|
|
Post by toei on Oct 17, 2018 11:51:16 GMT -5
At the risk of being controversial in the opposite direction... This game is uncensored on the PC, right? I imagine this might go the same way Mortal Kombat did during the Genesis vs SNES days (just a refresher: the Genesis version was censored but could be uncensored with a secret code, the SNES version was censored no matter what. Genny outsold the SNES by a wide margin.) Except Mortal Kombat was a huge phenomenon, and this is a super niche series, so even if the PC version outsells the PS4 version in North America by 2-to-1 margin, that's probably, like... 30,000 units? Sony (presumably) doesn't want to be associated with sexual harassment, and they sure are as hell won't risk bad publicity for the sake of a goofy mode in some tiny niche game. I don't think they'd care much if the game was cancelled entirely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 3:42:50 GMT -5
Censorship sucks, there's no defending it if you ask me. Game developers should be free to make whatever kind of game they want and gamers should be free to play whatever game they want, if a game isn't your personal cup of tea that's fine but don't try to keep it out of the hands of others, that's a dickmove. So, would you say people should say...be totally able to play a game that is openly anti-semitic? One that is openly racist? Specifically emcourages violence against women? Allows you to molest children? After all, not to my tastes but it’d be a dick move not to allow others to play it huh? I realise the argument I am trying to make is full of holes but so is defending a game that allows you to inappropriately creep on & molest women- with Mickey Mouse hands or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 19, 2018 5:48:56 GMT -5
I don't speak for Griff, but my own response is...
People should be allowed to make those kinds of games and yes, people who want to play them should be allowed to do so.
After all:
1) Both creator and customer may be simply venting and after getting it out of their system will come to recognize how silly/juvenile the whole thing is.
2) The games could actually be useful for law enforcement, allowing them to find actual problem people by what kind of media they consume (granted this carries its own host of problems. I've heard that law enforcement already does something like this). Censoring them would just force them to move it underground and hide it.
3) Kinda relating back to point #1, denying a viewpoint just tends to make it become polarized. Look at how many old-skool D&D fans outright hate all religion now (something I personally find a little dumb but I can understand the circumstances behind it), or how many people these days actually are openly racist or sexist on account of even the most mundane or reasonable of statements that could be construed as such being demonized. In other words, censorship led to the actual thing they were trying to prevent actually becoming more prevalent.
I'm also reminded of Mortal Kombat. For awhile yes there was a trend of bloody/gorey games, but in actual fact the laxing of censorship just caused the interest in the subject matter itself to lighten up and made people more mature about it. Similar thing happened with comics--the invention of the Comics Code Authority wound up eventually leading to the 90s "Age of Image" where everything was dark, violent, gorey, and full of borderline porno content. Just another example of censorship leading to the problem becoming worse instead of better.
And of course now 90s comics are remembered as a dark age nobody likes, and Mortal Kombat is kind of laughable while people realized Street Fighter II was actually a well-designed game (though lets face it, SNK was the real king of fighters).
.... tl;dr -- Censoring Senran Kagura now will just lead to a full-on rape sim later.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Oct 19, 2018 6:18:30 GMT -5
Rape sims already exist, and I don't think being interested in...titilating content in video games automatically means it's likely you'll end up being interested in something as extreme as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 19, 2018 6:51:32 GMT -5
you kinda missed the point, Creamcheese.
EDIT: I wrote this assuming you were responding to me and not gmbison. If you were responding to him... carry on and ignore the guy in the trashcan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 7:22:05 GMT -5
Rape sims already exist, and I don't think being interested in...titilating content in video games automatically means it's likely you'll end up being interested in something as extreme as that. I get that it doesn’t automatically mean the person playing it will become a racist but frankly, anyone selling something/purchasing something that makes a game out if sexual assault/rape really is a reprehensible piece of shit. |
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 19, 2018 8:17:44 GMT -5
I get that it doesn’t automatically mean the person playing it will become a racist but frankly, anyone selling something/purchasing something that makes a game out if sexual assault/rape really is a reprehensible piece of shit. Even people who bought the game to review it/specifically to talk about how offensive the content is? And if playing a game that "makes a game out of sexual assault/rape" makes you reprehensible, what about games that make a game out of other illegal/amoral activities like theft or murder? Is someone a reprehensible piece of shit for making, selling, or buying Manhunt, Hitman, or Grand Theft Auto? |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 19, 2018 8:41:18 GMT -5
Edmonddantes has the right of it -- games such as the ones you're describing, Gmbison, should absolutely exist if that's what the creator wants to create, and should absolutely be purchasable and playable if that's what the player wants to play.
