that soldier on the move with their two weapons, and their chosen type of shield. You need people with woven receptacles to supply them on the move lacking the resources of other societies or even the draft animals to move supplies by cart.

If Indigenous Australians were actively murdering 20% of its people every generation... we'd see greater usage of shields by all Aboriginal Australian groups. That being said, there are numerous Aboriginal clan groups that never produced shields despite the fact that they would have been exposed to clan groups that did make and produce them (giving shared linguistics and religious concepts suggesting cultural exchange and trade). Suggesting that conflict wasn't as endemic in various places regardless of exactly how large these tribes were or even in the face of limited resources.

Which makes sense given warfare is kind of disastrous even if in areas of contested resources given you need as may people as possible dedicated to resource extraction and cultivation as possible over simple dedication to feats of arms.

I don't like my name anymore:

CaitSeith:

I don't like my name anymore:

Most people are potential murderers and rapists, and the only thing holding them back from acting on their perverse fantasies is the state.

Err... remember the state is made of people too. Or are you saying the state is free of murderers and rapists?

Most people includes people in the state. The state doesn't solve all violence, but it solves a large amount of it. States with high centralization are better than city states, feudal states, and warlord states, where some rich people are constantly conquering and chevauch?e-ing each other with their private armies.

How? State is just a bunch of people deciding what it's best for the rest. What does stop them from deciding to act on their perverse fantasies?

Chimpzy:

altnameJag:
"patting someone's head"

Wait, am I reading that right? There's really a button to 'rapidly grope'? Ok then ... that's subtle.

For the record, I think that's really funny, really stupid and really creepy, all at once.

I think "mickey mouse gloves" are really selling it to me.

CoCage:

The "anime was a mistake..." thing I hate and is generally taken out of context from Miyazaki words. Here and now, it's been a catch all phrase for people who have a strong distaste for certain shows or genres in the medium, or are blinded by nostalgia and think all anime from the Wild West era (80s, 90s, and some of the early 2000s) perfect with next to no flaws. It's bullshit and is use nothing more than to put others down for liking or disliking shows. People tend to forget that everything wasn't perfect back then, and the medium and business side of things had enormous amounts of problems, and still do till this day.

TBF... As someone who didn't really experience anime in the 90s(not on a "conscious" level atleast), it did look better in general than stuff nowadays. Something's been lost in switching to digital, for the most part, and they yet have to recover it.

MrCalavera:

Chimpzy:

altnameJag:
"patting someone's head"

Wait, am I reading that right? There's really a button to 'rapidly grope'? Ok then ... that's subtle.

For the record, I think that's really funny, really stupid and really creepy, all at once.

I think "mickey mouse gloves" are really selling it to me.

CoCage:

The "anime was a mistake..." thing I hate and is generally taken out of context from Miyazaki words. Here and now, it's been a catch all phrase for people who have a strong distaste for certain shows or genres in the medium, or are blinded by nostalgia and think all anime from the Wild West era (80s, 90s, and some of the early 2000s) perfect with next to no flaws. It's bullshit and is use nothing more than to put others down for liking or disliking shows. People tend to forget that everything wasn't perfect back then, and the medium and business side of things had enormous amounts of problems, and still do till this day.

TBF... As someone who didn't really experience anime in the 90s(not on a "conscious" level atleast), it did look better in general than stuff nowadays. Something's been lost in switching to digital, for the most part, and they yet have to recover it.

While there is truth to that, and I prefer the old-style; there were many of anime in the 90s where the animation was sub-par/mediocre, story or characters not that great, and baaaddddd voice acting. The voice acting for most anime did not start getting good until 1995/96, and even then, bad dubbing didn't full phase out until about 2009-2010. At this point in my life, I know what anime, new or old, interests me, but I won't be blinded by petty nostalgia, because X amount of people don't know about the old shows I watch. Nor am I going to hate on what's popular just to seem non-conformist (which is another form of conformity), cool, or "edgy".

Yes, the problem with modern anime is homogenization and appealing to Japanese otaku (look who's running the asylum), but there is diamond in the wades of shit. Which is not that much different from old era. The only difference is we know better (the old guard) or those that claim to. Whenever someone is new to anime, I don't tell them what to watch, but guide them, and let them figure out what works for them.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seriously, 1 in 5 people being actively murdered over 40,000+ years would lead to massive systemic problems in a world without antibiotics and antiseptics. Warfare is tragic and often lead to the wholesale slaughter of people anywhere in the globe, but 1 in 5 people everywhere in a given population over a period of generations, much less 40,000 years, would be unsustainable rates of human attrition.

