Sony implements new policy censoring Japanese games for possible fanservice content

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

CritialGaming:

CaitSeith:

CritialGaming:

So you only play games that only involve things you could legally do IRL? Because surely those are the only kinds of games you'd WANT to play right?

Since when shooting nazis in real life is legal?

It was during WW2 I guess.

I'm more trying to point out the flaw in the logic.

And I was pointing out the flaw of confusing morals with legality. Or has all of this been provoked by a change in the legal system of Japan regarding under-age sexual content?

CaitSeith:

CritialGaming:

CaitSeith:

Since when shooting nazis in real life is legal?

It was during WW2 I guess.

I'm more trying to point out the flaw in the logic.

And I was pointing out the flaw of confusing morals with legality. Or has all of this been provoked by a change in the legal system of Japan regarding under-age sexual content?

Lord only knows. For some reason it's dramatically important for artistic expression that the character you're ogling be a petite (or busty) 16 year old in high school instead of a petite (or busty) 19 year old in college.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm at that age where anybody under 24 is a goddamned child.

altnameJag:

CaitSeith:

CritialGaming:

It was during WW2 I guess.

I'm more trying to point out the flaw in the logic.

And I was pointing out the flaw of confusing morals with legality. Or has all of this been provoked by a change in the legal system of Japan regarding under-age sexual content?

Lord only knows. For some reason it's dramatically important for artistic expression that the character you're ogling be a petite (or busty) 16 year old in high school instead of a petite (or busty) 19 year old in college.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm at that age where anybody under 24 is a goddamned child.

What's important is not any specific age but rather whatever age the creator of the game chose to have the char be at, for them to be that age. If a char is 16, they're 16, if they're 19, they're 19. It's fiction so there's no right or wrong here. What your recourse here is, is to express your like or dislike of the content and use it to base your opinion on the game on. Basically, you are fully within reason to say that you disliked this game cause it had that content and nobody reasonable will tell you you can't do that. You just don't get to pretend you're more moral cause your fictional make belief would be less illegal if it were to be enacted in real life than someone else's, cause that's a ridiculous standard of judgement.

Also, you have people who complain about chars being of age but not acting/looking of age anyways (what you call a petite 19 year old, someone looking to find problems will call a child), so even if you did say that the char is 19 you still would have people complaining anyways.

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.

Sloths are only held back by their ridiculously unintuituve digestive system. They subsist entirely on leaves and end up having barely any energy with which to move, and they can't even defecate while climbing a tree, meaning they have to give up their only defense and go down to the ground to do so once a week. Birds of prey often leave sloths alive just so they can use them as target practice when teaching their children to hunt

CritialGaming:

CoCage:

Extra Note - I am surprised Critical Gaming is not all over this yet.

Why has thou summoned me?

What stance did you expect me to take on this? You want me to fight for..girl petting or whatever the fuck is in these games they are censoring out? Should I explain that they only look like children but are actually 350 year old extra-plannar demons?

Because I am not gonna do that.

The West is a prudish market, sex and nudity are not okay. Blowing someone's head off with a shotgun is perfectly fine, but don't you dare show a penis! You can render blood and gore in as graphic detail as you like, but vaginas are just toooooooo gross to look at.

Honestly if they just stopped with the lolicon bullshit, I don't really see why they should sensor anything or cut content from the game at all. Hell maybe a better idea would be simply to change the mechanic to something more suitable rather than cut the content completely.

Like instead of petting girls in FE:Fates, what if they moved the system into some other form of content that esstentially does the same thing for the player in terms of in-game bonuses. Maybe you could find items on the battlefield during missions that you can give to your "girls" to increase how loyal they are to you, rather that petting them like animals.

I think the challenge isn't to sensor these games, but instead change the content into something that doesn't NEED to be sensored.

Although I'd be lying if there wasn't an argument to be made that developers should be able to make whatever they want in their games. If a publishing company and a buying public support it to justify making more things like it, then what's the harm?

We have fought tooth and nail that violence in video games doesn't make you a violent person, so why is groping virtual girls different?

Considering you were going nuts over the supposed self-censorship of DOA6, which didn't happen, I thought you would put some of your thoughts immediately on the matter.

CritialGaming:

Also context matters. This whole loli-con thing or whatever the fuck they call it, usually refers to of-age women who appear younger.

Yeah, no offense, this sounds like a workaround to say "See! I'm totally not attracted to children! I know she looks like a child, acts like a child, and people generally treat her like a child, but she's actually 10,000 years old, so it's ok!" Ignoring the fact that emotionally immaturity of children is a big part of why it's considered so icky.

CritialGaming:

Even if for the sake of the extreme argument that a person enjoying themselves molesting digital children is suppressing some dark desire to molest real kids, wouldn't you feel better knowing that they are satisfying themselves with harmless pixels and not real people?