The factor that's not being discussed here is criticism. In that people are free to criticize those who create such games, those who publish such games, and those who play such games. If someone wanted to create an anti-semitic game, for example, I see no reason they shouldn't follow their heart... but they WILL be judged for it, of course. As will the company that chooses to publish it. As will those who buy it. And that's exactly how it should be: vote with your wallet, and let the audience be the ultimate arbiters who decide how the game is regarded.
Note that I specifically said publisher, though -- not platform-holder. While it's entirely within a platform-holder's legal right to deny something from being published on their platform, I don't really feel like it's in their PLACE to do so. If a publisher wants to publish something on that platform, it should ideally be on the publisher to do so, and the publisher should be the first to face criticisms and ramifications for doing so if the public determines there's a moral or ethical problem with the game.
In other words, in this instance, it is my personal opinion (not the opinion of XSEED, mind you) that XSEED should ideally be able to publish this game in whole on every available platform if so desired (and should always endeavor to do so; if the game is to be published at all, it should always be published as-is), and should be judged for doing so if people feel it oversteps its bounds. That is the ultimate ideal of commercialized art, in my view.
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by dsparil on Oct 19, 2018 8:42:59 GMT -5
I don't speak for Griff, but my own response is... People should be allowed to make those kinds of games and yes, people who want to play them should be allowed to do so. After all: 1) Both creator and customer may be simply venting and after getting it out of their system will come to recognize how silly/juvenile the whole thing is. 2) The games could actually be useful for law enforcement, allowing them to find actual problem people by what kind of media they consume (granted this carries its own host of problems. I've heard that law enforcement already does something like this). Censoring them would just force them to move it underground and hide it. 3) Kinda relating back to point #1, denying a viewpoint just tends to make it become polarized. Look at how many old-skool D&D fans outright hate all religion now (something I personally find a little dumb but I can understand the circumstances behind it), or how many people these days actually are openly racist or sexist on account of even the most mundane or reasonable of statements that could be construed as such being demonized. In other words, censorship led to the actual thing they were trying to prevent actually becoming more prevalent. I'm also reminded of Mortal Kombat. For awhile yes there was a trend of bloody/gorey games, but in actual fact the laxing of censorship just caused the interest in the subject matter itself to lighten up and made people more mature about it. Similar thing happened with comics--the invention of the Comics Code Authority wound up eventually leading to the 90s "Age of Image" where everything was dark, violent, gorey, and full of borderline porno content. Just another example of censorship leading to the problem becoming worse instead of better. And of course now 90s comics are remembered as a dark age nobody likes, and Mortal Kombat is kind of laughable while people realized Street Fighter II was actually a well-designed game (though lets face it, SNK was the real king of fighters). .... tl;dr -- Censoring Senran Kagura now will just lead to a full-on rape sim later. These types of arguments don't apply in this situation mainly because the cut content already exists at the lower end of the spectrum and more importantly isn't new or even the most "extreme" example in its own series. Ratings boards already exist and have greatly eased back over the years no less. The real problem here is that this decision seems to have completely bypassed whatever normal process Sony has for certification which traditionally seems to be okaying anything that doesn't get an adult's only rating by a third party board. There are many issues with this precedent mainly that they likely have absolutely no content rules and this was completely capricious. It's not like there was even some kind of public outcry. Everything was all set and then Sony said no. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 9:33:36 GMT -5
So essentially you are saying you are totally fine with games like Bolsomito 2K18- an openly racist, homophobic & transphobic game then right?
