Someone with little to no morals, but that's kind of my point. Having a game-fied punishment wouldn't make it okay.
Fan service?Because it is odd that Sonys game of the year is the hyper violent God of War. The Last of Us 2 trailer was also extremely violent. That that same company is censoring fan service seems odd. Especially for games that don't even releases in America.
The double standard I see is that such concern for violence only pops up as cover for defending creepy shit, and another is that this stuff is only ever focused on women and girls.
Presumably violence is dealt with through age ratings (and it's something I'd like to see discussed more), but perving over teenage girls isn't something they want associated with their main platform, age ratings to make sure it's adults perving over pics of adolescents doesn't make it any less creepy.
So, if Tecmo-Koei would put DOA males on swimwear, would be different? and Sony shouldn't censor the game?
Yeah their system is a mess.The biggest issue here is the clear lack of consistency that Sony actually has in regards to what their current policy is, and it makes me wonder who exactly is in charge of identifying objectionable content and what their criteria is
I'm pretty surprised with all of the Era talk of strong female characters that aren't just sex objects, you've got perverts bitching that they can't look up skirts with a magic fan or apply jiggly titty gel on young girls.
Don't really agree with that when looking at the games that came out in recent years. And if you're talking about issues unrelated to content, those aren't going to be solved by censoring content.Depends on the content. Not necessary if the game still have minors and stuff close to harassment.
Still, that's besides the point because we know that would never happen.
This industry has a big sexism problem towards women and it seems like it keeps going up, so I have no problem with Sont trying to do something about. I do agree though, that they need to release a statement about it. Nothing better than a clear message...
I just don't think the use of 'but what about violence' rather than focusing on the particular issue is helpful. I very much doubt that in a thread about violence, we would have it's defenders going 'but what about endemic sexism towards women and girls!' with any serious chance of success at deflecting the issue at hand. They are two different issues that deserve their own focus rather than one being used to shut down discussion of the other."Presumably violence is dealt with through age ratings". lol, those games you are calling creepy shit are passing age rating too.
If the violence is banned on the future on games, people like you will complain. I can't wait to see someday it to laugh of hypocrite people despite I like violent games too.
For last, I don't buy those games, I don't like, I prefer violent and storytelling games, but people trying to fight against censorship for centuries, and we have the current double standard society who want censor all they don't like. Well. call me when we return to the caves again.
I just don't think the use of 'but what about violence' rather than focusing on the particular issue is helpful. I very much doubt that in a thread about violence, we would have it's defenders going 'but what about endemic sexism towards women and girls!' with any serious chance of success at deflecting the issue at hand. They are two different issues that deserve their own focus rather than one being used to shut down discussion of the other.
I respect Sony for purging the disgusting practice of marketing moe-blobbed loli's as "18" to bypass the fact that they are sexualizing adolescents. Fuck outta here with the "but teh cenzorship!!!11 i want muh freedumz!!!" Bullshit. Glad TN doesn't get a pass for it.
I just don't think the use of 'but what about violence' rather than focusing on the particular issue is helpful. I very much doubt that in a thread about violence, we would have it's defenders going 'but what about endemic sexism towards women and girls!' with any serious chance of success at deflecting the issue at hand. They are two different issues that deserve their own focus rather than one being used to shut down discussion of the other.
Your argument doesn't work because violent video games don't cause people to go on killing rampages but video games & fiction altogether can shape people's worldviews in other ways, like how they view women. The kind of normalization of the objectification of women that bombard men in all mediums is something that actually has an effect on how men treat and think about women in real life. Since women are so often in everything in an objectified, overly sexualized and otherwise misogynistic manner, that leads to a lot of men thinking that's at least somewhat ok thing to do in real life too. People who criticize these things don't have an issue with all nudity/sexual content, we just think that a game solely focused on the molestation/creepy sexual treatment of young girls (some of whom are deliberately designed to look underage) is a bit iffy.It´s called double standard, for me those are games, virtual worlds you can do things you can't do or should do on real life.
So if this need to be banned because "creepy sexism and mysogeny", to become on "serial killer" should be banned too.
I wonder why are you not asking yourself the opposite, why people is defending violence on games, but can't bear those pervy games.
Don't really agree with that when looking at the games that came out in recent years. And if you're talking about issues unrelated to content, those aren't going to be solved by censoring content.
Games are not real, they are virtual. I can't understand why people think that gamers who plays games like those are perverts or even pedophiles, when we have millions gamers killing and stealing on games, are we killers?
