And you would think they would have learned their lesson after the "hot coffee" incidents too...Originally Posted by Nionel
And you would think they would have learned their lesson after the "hot coffee" incidents too...
My Gaming Collection (Now at Google Drive!)
It might not be censorship in the strictest sense keeping this sort of thing from being common, but it's still someone arbitratily going "no" somewhere along the line. Comedic effect is exactly the best reason for allowing dongs and whatnot in games. And if it's ok for laughs, maybe someday games could have *gasp* consensual sex between adult partners or something off-the-walls crazy like that just like every other entertainment medium ever made. I too am mostly against the over-movie-iztion of games, but content wise, there's no reason games shouldn't be allowed to "get away" with having nudity and sex in them. The sooner we get over it as being shocking the sooner we can have a real rating system that doesn't assume only 10 year olds want to buy videogames. Looking at the movie rating system here too, NC-17 is not viable anymore if you want to make money, and it should be.
You mean like Golgo 13 did? They just didn't show it, but you know it happened. And there were plenty of adult Atari 2600 games that showed it entirely.
It's not like it just shouldn't be allowed to be shown, it's just that it's really not necessary. It's not like pornos have good plot or character development to them, they're basically excuses to show nudity.
There are plenty of adult Eroge/H-games in Japan, it's not like adult games are completely new.
They should just have fully nude strippers in the next GTA (along with more realistic character models), it would be alot better than this shit.
Two things.
1) You aren't saying it directly but you're suggesting somehow that these people making the choices to not stock certain games or to not show NC-17 movies be forced to. That's pretty much tyranny. You can't impose your standards on somebody else like that. If the ESRB or MPAA were government entities then you'd have an argument. But as it stands, they're independent boards that give an opinion. And independent publishers, developers, retailers, etc. are free to choose to take that opinion into account. Just because there's a consensus doesn't mean there's any wrongdoing. That being said, I do think that the ESRB's current system should be revised. The AO rating is damn near useless and almost impossible to qualify for outside of one specific instance. If the ESRB wanted AO to be the game equivalent of NC-17 they didn't do it right.
2) Sex in games is a touchy subject because, again, you're imposing standards of film onto a medium that has serious differences. Mass Effect had a rather subdued sex sequence in it, right? But, if you haven't noticed, it was a cutscene. It wasn't really "part of the game" so to speak. The sequence was tasteful but imagine if it were given the interactive experience that video games are known for. See the problem? It's very hard to keep the tasteful tone when you're actually making it happen by pushing the A button over and over. I'd say it's damn near impossible.
People who clamor for more sex in games aren't really asking for more sex in games. What they're clamoring for are for there to be more similarities between games and film then there currently are. I think that's a bad trend. I've been pretty vocal with my distaste for gaming culture. I think that the gaming public as a whole has a huge inferiority complex. That inferiority complex is exactly what causes people to look at movies and have that "grass is greener" feeling.
But imagine if this were reversed. How would it look if film aficionados started complaining that there weren't enough endings in this movie or that movie? "Why can't movie makers start to give us options with the endings?" Some have, sure. But it hasn't exactly caught on and for good reason. Multiple endings are not the most appropriate given the medium. Video games have qualities that just don't work in other mediums and these are the qualities that should be cultivated. It doesn't do this medium/industry much good to constantly compare it to a different medium/industry with different things that might "work" and "not work." There are things that games can do that other mediums can't and there are things that other mediums can do that games can't. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 02-19-2009 at 09:54 AM.
I understand that my argument is full of holes, i just feel it's one of those things we're gonna look back on thinking it's silly that it was held back as much as it was.
I don't want games to be movies either, not at all. I just think completely avoiding thematic elements that are, well, essential to the continuation of life is kinda dumb. I'm not saying i want sex minigames, although the one in Fahrenheit was fairly tasteful, but if the developer wants to show some tits and ass once in awhile it shouldn't be a big damn deal.
Dunno, it just seems to me like the world is becoming more and more censor happy, even if it isn't the governments doing it. It's still watering down various forms of entertainment and holding back others. Sometimes I just want to play a boob game or watch a violent movie and it seems like I have to look across the ocean or back in time everytime I want to. Ok, ranting over, I'm going nowhere.
I don't know what exactly is "holding it back" though, if anything at all. Perhaps it's the general consensus among developers and publishers regarding what the consumer public will consider "acceptable" and would spend money on. A good example is Manhunt. I, personally, don't find the nature of Manhunt entertaining so I have no reason to buy it. If everybody shared my sentiments then Manhunt wouldn't exist for purely financial reasons. Capitalism at work. I don't think that Manhunt deserves to be "banned" but if the market shifts in a way so that Manhunt 3 or whatnot can't find a market then I don't think anybody is particularly "at fault." It's just the natural ebb and flow of the free market. I want another Vandal Hearts but apparently the market is telling me that I can't have one. Tough noogies to me, I guess.
I don't think anybody is saying it's a big deal. We already know that pornographic games aren't exactly new. It sounds like mass market exposure is what you're complaining about. While you can go play a random Hentai dating sim that's not the same as picking up the next big blockbuster from Capcom.