|
|
|
|
Post by edmonddantes on Oct 19, 2018 9:59:41 GMT -5
So essentially you are saying you are totally fine with games like Bolsomito 2K18- an openly racist, homophobic & transphobic game then right? I'm fine with it existing. I couldn't really pass moral judgment on it without knowing what "racist, homophobic and transphobic" entail in this context--those terms are thrown around so much that they're kinda meaningless (I've seen, for example, zombie games called racist because there's hundreds of on-screen victims and one of them happens to be non-white). I'd also have to see the game itself--it could easily be something similar to Moon Man Doom which, as that particular reviewer notes, is something so silly its hard to really get offended at it just for how stupid it is. And I return your own question to you: Are you okay with games like Grand Theft Auto? If so, why those and not this? EDIT: Also, I wanted to quote this bit from Wyrdwad so it won't get lost in the shuffle: |
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Oct 19, 2018 11:03:38 GMT -5
you kinda missed the point, Creamcheese. No I got your point, but I don't agree with it. Being locked out of this content will not make people just play a rape sim instead. And again, those kind of games exist already. H anime/manga and games frequently feature rape and rape-y situations, from what I can tell. It's pretty normalized and this particular games isn't going to have any effect on that. I get that it doesn’t automatically mean the person playing it will become a racist but frankly, anyone selling something/purchasing something that makes a game out if sexual assault/rape really is a reprehensible piece of shit. True enough, but again, I don't think that the type of content that's in Senran Kagura is going to lead people to seek out more and more extreme content until they end up playing rape games. I can totally see why Sony doesn't want to be associated with this kind of content anno 2018. I can also see why people are uspet and find it a poor way Sony is trying to babysit consumers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2018 14:48:53 GMT -5
So essentially you are saying you are totally fine with games like Bolsomito 2K18- an openly racist, homophobic & transphobic game then right? IAnd I return your own question to you: Are you okay with games like Grand Theft Auto? If so, why those and not this? EDIT: Also, I wanted to quote this bit from Wyrdwad so it won't get lost in the shuffle: Hello - apologies for the delay; work etc. Grand Theft Auto; well, to the better part of my knowledge whilst Grand Theft Auto allows extreme violence against people in a sand box manner the game is never going out of it's way to make you a horrible racist, targeting specific racial or ethnic minorities. Nor is it specifically encouraging you to attack women or members of the LGBTQ community. Certainly it doesn't even begin to allow you to molest people without consent. Some of the shit you can do in it is pretty reprehensible but it still has...some limits. I honestly don't mind censorship if it is censoring something which is utterly indefensible on the whole - a wholesale rape simulator for instance, or a high school shooter simulator nor a scrolling beat 'em up where the "hero" who is based on a real life racist, sexist motherfucker goes around beating the shit out of enthnic minorities as well as members of the LGBTQ community - literally kicking & punching them until they become a pile of shit. If there was some sort of justifiable satirical element to these things? Perhaps it was being used as an effective method of social commentary? Then maybe you could say "okay look at it this way". Letting the audience be the ultimate arbiters is all very well and good to say - but when you are giving a platform to out and out hatespeech - chances are you are a bit of a dickhead. If you are allowing people to make a game about targeted killings of people of a religious, ethnic or LGBTQ background that endorses that message and could embolden these people (as it has already - the rise of Naziism again or "the far right" if you want to pussyfoot around it) because "free speech maaaan" then again- you are either being a fool or a dickhead. Probably both. Sure someone can think "god I hate these people" in private - but when they speak it publicly without fear of any form of lasting response or consequence and find people who agree, organise and then start to commit acts of violence then thats when we have problems. We should never encourage these opinions to be common place or acceptable. I'm not sure how you can justify an out and out rape sim - I don't even know how to begin to explain to another adult how someone shouldn't be encouraged to make something about out and out molesting someone without consent, nevermind rape, nevermind the fact that often these are characters depicted like a child. Sure, you can say it's not going to turn someone into a rapist or molester etc. However it's still fucking tasteless as all hell- and frankly if you are creating it or playing it for entertainment or whatever, that shouldn't really just be a case of going "oh well, it's just how they choose to express themselves/enjoy themselves". You can go ahead and call me a social justice warrior or white knight, snowflake or whatever other bullshit little tag you want to use. I'd rather be whatever that tag is than someone who finds it totally acceptable to both tolerate and encourage the expression/production of incredibly disgusting behaviour. I really wish people would get as upset with school shootings, a culture where most women we know will be sexually assaulted at some stage in their life & open racism as they do with a creepy molest-em-up being removed from a game. /rant |
|
|
|
Post by wyrdwad on Oct 19, 2018 15:32:25 GMT -5
Again, I think you misunderstand what we're saying. Or at least, what I'm saying.