Arguably, yes. Still, I don't blame Sony for not wanting to be seen as the place where people who have a thing for underage girls get their rocks off.

erttheking:

CritialGaming:

Also context matters. This whole loli-con thing or whatever the fuck they call it, usually refers to of-age women who appear younger.

Yeah, no offense, this sounds like a workaround to say "See! I'm totally not attracted to children! I know she looks like a child, acts like a child, and people generally treat her like a child, but she's actually 10,000 years old, so it's ok!" Ignoring the fact that emotionally immaturity of children is a big part of why it's considered so icky.

CritialGaming:

Even if for the sake of the extreme argument that a person enjoying themselves molesting digital children is suppressing some dark desire to molest real kids, wouldn't you feel better knowing that they are satisfying themselves with harmless pixels and not real people?

Arguably, yes. Still, I don't blame Sony for not wanting to be seen as the place where people who have a thing for underage girls get their rocks off.

Actually I think the fact that these characters are 10,000 years old is a requirement for people to actually enjoy the loli thing. Like I think they like the young looking girls (though they are fucking anime girls and dont resemble actual children in any way really) but they need that character to be "of age" otherwise they don't do it. Nowhere in any of that material (that I know of and I honestly don't know much) are these characters officially kids. Even the fans of loli know that the kid thing is wrong and they need that age justification to validate it. They don't actually create content with underage characters.

I guess the point is that even the loli-con stuff has RULES that they follow. It isn't the wild wild west of sexual fetishes out here.

erttheking:

Yeah, no offense, this sounds like a workaround to say "See! I'm totally not attracted to children! I know she looks like a child, acts like a child, and people generally treat her like a child, but she's actually 10,000 years old, so it's ok!" Ignoring the fact that emotionally immaturity of children is a big part of why it's considered so icky.

I don't think most people who complain take the time to make a distinction between the 10000 year old that acts like it is 10000 years old and just looks young and the one that actually acts like a kid. Most people just look at the appearance and don't bother delving into the story long enough to ascertain the char's traits and just find it icky as a reflex. Either that or they are too ignorant to acknowledge the existence of chars like Shinobu from the monogatari series or Mina Tepes from dance in the vampire bund and so on and rely on meme knowledge.

It's an interesting analysis figuring out how many of those 10000 year olds behave like actual 10000 year olds but from my experience the ratio of them being childish vs being overly mature is something absurd like 1 childish for every 100 overly mature style characters. The char archetype in Japanese is called loli-baba which literally means loli-granny lol, since most of these chars use speech idioms that old people use and have mentoring roles.

Specter Von Baren:
New news on this I saw on N4G.

https://www.psu.com/news/japanese-playstation-games-face-stricter-censorship-worldwide-report/

Apparently this is turning into a worldwide edict by Sony to do this for all consoles around the world. As in, the standards of American media is being enforced on games in other countries.

okay. why is this inherently a bad thing? why is the standards of America being enforced on games in other countries a bad thing? is it just because it's one country forcing its value system onto another?

Dreiko:
Snip

I hope you're not trying to shame me for it. "Oh they act like they're 10,000 year olds, they just LOOK like they're ten" is very much the lesser of two evils in this situation, and not by a massive margin.

CritialGaming:

Actually I think the fact that these characters are 10,000 years old is a requirement for people to actually enjoy the loli thing. Like I think they like the young looking girls (though they are fucking anime girls and dont resemble actual children in any way really) but they need that character to be "of age" otherwise they don't do it. Nowhere in any of that material (that I know of and I honestly don't know much) are these characters officially kids. Even the fans of loli know that the kid thing is wrong and they need that age justification to validate it. They don't actually create content with underage characters.

I guess the point is that even the loli-con stuff has RULES that they follow. It isn't the wild wild west of sexual fetishes out here.

Ehhhhhhh, well I have no doubt that there are some people who get their rocks off to this in this specific way, (loli-baba is apparently a term) I have a hard time swallowing that the 10,000 year thing is a necessary part of the fantasy for most consumers of the genre. They're not officially kids? Well, like I said, it feels like a workaround.

erttheking:

Ehhhhhhh, well I have no doubt that there are some people who get their rocks off to this in this specific way, (loli-baba is apparently a term) I have a hard time swallowing that the 10,000 year thing is a necessary part of the fantasy for most consumers of the genre. They're not officially kids? Well, like I said, it feels like a workaround.

Well like I said context matters. The N-word isn't a word you should say unless you are black apparently, which is a work-around isn't it? At least technically.

Be happy these loli-fans at least need the context of the character being of age, morality of the thing might be thin but at least it is there.

erttheking:
Ehhhhhhh, well I have no doubt that there are some people who get their rocks off to this in this specific way, (loli-baba is apparently a term) I have a hard time swallowing that the 10,000 year thing is a necessary part of the fantasy for most consumers of the genre. They're not officially kids? Well, like I said, it feels like a workaround.