Also, notice that you said "sex minigames." As in, a game separated from the rest of the experience. This is the core problem with sex in games. Violence works because it's usually the means to an end. There is a bad guy and the way to win is to shoot him. It also fits well within the confines of an interactive experience. The A button shoots, the B button reloads. Sex is...for all intents and purposes...useless for progressing forward. It can be used for storyline purposes or for other reasons such as the above mentioned comedic effect or to entice but you aren't going to beat the game by having an interactive sexual escapade unless it's a hentai dating sim where sex is the whole reason for the game's existence.
What this all means is that bringing sex into a gaming experience will, in most situations, necessitate a break from progress. You have to stop shooting robots and then enter either a cutscene or minigame where sex happens and when that's done you can go shoot robots again. It doesn't "jive" in the same way violence does so it has to be somehow removed from the actual "game" and placed solely within the storyline portions or as some independent minigame that doesn't have much of a purpose and serves as an intermediate distraction.
Don't get me wrong. I get what you're saying. It's just that I have a problem with the word "censorship" specifically. If anything, this is self-regulation. Forgive the inflammatory examples, but if you owned a magazine shop would you stock hate group propaganda? I know I wouldn't. Likewise, if I were a game developer I wouldn't produce a game that involved the player doing, well, think of horrible things that you'd be uncomfortable seeing even if you knew it were fake. Maybe nobody is telling me I can't but I'm telling myself that I won't.
But, regardless of the market and all that crap, I do think the logistics are more of the reason why video games have limited sex in them than any kind of puritanical mindset. In fact, sometimes video games go so far as to impose sexuality in a way that is absurd beyond belief. Look at Ivy in Soul Calibur IV. I genuinely believe that she'd look less trashy if she were just topless. I suppose Namco could go that route and make Soul Calibur "that naked fighting game" but I suppose they'd have trouble getting licensing from console manufacturers.
And it does seem like people are more interested in playing games that are as close to, using the term loosely, pornographic as possible without actually being pornographic. I think people like the "wink wink, nudge nudge" nature of it because it provides plausible deniability. If you play Soul Calibur IV you just like the game and it doesn't matter if the women are wearing virtually nothing. But if the women were actually wearing nothing then you might feel like a dirty old man. I don't know. Maybe sex in video games is less like sex in movies and more like blow up dolls. A sex scene in a movie, a passive experience, might be more easily written off than sex in an interactive experience because of the "hands on" aspect. A game might induce feelings of shame much easier.
You'll have to excuse my gusto but I find this topic extremely interesting.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 02-19-2009 at 05:32 PM.
Heh, interesting points indeed.
And now I'm curious how sex could be used gameplaywise to advance the story. How about a multi-generational RPG where how well you do in bed effects the offspring's stats? That would be pretty amusing.
Ok, I'm done derailing the thread with my rantings, let us go back to laughing at digital dongs.
Tony, I agree with everything you've written, but what about the Leisure Suit Larry games? I've never played them, but it seems like sexual themes are the main content of the game, not just quick mini-game diversions.
Also, not to be outdone, EA's next Tiger Woods PGA game is going to feature a nude mode.
That game sounds both fun and amusing. I'd aim to produce the most inbred, incompetent person imaginable.
And I don't think the topic is really derailed. We've still been talking about nudity/sex in modern gaming even if we aren't actively discussing the particular instance in GTA.
I've never played Leisure Suit Larry so I can't comment.
A game where sex as a gameplay element could potentially work, however, is possibly something akin to The Sims. If the "point" of the game is to live a certain way then giving the player the option of engaging in sexual activity could be just another instance of that virtual life. The problem I foresee in that scenario is it stealing the show.
In any "God game" there should be some kind of balance. You don't play Sim City just to build a single house. The game's value is due to the opportunity to see the result of a collection of various decisions, not one in particular. In the game I just proposed, I can imagine players no longer caring about living their virtual life by going to work, building a shed, or cooking a meal for its own value but rather doing all those things "just because I have to before I can get to the sex scene." It's self defeating if the game designed to let you live a virtual life creates a situation where living that virtual life takes a back seat to performing one act among hundreds.
Last edited by TonyTheTiger; 02-19-2009 at 07:55 PM.
You could add a sexdrive meter to a sandbox game. Don't get off one way or another and after awhile you enter blueballs mode and your character becomes extra agressive and can only pic negative reponses to NPC speeches. And then when you are freshly laid you would be in a good mood and could get a time slowdown effect or something.
these ideas are hilarious.
Don't forget about Softporn Adventure. It's a text adventure, no nudity is shown. It's still for adults only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softporn_Adventure
I don't believe in that. I don't believe text alone can qualify as porn. It isn't arousing enough.
If I am a male voice actor with any self respect, I'm not signing on to do a game unless the contract says the character I am voicing is going to be represented well in the male genitalia department!
It may not be porn, but the subject matter is still intended for adults only.
I haven't actually played the game as of yet so I'm not sure how explicit it actually is.
I'm sure it's for adults only. I, however, would feel gypped if I were deprived of images. It's no fun otherwise.
yay dicks
Posting Permissions
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Similar agreements apply to other advertising or affiliate programs such as those from eBay, Google, etc.
Copyright © 1991 - Present of Digital Press. All rights reserved.
Reply With Quote