Even thinking those gamers are pedophiles, its better the guys can suppress their fantasies on the game? or real life?
If you defend violence on games at the same time you think this is sexism towards the woman, you have the same thought that people who want ban all games because violence (example Trump, who blame to games on massacres with guns). It´s not different, and that is because I said people have double standard here.
I am against all censorship on games, they have a system rating on all countries.
Your argument doesn't work because violent video games don't cause people to go on killing rampages but video games & fiction altogether can shape people's worldviews in other ways, like how they view women. The kind of normalization of the objectification of women that bombard men in all mediums is something that actually has an effect on how men treat and think about women in real life. Since women are so often in everything in an objectified, overly sexualized and otherwise misogynistic manner, that leads to a lot of men thinking that's at least somewhat ok thing to do in real life too. People who criticize these things don't have an issue with all nudity/sexual content, we just think that a game solely focused on the molestation/creepy sexual treatment of young girls (some of whom are deliberately designed to look underage) is a bit iffy.
Like, there are too many men whose views on sex/sexuality/sexual interactions with their preferred gender come exclusively from porn, which is generally pretty misogynistic and not representative of how most normal people have sex (that is mutually pleasurable) or in which kind of situations it's ok to approach women in that way.
But then why not just ban this whole game altogether?An item that blows skirts (presumably without the characters knowledge or consent) is outright harassment of a character encouraged by the player through game design. It seems like a misunderstanding of the issues for anyone to suggest that these actions could lead to problems for Catherine simply because of its sexual themes.
An item that blows skirts (presumably without the characters knowledge or consent) is outright harassment of a character encouraged by the player through game design. It seems like a misunderstanding of the issues for anyone to suggest that these actions could lead to problems for Catherine simply because of its sexual themes.
Sorry, what? How am I defending violence in games? I don't play or even enjoy violent games, and I've argued against the polarised mainstream approach of both games and films marketing to and identifying an 'adult market' of 18+ extreme violence and a 'child' market of toys and rainbows while offering little inbetween in the past. I just don't think whataboutery helps or that the comparison is particularly relevant when it's never used the other way around to defend violence in games as it would just sound ridiculous.Games are not real, they are virtual. I can't understand why people think that gamers who plays games like those are perverts or even pedophiles, when we have millions gamers killing and stealing on games, are we killers?
Even thinking those gamers are pedophiles, its better the guys can suppress their fantasies on the game? or real life?
If you defend violence on games at the same time you think this is sexism towards the woman, you have the same thought that people who want ban all games because violence (example Trump, who blame to games on massacres with guns). It´s not different, and that is because I said people have double standard here.
I am against all censorship on games, they have a system rating on all countries.
Games are not real, they are virtual. I can't understand why people think that gamers who plays games like those are perverts or even pedophiles, when we have millions gamers killing and stealing on games, are we killers?
Even thinking those gamers are pedophiles, its better the guys can suppress their fantasies on the game? or real life?
There are studies about these things. I do not give a single iota of a fuck if Trump thinks violent video games cause people to go out and kill people. That's simply not supported by any research. Killing someone is such a huge no-no that a large majority of people aren't going to go over that threshold. There can be issues with violent entertainment (I.e. terrorists so often being muslims), but they aren't turning people violent. Sexual commentary & harassment has a much lower threshold, partly because men often think that the harassment isn't harassment. It's acceptable behaviour they have learned is acceptable from the fiction they've consumed their whole lives.That comment is biased because you like your games. All years we hear people complaining for violent games. Trump blamed to games several times on last years because the massacres.
For last, if a guy view the women the other way because a game, its because that guy didn't have a good social education.
What was the arguement that this policy wouldnt affect/apply to all publishers?I guess this puts to rest the idea that Sony's new policies would only affect small developers.
Terming them both under 'values' might allow you to invoke 'hypocrisy' and 'double standards', but doesn't make them the same or give them both the same weight. I get the comparison, I just don't think it's that simple.Its less to shut down discussion and more to bring up how its hypocritical that Sony America gets to force its values on Japanese devs even for Japanese releases.
Imagine if Sony Japan started forcing God of War or TLoU Devs to cut its violent content even for western releases.
It would cause a huge shitstorm and I doubt you would see so many "Good Im glad." type comments or calling people against it creepy.
Its less to shut down discussion and more to bring up how its hypocritical that Sony America gets to force its values on Japanese devs even for Japanese releases.