Plus it's such a hilarious overcompensation I've no idea how anybody could take it seriously. "Oh yeah, well, like... she's ten thousand years old, dude, so hah! You got nothing on me! She's the oldest most wisest eva waifu that I want to stroke because she's so old and so wise, and that's what you do with very old and very wise people, you stroke them sensually, but only if they looks like sexualized toddlers of course."
And why is it always the self-described 'hardcore' gamers that are obsessed with these particular hills? The ones that lose their shit over the idea that their hardcore games can be made more accessible for others? Such as children?

Xsjadoblayde:

And why is it always the self-described 'hardcore' gamers that are obsessed with these particular hills? The ones that lose their shit over the idea that their hardcore games can be made more accessible for others? Such as children?

My only stance on that point is that I like games having target audiences. I don't think every game should appeal to everybody and when a game establishes a fanbase I don't think the wise move is to change the game just to try and tap into another audience. Like imagine if Starcraft 3 is a fighting game. I don't think the RTS fans would be happy about that and I don't think "Well fighting game players will like it" is a good excuse.

When you try to please everybody, you please nobody.

As a competitive fighting game player, I assure you nobody in the fighting game community wants a starcraft fighter...which means that due to current Blizzard being Blizzard, one may be being developed as we speak! Only time will tell lmao.

erttheking:

I hope you're not trying to shame me for it. "Oh they act like they're 10,000 year olds, they just LOOK like they're ten" is very much the lesser of two evils in this situation, and not by a massive margin.

No I'm just showing you how you can't ever appease people who want to find something to take issue with. They will always find something to complain about so might as well say that everything's ok and be done with it cause it's fiction.

But yeah, when a char is actually of age and just looks young, in the vast majority of cases they tend to behave their age. The thing with it is, someone forming an opinion based on memes you read online and based on other people's opinions (that are also based on memes) won't ever reach a point of having this information, as you can't include complex backstory that makes char settings feel meaningful (and not just a creepy handwavey excuse, which is what some people make it sound every char is like) in the confines of an online meme.

CritialGaming:

erttheking:

Ehhhhhhh, well I have no doubt that there are some people who get their rocks off to this in this specific way, (loli-baba is apparently a term) I have a hard time swallowing that the 10,000 year thing is a necessary part of the fantasy for most consumers of the genre. They're not officially kids? Well, like I said, it feels like a workaround.

Well like I said context matters. The N-word isn't a word you should say unless you are black apparently, which is a work-around isn't it? At least technically.

Be happy these loli-fans at least need the context of the character being of age, morality of the thing might be thin but at least it is there.

The two situations are so apples and oranges that I have no idea where to even start.

Saying they "need" it is assuming quite a fair bit.

Dreiko:
As a competitive fighting game player, I assure you nobody in the fighting game community wants a starcraft fighter...which means that due to current Blizzard being Blizzard, one may be being developed as we speak! Only time will tell lmao.

erttheking:

I hope you're not trying to shame me for it. "Oh they act like they're 10,000 year olds, they just LOOK like they're ten" is very much the lesser of two evils in this situation, and not by a massive margin.

No I'm just showing you how you can't ever appease people who want to find something to take issue with. They will always find something to complain about so might as well say that everything's ok and be done with it cause it's fiction.

But yeah, when a char is actually of age and just looks young, in the vast majority of cases they tend to behave their age. The thing with it is, someone forming an opinion based on memes you read online and based on other people's opinions (that are also based on memes) won't ever reach a point of having this information, as you can't include complex backstory that makes char settings feel meaningful (and not just a creepy handwavey excuse, which is what some people make it sound every char is like) in the confines of an online meme.

You word it like people are looking for an excuse to be offended. Also you're more or less implying you should ignore criticism and just do what you want. As an author who just threw out 16,000 words because feedback made me feel I could do better, (and I had plenty of people who liked them) I don't care for that mindset.

Dude, I did not get this from memes. I've seen it in my preferred form of entertainment, in one of my favorite games of recent years in fact (Fire Emblem Awakening) and it was creepy. Complex backstory's don't change jack shit when a character is meant to be "it's totally not pedohilia" wank material. Now if they have underage looking characters that aren't sexualized, directly or indirectly? Fine. But when they are sexualized, I'm gonna call it out on being creepy.

I think you tried to prempt what I was going to say without really understanding where I'm coming from.

erttheking:

You word it like people are looking for an excuse to be offended. Also you're more or less implying you should ignore criticism and just do what you want. As an author who just threw out 16,000 words because feedback made me feel I could do better, (and I had plenty of people who liked them) I don't care for that mindset.

Dude, I did not get this from memes. I've seen it in my preferred form of entertainment, in one of my favorite games of recent years in fact (Fire Emblem Awakening) and it was creepy. Complex backstory's don't change jack shit when a character is meant to be "it's totally not pedohilia" wank material. Now if they have underage looking characters that aren't sexualized, directly or indirectly? Fine. But when they are sexualized, I'm gonna call it out on being creepy.