I am not advocating tolerance or encouragement of the expression/production of disgusting behavior. If you find a game absolutely abhorrent, you absolutely should say so, and encourage people not to buy it, and encourage stores not to sell it, etc. And if you want to boycott a publisher who publishes such games, by all means, do so: send a message.
All I'm saying is, IF someone chooses to make such a game, and IF a publisher chooses to publish it, then that game has every right to exist. Censoring it on the publishing side is hypocritical IMHO -- if the game contains something so abhorrent that you feel justified in censoring it, then why are you publishing it at all? Why are you associating with the original developers? Aren't you just encouraging them to keep doing what they're doing, since they know there will be no repercussions in the overseas market? You're making them money, while they continue to include supposedly abhorrent things in their games. You're keeping the cycle going.
The ideal situation would be (1) no publisher will touch the game, sending a message to the developer that maybe they should try making less abhorrent titles in the future, (2) a small publisher chooses to publish the game as-is, and the game is a failure, sending a message to the developer that maybe this kind of content isn't going to do well in the future and they should try something else, or (3) a small publisher chooses to publish the game as-is, and the game is a success, revealing a general public acceptance of the controversial issue that may indicate either (i) it's not as big an issue as you thought; naysayers are just making mountains out of molehills, or (ii) it's indicative of a prevalent social issue that should be better addressed moving forward.
This, of course, does not account for situations such as the topic of this thread, that being when a platform-holder outright denies the game as-is and insists upon having content removed, long after having previously approved it. Obviously, the biggest issue there is the timing of it -- if the game is going to be denied, it should've been denied from the start -- but I also feel, just as a personal philosophy, that if you own a platform, you should allow ALL voices to speak from upon it, and let the public choose which voices are worth listening to. I believe in the general good of the populace, so if there is something truly reprehensible depicted, I feel the public will not stand for it and will ensure that those responsible be held as such. And the larger the platform, the more desirable it will be to those who seek to spread hate, but the harder a time such people will have spreading that hate without tremendous backlash.
The reason I believe this is important is because, if you don't give a platform to those whose views you disagree with, SOMEONE ELSE WILL. And that someone else may cater to a smaller, more niche crowd that will consist almost entirely of like-minded people. Using your example of hate speech, which would you prefer: giving hate-speakers a large stage for them to make their proclamation, only to see them get booed off of it and taken down a peg? Or giving hate-speakers a tiny stage in a shadowy corner of town, from which they make their proclamation to a room full of only like-minded individuals who encourage them to continue?
-Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by 🧀Son of Suzy Creamcheese🧀 on Oct 19, 2018 15:50:08 GMT -5
I agree with your post, @gmbison .
I don't for the life of me understand people who think that all censorship is bad. Sometimes, censorship is good. The problem is that some people continuously keep thinking that censorship will spiral out of control. There's no signs ever pointing to that, no comparable precedents, and games these days aren't 'safer' than back in the day. It's a little fallacy called the slippery slope argument, and perhaps a bit of paranoia and misunderstanding of the industry on the side. Ten, twenty years from now people will still be warning everyone about how the industry is in danger every time the smallest fart gets altered in a game. I have yet to see a single person online make a good argument for why they think censorship might spiral out of control.
Of course, that can still mean that someone doesn't agree with their refusal to publish the game as-is (IDK that much about the content myself, so I don't have any opinion on it). That's fine. But these kind of discussions are almost never about specifics and always about people starting to foam at the mouth once they hear the word censorship.
The whole 'vote with your wallet' thing and the idea that platform holders have to accept every type of content and let the market sort it out is simiarly idiotic. That's how you end up with Steam anno 2018 only with openly rascist and homophobic content as an added bonus. It doesn't matter that it's techincally 'censorship' because the alternative simply fucking sucks. Imageine browsing the new releases on the PS4 store and scrolling past Dark Souls, Final Fantasy, and then some pro-nazi game. No thanks. And it's immoral somehow to deny hate a stage? That's blindly taking your ideals too far.
And at the end of the day, Sony is doing this because they are a company trying to make a profit. For the same reason they gave us that BS about not allowing cross-platform play. You can critize them for that, fair. But companies will never have the desire to start heavily censoring stuff because that will piss off their audience, and therefore impact their income negatively.
|
|