My mistake, I didn't know what I was thinking, that's not per year. It's 1/5 of the Murngin dying violent deaths, and it's not from archeological digs. Upon googling, the Murngin (20 years late 19th century) had a rate of violent death of 330 per 100,000, and the Tiwi (1893-1903) had a rate of violent death of 160 per 100,000. However I have no idea who the Murngin or Tiwi were or what they were doing during that time.

image

Here is a nifty graph showing the rates of global death in conflicts. The one for only Greater Europe is very similar. Also, this includes all deaths, not just violent deaths. The wars of religion seems damning, but the extreme majority of the deaths in the Thirty Years War were civilian, and not from atrocities but from disease and starvation. Civilians ran off from approaching armies and left farms unworked, and for some reason the Swedes had a propensity of burning every village and town they came across.

Thank you for the long and informative post, but I am not convinced. Tribes don't fight battles frequently, but rely on ambushes and raids, which are extremely deadly and decisive. There are relatively peaceful aboriginal tribes, not that I know anything about them, and then there are those honorable and warlike headhunter and cannibal tribes.

CaitSeith:

I don't like my name anymore:

CaitSeith:

Err... remember the state is made of people too. Or are you saying the state is free of murderers and rapists?

Most people includes people in the state. The state doesn't solve all violence, but it solves a large amount of it. States with high centralization are better than city states, feudal states, and warlord states, where some rich people are constantly conquering and chevauch?e-ing each other with their private armies.

How? State is just a bunch of people deciding what it's best for the rest. What does stop them from deciding to act on their perverse fantasies?

By stopping their vassals from fighting each other and to use them to your benefit. Kings, emperors, caliphs, and sultans are really perverse megalomaniacs, but you don't want a hundred lesser lords trying to kill each other and steal each other's women.

MrCalavera:

TBF... As someone who didn't really experience anime in the 90s(not on a "conscious" level atleast), it did look better in general than stuff nowadays. Something's been lost in switching to digital, for the most part, and they yet have to recover it.

Back in the day we just didn't get the vast majority of shows while now we get all of them thanks to the internet. If you only released the same percentage nowadays as you did back in the 80s and 90s it'd mean you'd only release the best stuff so it'd feel as though anime got actually better cause there's a ton more good stuff coming out that just gets buried behind a few juggernauts like boku no hero academia and shingeki no kyoujin.

I personally grew up with 80s and 90s stuff and my fav art style is prolly the late 80s stuff (think the Macross Ai oboete imasu ka movie style) but it ultimately is all subjective opinion and there's no way of declaring one style "better" than another. Ultimately, if you have talented people drawing it'll always look amazing, like the new Trigger film which reunites the gurren lagann and kill la kill teams to create this concentrated dose of hype:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxUaUU4Heg

Dreiko:

MrCalavera:

TBF... As someone who didn't really experience anime in the 90s(not on a "conscious" level atleast), it did look better in general than stuff nowadays. Something's been lost in switching to digital, for the most part, and they yet have to recover it.

Back in the day we just didn't get the vast majority of shows while now we get all of them thanks to the internet. If you only released the same percentage nowadays as you did back in the 80s and 90s it'd mean you'd only release the best stuff so it'd feel as though anime got actually better cause there's a ton more good stuff coming out that just gets buried behind a few juggernauts like boku no hero academia and shingeki no kyoujin.

I personally grew up with 80s and 90s stuff and my fav art style is prolly the late 80s stuff (think the Macross Ai oboete imasu ka movie style) but it ultimately is all subjective opinion and there's no way of declaring one style "better" than another. Ultimately, if you have talented people drawing it'll always look amazing, like the new Trigger film which reunites the gurren lagann and kill la kill teams to create this concentrated dose of hype:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWxUaUU4Heg

A new anime from trigger? Sign me up! That is what I am talking about! Thanks for proving my point, Dreiko. I will definitely keep a lookout.

Dreiko:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Dreiko:

I'd take offense with the "or otherwise" part here personally. Think how it sounds when we say it about for example murder in games. The implication would be that people who like killing in videogames would need to be warned to not kill people in real life as though they'd not know not to do so already.

I'm pretty sure people can tell games from reality and that well adjusted people can enjoy doing things in games they'd never do in reality, even if those things are not just killing people or stealing cars.

It's a fair point you make, on principle I have to agree.
In this case though my honest advise is to not do it in video games, for your own mental health sake and integrity (I acknowledge that you harm perfectly no entity beside potentially yourself while playing games and so if you are an adult it's your business what you do I am not going to judge you). On the other hand if you would try to do that in reality... well description of what I wish to such person is likely to get me banned.

Yeah see, again, if you also try to murder someone in reality that is also befitting of such a description.

If you say "don't kill in games cause that desensitizes you to murder and makes you more likely to feel ok about murdering someone in real life" you'd sound like a mid-90s religious nut trying to ban perfectly harmless videogames.