I think you tried to prempt what I was going to say without really understanding where I'm coming from.

There is the type of person who never earnestly endeavors to genuinely like something if they see it has a specimen of a category of thing they tend to dislike. I think it's more rational to just judge each iteration on its merits and leave the window of being surprised open just in case. The problem comes when you attach moral significance to disliking something to the point where you derive some form of gratification through the act of condemning something, which can rob you of potentially great experiences.

I'm not really speaking about people creating the works as much as those enjoying them. If you're creating work then you need feedback but if you're just enjoying something whether other people hate it shouldn't matter if you truly love it. In fact, it is a huge character flaw in my eyes to substitute other people's opinions for your own despite you disagreeing with them. Acting as though you dislike something you like cause it's popular to dislike it is in a word a betrayal, both of that thing and of you yourself. You debase yourself and your self-worth every time you do it. So in that context, yes, people shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, since they themselves are the ones experiencing the content. It is that uniquely personal to them experience that ought to be the foundation for their view of the work. Also it is their responsibility to know when they don't know enough to be able to opine about something, and in such case they ought to refrain from opining. Oh and I wasn't really speaking about you here so don't take it personal. It's more of a general point. Nowi wasn't a particularly great example of backstory anyhow lol. (though Tiki I loved haha)

Dreiko:

altnameJag:

CaitSeith:

And I was pointing out the flaw of confusing morals with legality. Or has all of this been provoked by a change in the legal system of Japan regarding under-age sexual content?

Lord only knows. For some reason it's dramatically important for artistic expression that the character you're ogling be a petite (or busty) 16 year old in high school instead of a petite (or busty) 19 year old in college.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm at that age where anybody under 24 is a goddamned child.

What's important is not any specific age but rather whatever age the creator of the game chose to have the char be at, for them to be that age.

It's a fictional character, whose age is a mere footnote compared on how consistent her looks is to an underage kid. If that's her persistent visual and behavior, no amount of author's intent can change that.

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:

altnameJag:
Lord only knows. For some reason it's dramatically important for artistic expression that the character you're ogling be a petite (or busty) 16 year old in high school instead of a petite (or busty) 19 year old in college.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm at that age where anybody under 24 is a goddamned child.

What's important is not any specific age but rather whatever age the creator of the game chose to have the char be at, for them to be that age.

It's a fictional character, whose age is a mere footnote compared on how consistent her looks is to an underage kid. If that's her persistent visual and behavior, no amount of author's intent can change that.

This line of thought is one that is applied unevenly. Namely; when you have someone who behaves maturely and looks adult but is arbitrarily young, then it's creepy sexualized minors by drawing them with double Ds and adult outfits, whereas when you have the reverse of a young looking arbitrarily old aged character, then it's also creepy cause it's clearly a kid. On one hand you get accused of getting off on the knowledge of them being underage and on the other hand on their actual appearance, and while one I guess is less bad than the other neither is all that great.

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

Also, and this is really really really important; a char's footnote age is 100% just as real as their behavior and look and everything else about them. Literally, exactly as real. Cause it's all fiction.

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

wait what if it's both? what if both matter? what if their fictional age and mannerisms + looks matter? like I don't see how those are exclusive.

Bombiz:

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

wait what if it's both? what if both matter? what if their fictional age and mannerisms + looks matter? like I don't see how those are exclusive.

I think you need to examine what you mean when you say age matters in this context. What you're saying is that it is a criteria that we use to judge ones capacity to legally consent (in a fictional context) and if we have such a system in place it makes no sense to add extra appearance/behavior-based criteria. Being short or immature doesn't somehow make an adult a child.

The only way to not have those things be contradictory is to tier their significance, as in, to deem looks as more important than age, but to also consider age as important too or something weird like that, but that's just illogical, cause it's all equally 100% fictional and any tiering we put on it is artificial.

Dreiko:

Bombiz:

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

wait what if it's both? what if both matter? what if their fictional age and mannerisms + looks matter? like I don't see how those are exclusive.

I think you need to examine what you mean when you say age matters in this context. What you're saying is that it is a criteria that we use to judge ones capacity to legally consent (in a fictional context) and if we have such a system in place it makes no sense to add extra appearance/behavior-based criteria. Being short or immature doesn't somehow make an adult a child.

The only way to not have those things be contradictory is to tier their significance, as in, to deem looks as more important than age, but to also consider age as important too or something weird like that, but that's just illogical, cause it's all equally 100% fictional and any tiering we put on it is artificial.

Well I mean it's more that just that. it's also the age where on average the person won't die from physical intercors and the age where puberty hits. like the age thing has some basis in the physical.
like the exact age might be very hard to determine (16, 17, 18...etc) but there's an age where you just physical can't have sex with them. at the same time the age usually determines the looks+mannerisms. which is why I think they bother matter
Also being immature does make an adult a child. not physical but mentally.

the whole issue with consent is really iffy since almost every country has it at a different age and even in US where it's around 18 or 16 that could be considered too low since you're not always a fully developed human by then. the consent thing has a lot to with the way the person acts along with how old they are and what life experiences they had.