Imagine if Sony Japan started forcing God of War or TLoU Devs to cut its violent content even for western releases.
It would cause a huge shitstorm and I doubt you would see so many "Good Im glad." type comments or calling people against it creepy.
Its less to shut down discussion and more to bring up how its hypocritical that Sony America gets to force its values on Japanese devs even for Japanese releases.
Wait, people on ERA are up in arms becauss Sony didnt allow fucked-up over the top objectification of female characters in a game that already has way too much objectification any way?
.
I don't think the effects are as clear as you make them out to be as there's also evidence that suggests that something like the availability of porn decreases sexual assaultsThere are studies about these things. I do not give a single iota of a fuck if Trump thinks violent video games cause people to go out and kill people. That's simply not supported by any research. Killing someone is such a huge no-no that a large majority of people aren't going to go over that threshold. There can be issues with violent entertainment (I.e. terrorists so often being muslims), but they aren't turning people violent. Sexual commentary & harassment has a much lower threshold, partly because men often think that the harassment isn't harassment. It's acceptable behaviour they have learned is acceptable from the fiction they've consumed their whole lives.
It is supported by science that the entertainment we consume can shape our values and such, which includes stuff like how we treat other human beings in our everyday lives. It's not a coincidence that Japan has a lot of this kind of content and has had it for decades and nowadays they have massive problems with men molesting school girls in public.
"Could be construed".
You know that the skirt flip/upskirt thing is a legit problem in Japan that this developer happily encourages and fetishizes with this, right?
If the US had a problem with guys randomly getting kicked in the nuts all the time, and a game dev would add a "kick every male character in the nuts" item to a game, you'd be the first screaming for blood.
The problem is that Sony only thinks some parts of the game is bad. What they should do it ban it outright if they dont like it, since you can still do other disgusting stuff in the game.Wait, people on ERA are up in arms becauss Sony didnt allow fucked-up over the top objectification of female characters in a game that already has way too much objectification any way?
What is wrong with you folks? I thought ERA was progressive. This almost looks like a reddit thread.
Sex in games is fine. Sexual objectification is not. This game is one of the worst culprits of that with its golden fan and softening gel shit.
So from what we can gather across the different censorships, it seems like those guidelines at Sony does not of course prevent from some scantily clad images or attitude (for what we know the outfits are the same on Switch and PS4).
Are there games with dedicated sexual assault modes, sometimes involving underage girls, that Sony has ignored?The most important issue by far is sony's lack of consistency in regards to their new policy, and lack of actual clarification or official statement on what their actual intent is. If they want to ban or censor games with sexual content, that's one thing, but the censorship they have been applying is not consistent from game to game at all and has no rhyme or reason in concert with ratings agency guidelines
Wait, people on ERA are up in arms becauss Sony didnt allow fucked-up over the top objectification of female characters in a game that already has way too much objectification any way?
What is wrong with you folks? I thought ERA was progressive. This almost looks like a reddit thread.
Sex in games is fine. Sexual objectification is not. This game is one of the worst culprits of that with its golden fan and softening gel shit.
What was the arguement that this policy wouldnt affect/apply to all publishers?
I think there are some games on Vita that vaguely fit that description.Are there games with dedicated sexual assault modes, sometimes involving underage girls, that Sony has ignored?
Are there games with dedicated sexual assault modes, sometimes involving underage girls, that Sony has ignored?
New vita games?I think there are some games on Vita that vaguely fit that description.
Wtf is this shit, no shit Sony is censoring this game as well, Team Ninja should stick to proper games and not trash like this for horny teenagers.
I just hope NiOh 2 won't include shit like this
No, but the comparison is that since those nude scenes are censored by CERO in Japan currently, and PEGI/ESRB are fine with it in the west, it'd be the same if Sony decided that it should be the same everywhdre for example.I don't recall using Geralt wind magic against girls to make their boobs to move.
Considering such games like sexy mahjong and even trivia games with gravure cosplayers are on the western eShop with minimal fuss, and we already have a creepy massage Senran Kagura game that no one really discusses, I think the whole "Sony is making developers go through additional screening to further alter games" will be a bigger story here.With the change in Western sensitivities towards sexualization in games, there may eventually be a backlash against Nintendo for allowing this type of content. Which would be supremely ironic, considering where the company comes from and the heavy censorship they adopted for decades (and which has been fiercely criticized for almost as long in the West, until recent times).