I think people seem to think that whoever can have fun with such a game is someone who is secretly wishing to enact it in real life but those same people recognize that people who enjoy games in which you kill people are not secret psychos fantasizing about enacting murder in real life who are getting their murder-fix in games but are just normal people having normal fun, which is a mental disconnect that I can't avoid being annoyed by with regards to this topic.

You can't hold both positions at the same time, and since the question about games causing violence is pretty much settled, I'd extend it to all other forms of lawbreaking enacted in gaming too.

Ultimately, what is really happening here is some people (not talking about you specifically but a general climate) are uncomfortable that other people are enjoying something that they find offensive on some level and can't mind their own business but have to bother them, which causes friction for no reason.

Umm I'll bold few parts for you that I ask you to read again.

Now, are you trying to argue against me admitting you are right?
Or, against my personal advise/opinion on the particular subject?

You know, someone advising against consuming media != someone arguing for restricting creation of such media, i.e. by law. I frequently advice my wife to stop watching tv shows with 'celebrities' put in 'ordinary or extraordinary circumstances'... (following strict, 'natural&funny' script for dumb audience to gawk and gossip about on social media afterwards), for exact same reasons I gave in case of themes in games that were mentioned here.
Doesn't mean I would be for banning creation of these or condemning people that enjoy it. Just result of consuming it is either zero or negative on personal level. Thus my opinion, thus my advise.

Cheers.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Dreiko:

Jamcie Kerbizz:
It's a fair point you make, on principle I have to agree.
In this case though my honest advise is to not do it in video games, for your own mental health sake and integrity (I acknowledge that you harm perfectly no entity beside potentially yourself while playing games and so if you are an adult it's your business what you do I am not going to judge you). On the other hand if you would try to do that in reality... well description of what I wish to such person is likely to get me banned.

Yeah see, again, if you also try to murder someone in reality that is also befitting of such a description.

If you say "don't kill in games cause that desensitizes you to murder and makes you more likely to feel ok about murdering someone in real life" you'd sound like a mid-90s religious nut trying to ban perfectly harmless videogames.

I think people seem to think that whoever can have fun with such a game is someone who is secretly wishing to enact it in real life but those same people recognize that people who enjoy games in which you kill people are not secret psychos fantasizing about enacting murder in real life who are getting their murder-fix in games but are just normal people having normal fun, which is a mental disconnect that I can't avoid being annoyed by with regards to this topic.

You can't hold both positions at the same time, and since the question about games causing violence is pretty much settled, I'd extend it to all other forms of lawbreaking enacted in gaming too.

Ultimately, what is really happening here is some people (not talking about you specifically but a general climate) are uncomfortable that other people are enjoying something that they find offensive on some level and can't mind their own business but have to bother them, which causes friction for no reason.

Umm I'll bold few parts for you that I ask you to read again.

Now, are you trying to argue against me admitting you are right?
Or, against my personal advise/opinion on the particular subject?

You know, someone advising against consuming media != someone arguing for restricting creation of such media, i.e. by law. I frequently advice my wife to stop watching tv shows with 'celebrities' put in 'ordinary or extraordinary circumstances'... (following strict, 'natural&funny' script for dumb audience to gawk and gossip about on social media afterwards), for exact same reasons I gave in case of themes in games that were mentioned here.
Doesn't mean I would be for banning creation of these or condemning people that enjoy it. Just result of consuming it is either zero or negative on personal level. Thus my opinion, thus my advise.

Cheers.

I was fundamentally arguing against the basis for your advice by explaining how if you were to ascribe a similar line of thought in media that contains violence and reach the mirrored conclusion of violent media causing people's mental health to deteriorate, you'd sound an awful lot like some people we've long concluded were actually wrong, despite it being their opinion.

In a topic about features removed, saying "these features are bad for you by the way" does come off as at the very least tacit support of their removal, so while you can technically draw a line between saying that something should be advised against vs something should be banned, that line is blurred to the point of invisibility when the subject in question something that would hypothetically cause the sexual abuse of minors in real life were you to be correct. It's quite more severe than just watching a dumb reality show and while people may be willing to look past such a show's supposed ill effects like how they do with alcohol consumption or smoking by chalking it up to personal freedoms, they would definitely not do so in this case here, necessitating my response in refutation of the basis of your advice.

Dreiko,
I can not argue with Your feelings and far reaching interpretation of my words.
My stance is clearly laid out. I stood by it, ie. being against 'sanitizing' FE for west markets.
That's all.

Well the next Persona game is going to be neutered.

That's pretty salty alright.

Maybe a timeskip so that all of the characters you want to fondle aren't still in high school is in order?

Seriously, it'd be easier for me to buy a "Censorship is bad" argument if we start talking about groping characters that are old enough to drive.

(Never mind that games getting localized to Japan can expect to have violence toned down, scenes where you manipulate dead bodies removed, and generally being touchy around nukes. It's a two way street)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here