Anyways I don't think you actually want to argue consent stuff so instead wanna ask you about these quotes

Dreiko:

You have to go into fiction thinking it's fiction and that it has no implications beyond that or you're doing it wrong.

Dreiko:

It's fiction so there's no right or wrong here.

these feel like bad takes. I need you to expand on them. otherwise it seems like people shouldn't really bother with fiction. cause after all it's just fiction. why should they care about what happens to any of the characters? it's all fiction after all and doesn't have any implications

Dreiko:

It's always ok to do anything in fiction cause it's fiction

this also doesn't feel like a good take for the same reasons as well as it completely throws out/destroys the message of games like Spec ops the line and Undertale or movies like Funny Games. also feels like

Dreiko:

I don't think it's a stretch to say that if a game was acceptable to publish half a year ago it still should be and that by forcing devs to make patches weeks before the release date under the threat of their games not being released at all any more you're strangling artistic expression and such a statement isn't somehow an argument for no standards in console stores.

uhh idk about that. it would depend on the people host it. their could've been a shift in management or maybe the current management had a change of heart as to what they would like on their platform. And I don't think it's "strangling artistic freedom" if Sony doesn't want to host that type of content on their platform. it's their platform. they can do with it whatever they want.

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

What matters is if the side that makes you feel attracted to her is the infantilized one. If it isn't, then the rational question is: why does her need to be infantilized?

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

What matters is if the side that makes you feel attracted to her is the infantilized one. If it isn't, then the rational question is: why does her need to be infantilized?

^ That beautifully sums it up.

It's important to take a critical look at exactly what you find attractive.

If I always choose smart blonde women, then I have to approach both aspects. Which one is the primary draw? I have yet to encounter people who say they are attracted to loli's because they are 10,000 years old. Do you find grandmothers attractive?

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:

Either their mannerisms and look matters or their fictional age matters. Until there's a consistent approach you can never really conclude this argument because the moment you do somebody who holds the opposite view will begin attacking you for that discrepancy and if you agree with them then you're back to square 1.

What matters is if the side that makes you feel attracted to her is the infantilized one. If it isn't, then the rational question is: why does her need to be infantilized?

It's cause it's part of the character. If someone has blue eyes, they have blue eyes. When you turn them into someone with brown eyes, that's not the same person any more, and you don't have to be someone who has a thing for blue eyes to feel this way. Unless you have a canon explanation for the change it will always be a corruption of the original that reduces the believability of the world.

It's like with the age thing. Nobody needs to be infantalized nor do I see any value in that trait, but if someone who I happen to like for whatever reason is infantalized, then that is who they are, so at that point when you take that out it's not the same character any more. In a sense it's purism and wanting to experience the original vision of a work. It's one of those neutral things that you don't really care about being there or not as long as the char's other traits are interesting. I think people are a little hysterical about people actually being into the infantalization when that's probably an infinitesimal amount of the fans.

Bombiz:

these feel like bad takes. I need you to expand on them. otherwise it seems like people shouldn't really bother with fiction. cause after all it's just fiction. why should they care about what happens to any of the characters? it's all fiction after all and doesn't have any implications

Fiction is there to make you experience things you can't experience in reality. The value is to be found in its fictional nature, proportional to how removed it is from reality. The less it has to do with reality, the more removed it is, the less it can affect reality, the more value it has, because you're experiencing something that's that much harder to ever be experienced in real life. It may sound paradoxical but it is a sort of novelty that fiction has, one that shines brighter the more it fades away.

You just have to know the rules and not get lost in it, you have to keep in mind just how not real fiction is. When you derive satisfaction out of acknowledging how not real fiction is, that is a sure-fire way of being grounded in the real world, and that helps you keep a balanced view and not be adversely affected by any fear-mongered ail that supposedly befalls those who partake in X type of medium (it used to be DnD and rock music and now it's games and it'll be something else in the future...maybe dubstep!)

Ideally, the best way to experience fiction is as though it has all the implications in the world within the confines of the fictional world and no implications at all in real life. Games that achieve a high level of immersion are good at providing you with that feeling for example.

uhh idk about that. it would depend on the people host it. their could've been a shift in management or maybe the current management had a change of heart as to what they would like on their platform. And I don't think it's "strangling artistic freedom" if Sony doesn't want to host that type of content on their platform. it's their platform. they can do with it whatever they want.

Thing is, they are gonna still host that content, this is only affecting new games. Sony isn't going around and pulling down their dozens of games with similar content that's already out on sale, so it's not as though they have any firmly held beliefs on the matter. And I think a reasonable approach would have been to let those approved games get made and just not approve new games unless it was understood that they would have to follow the new policies to begin with.

Dreiko:

Thing is, they are gonna still host that content, this is only affecting new games. Sony isn't going around and pulling down their dozens of games with similar content that's already out on sale, so it's not as though they have any firmly held beliefs on the matter. And I think a reasonable approach would have been to let those approved games get made and just not approve new games unless it was understood that they would have to follow the new policies to begin with.

none of this suggests "strangling artistic freedom" though. just that they practice bad business or are incompetent or hypocrisy.

Dreiko:

Fiction is there to make you experience things you can't experience in reality. The value is to be found in its fictional nature, proportional to how removed it is from reality. The less it has to do with reality, the more removed it is, the less it can affect reality, the more value it has, because you're experiencing something that's that much harder to ever be experienced in real life. It may sound paradoxical but it is a sort of novelty that fiction has, one that shines brighter the more it fades away.

You just have to know the rules and not get lost in it, you have to keep in mind just how not real fiction is. When you derive satisfaction out of acknowledging how not real fiction is, that is a sure-fire way of being grounded in the real world, and that helps you keep a balanced view and not be adversely affected by any fear-mongered ail that supposedly befalls those who partake in X type of medium (it used to be DnD and rock music and now it's games and it'll be something else in the future...maybe dubstep!)

Ideally, the best way to experience fiction is as though it has all the implications in the world within the confines of the fictional world and no implications at all in real life. Games that achieve a high level of immersion are good at providing you with that feeling for example.

I just disagree with this take on fiction then. it seems to assume that you can't learn anything from fiction since it's all made up. and the more made up it is the more "value" it has. Anda again by this system games like undertale and Spec Ops the line or movies like Funny Games would be almost valueless. Or even military sims like Arma or movies like master and commander.

Actually now I'm starting to wonder if Lord of the Rings would also be considered less valuable since a lot of it was based on real world myths and cultures and Tolkins experiences in WW1. Though I guess it's fantastical enough to get a pass.

the other thing I see is that it seems like you think people can't take messages away from fiction that can affect their real life or that if a piece of fictional work would give a message that could affect someone IRL that the work is inherently valueless. like Lord of the Rings would be valueless since his message with the hobbits was to show that even ordinary people living boring lives can do incredible things. Cause after all the best way to experience fiction is to act like the implication only exist with in that world and has "no implications at all in real life".

Dreiko:
In a sense it's purism and wanting to experience the original vision of a work.

As much of a validity that argument has, in reality the original vision frequently isn't the best vision. Economic, legal, technological, business and time limitations aside; the authors have to consider if their original vision actually convey their original intent. If the original vision ends up looking like a child-molester simulator with a token story (because, like porn, everyone expects it to be there) and the rest of the game being a skinner-box with the teen-tits fondling being the unlockable reward; it won't be the audience fault if the original intent is missed.

The point is: original visions usually suck.

Bombiz:

Specter Von Baren:
New news on this I saw on N4G.

https://www.psu.com/news/japanese-playstation-games-face-stricter-censorship-worldwide-report/

Apparently this is turning into a worldwide edict by Sony to do this for all consoles around the world. As in, the standards of American media is being enforced on games in other countries.

okay. why is this inherently a bad thing? why is the standards of America being enforced on games in other countries a bad thing? is it just because it's one country forcing its value system onto another?

It's annoying seeing murica control everything, when it can't even control its own government.

Marik2:

Bombiz:

Specter Von Baren:
New news on this I saw on N4G.

https://www.psu.com/news/japanese-playstation-games-face-stricter-censorship-worldwide-report/

Apparently this is turning into a worldwide edict by Sony to do this for all consoles around the world. As in, the standards of American media is being enforced on games in other countries.

okay. why is this inherently a bad thing? why is the standards of America being enforced on games in other countries a bad thing? is it just because it's one country forcing its value system onto another?

It's annoying seeing murica control everything, when it can't even control its own government.

I mean that's it's government not it's values/standards. which can be enforced with out the government. also doesn't tell me why it's wrong to push american values onto games in other countries.

I will keep this short cause that's super off topic but it's not as much that you can't learn from fiction as it is that fiction isn't there to teach you things as much as just to show you them. You can definitely glean wisdom from it as well as learn various things but those are all tangential things you pick up and not the actual purpose of fiction. There's literally nothing that you can't use to learn some type of lesson in life. Thing is, all these things are entirely based on the eyes of the beholder and whatever they come into the work with so you can't really make a broad judgement about it in a strict manner like "Harry Potter teaches you about courage!". Well, I'm sure it does to some people, but it probably also teaches a million other things to a million other people too. At this point we're kinda broaching the metaphysics of fiction and it's gonna go super off topic though lol.

But yeah, the moment fiction is trying to actively push a message in an intentional way, it ceases to be fiction and becomes at best an educational work and at worst propaganda. Few things turn me off more than to notice art trying to push some type of lesson or ideology that conflicts with its story and makes no sense being there. For example there's this fun adventure book series for kids/teens called Ranger and in one of the books the hero is trapped in a slaver compound forced to do work and he has to take this drug to survive the work which is a very clear reference to weed and it's just so very over the top in your face fearmongering about weed that it just cheapened every aspect that it touched into a "just say no" infomercial in an otherwise very fun series that I love.

CaitSeith:

Dreiko:
In a sense it's purism and wanting to experience the original vision of a work.

As much of a validity that argument has, in reality the original vision frequently isn't the best vision. Economic, legal, technological, business and time limitations aside; the authors have to consider if their original vision actually convey their original intent. If the original vision ends up looking like a child-molester simulator with a token story (because, like porn, everyone expects it to be there) and the rest of the game being a skinner-box with the teen-tits fondling being the unlockable reward; it won't be the audience fault if the original intent is missed.

The point is: original visions usually suck.

Art is a product of it's time in the end. Whether people miss it's meaning due to the passage of time or not isn't really it's fault. In a sense it's kind of the natural way art evolves as it ages. You will always have purists and people seeking to modernize things for a fresh audience. I think both serve a useful function but I myself feel strongly attached to the worlds and stories I like so I can't help but land strictly within the purist side is all. It's not about whether the work is the "best" or not, I really don't think in those terms. It's about whether it still is itself or not.

Dreiko:

I will keep this short cause that's super off topic

okay so first of all this isn't that off topic. it relates directly to what we're talking about. if you think fiction can't teach you things or that it's only their to show stuff then we're obviously gonna disagree about the loli thing.

Dreiko:

but it's not as much that you can't learn from fiction as it is that fiction isn't there to teach you things as much as just to show you them.

I just disagree. hell by showing you it is teaching.

Dreiko:

You can definitely glean wisdom from it as well as learn various things but those are all tangential things you pick up and not the actual purpose of fiction.

wtf. how can you even say this? there is no purpose to fiction just as there isn't any purpose to reality. the only purpose is the one given by the reader and the one given by the author. so to say that gaining wisdom from fiction is tangential is beyond missing the point. this is like saying gaining wisdom from myth is tangential its purpose. it's just wrong. (myth is fiction)

Dreiko:

There's literally nothing that you can't use to learn some type of lesson in life.

so? I don't see how this is/. relevant. humans learn best from being told stories.

Dreiko:

Thing is, all these things are entirely based on the eyes of the beholder and whatever they come into the work with so you can't really make a broad judgement about it in a strict manner like "Harry Potter teaches you about courage!".

okay. but you can make arguments for it with examples from the work to back up what you're saying. everything is subjective true but you need evidence to backup your claims. so in a sense we can make a broad judgement about harry potter in a strict manner like saying it teaches you about courage.

Dreiko:

But yeah, the moment fiction is trying to actively push a message in an intentional way, it ceases to be fiction and becomes at best an educational work and at worst propaganda.

then lord of the rings is either educational or propaganda. cause I'm 99% sure it was trying to push a message.

Dreiko:

Few things turn me off more than to notice art trying to push some type of lesson or ideology that conflicts with its story and makes no sense being there.

okay so already you disagree with you own point. you don't mind a piece of fiction pushing a some type of lesson or ideology, just as long as it doesn't conflict with the story or doesn't make sense being their.

Dreiko:

For example there's this fun adventure book series for kids/teens called Ranger and in one of the books the hero is trapped in a slaver compound forced to do work and he has to take this drug to survive the work which is a very clear reference to weed and it's just so very over the top in your face fearmongering about weed that it just cheapened every aspect that it touched into a "just say no" infomercial in an otherwise very fun series that I love.

so I'm just gonna trust what you're saying about Ranger is true. did that message conflict with the story or not make sense being there?

Bombiz:

Marik2:

Bombiz:

okay. why is this inherently a bad thing? why is the standards of America being enforced on games in other countries a bad thing? is it just because it's one country forcing its value system onto another?

It's annoying seeing murica control everything, when it can't even control its own government.

I mean that's it's government not it's values/standards. which can be enforced with out the government. also doesn't tell me why it's wrong to push american values onto games in other countries.

Well...would you want other countries' value systems pushed onto yours? Do onto others and all that. Disimissing such a notion is actually a pretty big factor in how enemies are created in the world.

hanselthecaretaker:

Bombiz:

Marik2:

It's annoying seeing murica control everything, when it can't even control its own government.

I mean that's it's government not it's values/standards. which can be enforced with out the government. also doesn't tell me why it's wrong to push american values onto games in other countries.

Well...would you want other countries? value systems pushed onto yours? Do onto others and all that. Disimissing such a notion is actually a pretty big factor in how enemies are created in the world.

depends on the values. which I think is the point. Certain values can be good like the rights of the worker or the rights of women or the right to practice whatever religion you want.
Though I'd argue the way in which that happens is the bad part.

Bombiz:

Dreiko:

You can definitely glean wisdom from it as well as learn various things but those are all tangential things you pick up and not the actual purpose of fiction.

wtf. how can you even say this? there is no purpose to fiction just as there isn't any purpose to reality. the only purpose is the one given by the reader and the one given by the author. so to say that gaining wisdom from fiction is tangential is beyond missing the point. this is like saying gaining wisdom from myth is tangential its purpose. it's just wrong. (myth is fiction)

Are you saying that lessons cannot be learned from fiction? People can't gain wisdom from learning from the mistakes of fictional characters? The endless fables, legends, and religious books would like a word with you.

Art and fiction are all forms of expression. Sometimes there are parallels to real world people, events, locations. But that doesn't mean that they are directly connected. Fiction exsists in it's own world, it has too, otherwise you should arrest the countless authors of murder mysteries for somehow directing and desiring to kill people.

There are also merits to fiction beyond the negative themes it might contain within. Look at H.P Lovecraft and all his racist biggotry and how it doesn't take away from the influence he has made on the world of horror in all aspects of future books, movies, paintings, video games, etc. Would you condemn Bloodborne and the developers who created it because it was influenced by a Racist?

I doubt it, because I am assuming you have the ability to separate the work from the creator. You have the ability to take the fiction out of the reality and still allow yourself (or if you don't like Lovecraft this applies to many other artists that you've enjoyed) to enjoy the work without having to like the person.

This works in reverse as well. You can let yourself enjoy vile, and disgusting acts in a fictional context because you know that the fiction is in no way connected to reality. At least you should. (Grand Theft Auto players aren't career criminals, Call of Duty players aren't War Heroes or mass murderers, and loli fans are not pedophiles.....99.9% of the time).

CritialGaming:

Are you saying that lessons cannot be learned from fiction? People can't gain wisdom from learning from the mistakes of fictional characters? The endless fables, legends, and religious books would like a word with you.

wtf? did you not read the rest of my response? I'm saying that gleaning purpose and wisdom from myth is the point not just tangential to it. that those myths exist to give us wisdom or to explain how something works

like my whole problem is that that dude was saying gaining wisdom/learning something from a piece of fiction/work is tangential to the purpose of fiction. and I just find that such an outlandish idea. especially when the first works of fiction (myths) where their specifically to give us wisdom or at least attempt to explain something that couldn't be explain via normal means.

CritialGaming:

Art and fiction are all forms of expression. Sometimes there are parallels to real world people, events, locations. But that doesn't mean that they are directly connected. Fiction exsists in it's own world, it has too, otherwise you should arrest the countless authors of murder mysteries for somehow directing and desiring to kill people.

This works in reverse as well. You can let yourself enjoy vile, and disgusting acts in a fictional context because you know that the fiction is in no way connected to reality. At least you should. (Grand Theft Auto players aren't career criminals, Call of Duty players aren't War Heroes or mass murderers, and loli fans are not pedophiles.....99.9% of the time).

i don't get it. what do you think my positions are and what are you trying to tell me? cause none of this relates to what I was talking to Dreiko about. mainly that his opinions about fiction seem really absurd to me since them seem to discount a lot of fiction.

I don't think I really disagree with anything you said, so?

Dreiko:

altnameJag:
Lord only knows. For some reason it's dramatically important for artistic expression that the character you're ogling be a petite (or busty) 16 year old in high school instead of a petite (or busty) 19 year old in college.

I dunno, maybe it's just because I'm at that age where anybody under 24 is a goddamned child.

What's important is not any specific age but rather whatever age the creator of the game chose to have the char be at, for them to be that age. If a char is 16, they're 16, if they're 19, they're 19. It's fiction so there's no right or wrong here.

...in what world wouldn't the creator be choosing the ages of their characters? "They choosing to sexualize minors" isn't the defense that you apparently think it is.

Dreiko:
What your recourse here is, is to express your like or dislike of the content and use it to base your opinion on the game on. Basically, you are fully within reason to say that you disliked this game cause it had that content and nobody reasonable will tell you you can't do that. You just don't get to pretend you're more moral cause your fictional make belief would be less illegal if it were to be enacted in real life than someone else's, cause that's a ridiculous standard of judgement.

...nah, I'm gonna think I'm more moral for not wanting sexualized minors when it's piss easy to not do that compared to the guy who thinks it's vitally important to defend sexualizing high school kids.

Dreiko:

Also, you have people who complain about chars being of age but not acting/looking of age anyways (what you call a petite 19 year old, someone looking to find problems will call a child), so even if you did say that the char is 19 you still would have people complaining anyways.

Let them, and point out petite people exist. It's a far better hill to die on than that YouTube video I linked which had, at one point, an octopus fondling a 15 year old. If you're making some "how to adult" drama points in a game, having a petite gal going, "am I really an adult, considering nobody treats me like one based on looks" makes for good conflict.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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