• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Will discussion of certain games be banned on Neogaf from here on out?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I can understand how difficult it is to spell in English. I'm learning Spanish and spelling/pronouncing is so easy. It's just those damn conjugations....

Oh yeah, believe me... Spanish can be a bitch even if you are a born speaker. Good look with graphic accents.
 

Raticus79

Seek victory, not fairness
What exactly are you referring to here?

Yeah, this one threw me off too for a minute - "triteness" wasn't referring to your post or bishoptl's. Glittering Crux said GAF didn't allow niche titles and MormaPope used bishoptl's response to your post as an example of how a niche post would be allowed. (check the bolded lines)
 

213372bu

Banned
It isn't. If I may be perfectly honest (and speak entirely for myself, not representing XSEED in even the remotest way), I'd prefer there exist no ratings board whatsoever, that no platform-holder ever turned down any game for any reason, and that no content was ever denied from existing in any work of art, no matter how reprehensible it may be.

In other words, I hope one day for complete, worldwide artistic anarchy.

I don't believe any art should ever be considered taboo, nor that anyone -- regardless of age or sensitivity -- should ever be restricted from viewing any work of art.

I believe that the mere existence of taboos is what causes most of society's problems -- if we were completely frank and open and exposed everyone to every aspect of the human condition from the very day they could learn to comprehend it all, I firmly believe the world would be a better place. Half of all crime is spawned by those who know they're doing something "naughty" or "forbidden" and get a rush from doing so... but if nothing were naughty or forbidden or taboo, there would be no rush, and therefore -- in my own armchair philosophy, at least -- there would be less inclination to commit crimes.

I know this is entirely impractical, but I am an idealist of sorts, and I will continue to do everything in my power to work toward this ideal of a world in which, quite literally, nothing is sacred.

-Tom
You're right.

Children with developing brains and not able to conduct full thought should just be able to be exposed to all of this. There should be no ratings out there to help kids or those who don't want to be experienced to material.

It should be like a roll of the dice.

You see an anime girl and it could either be a fun family-friendly game about puzzles, or it could be a rape simulator, (not referring to this game in particular). There should be complete anarchy as you said!

Do people really think this?
 
Are you implying pornography isn't art?

As far as I'm concerned, anything created by an intelligent being -- as in, anything in which the creative process was employed, regardless of the ends the creator set out to achieve -- is art.

If you disagree with this, then we will never see eye to eye, as I consider this a fundamental truth of reality.

-Tom
Then art is so broad as to be basically meaningless.
 

wyrdwad

XSEED Localization Specialist
Have you seen some of the screenshots of this game, though? Don't you think there are limits to apply concerning children and what can be done to them?

Not at all. I'd be fine with far worse than that existing.

...I wouldn't buy it, mind you! But I'd be totally cool with selling it, discussing it, and debating it.

If there were lines in art that one should never cross, then art would no longer mean a damned thing.

-Tom
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Not at all. I'd be fine with far worse than that existing.

...I wouldn't buy it, mind you! But I'd be totally cool with selling it, discussing it, and debating it.

If there were lines in art that one should never cross, then art would no longer mean a damned thing.

-Tom

That you take such a detached view is a bit unsettling actually. The whole underlying meaning to art is how it both reflects and effects reality in a relationship of synthesis.
 

NewGame

Banned
I haven't played the game but from what people are describing it sounds exactly like pornography; others are claiming it's all part of the artistic process.

I mean, Shawshank Redemption wouldn't be less of a movie if there were censored scenes of Andy being sodomized over and over again (Which was part of the movie's narrative and a commentary on prison conditions). The movie doesn't have to show us that, we infer it.

Movies, books and other forms of media have all tackled sobering, taboo and unethical concepts without just showing a bunch of pornography thinly veiled as 'art'.



How about the game Rule Of Rose? It seems to tackle the same issues people in this thread are discussing without having us stroke a childs rude parts.
 

wyrdwad

XSEED Localization Specialist
Then art is so broad as to be basically meaningless.

Is natural beauty any less beautiful because it's all around us? Does water quench thirst any less because it's so plentiful?

Just because something is utterly ubiquitous doesn't make it meaningless. If anything, that makes it mean the world all the more.

-Tom
 

Krejlooc

Banned
Are you implying pornography isn't art?

Many, including the supreme court of the united states, sees a distinction between pornography and art. What isn't defined is where that distinction exists, and that is a subjective measure inherent to society and the individual.

This "Everything is art!" sentiment can be disingenuous. The argument about this game not being art is rooted in the idea that it has little redeeming value. It doesn't inspire discussion beyond "that's so sick" or "omg so hawt." There is no deeper message being conveyed. It's visual and sexual gluttony for a market most would see fit to let starve.

Because no argument is complete without a slippery slope - a guy slicing another person to death in the middle of the street (let's just say with consent from the man he killed for the sake of terrible hypotheticals) calls it art. Is it art? Maybe, to some. Is it a valid form of expression that shouldn't be curtailed? Nope.

EDIT: Also, this might not be fair, but I feel the urge to point it out - you really shouldn't have pointed out you worked for XSeed in a previous post. I know you said you speak for yourself, not your company, but I was oblivious as to where you worked before you brought it to my attention, even if it's in your tag. As such, I can't help but think less of XSeed for employing someone who would defend the right for this kind of trash to exist, all in the name of artistic expression.
 

Briarios

Member
Do we not see a certain group of individuals who purchase these products for the wrong reasons as being wrong? Murder, crime, gangster, or sci-fi stories go in different directions with their art, but these games are borderline attracting felons or potential felons to their work. What are you attracting with this type of product? I do not see a need for this type of game in North America or anywhere. I feel as though the topic has not been fully brought to light here. We should ban these types of games. They are making an illegal act legal by drawing it. Violence or quirky crime, whatever you may call it does not try to exploit the innocence of youth. I think some people who post these pictures and games lead others down a path they should not follow, nor should they be available for discussion when we all know that there are better discussions to have.

I have zero problems with topics on this game being banned. It's creepy to me, but I'm fine with other people playing it -- to each their own.

However, what irritates me to no end is this concept that teens, even early teens, are somehow filled with the "innocence of youth." Bullshit.

I've worked with kids -- a lot of kids, 12 to 18 ... that innocence thing is a load of malarkey. You can't impose innocence on people. For the vast majority of human history, people were getting married the moment they went through puberty. This whole suddenly someone is 18 and then they're an adult thing is totally a social construct ... it's arbitrary, random, and creates a whole host of social issues.

It's fine to stick with the whole under the age of consent thing; I get that, it's breaking the law and social mores. But, the whole innocence thing is just ludicrous ... heck, look at those girls with the Slender thing -- that shows you exactly how violence and horror in games can affect some kids. But, I'm sorry, sex will never be as "dangerous" to people as violence.

And, suggesting that these games attracts felons more than something like Grand Theft Auto or, hell, Madden, is ludicrous and unsubstantiated.
 

JABEE

Member
Are you implying pornography isn't art?

As far as I'm concerned, anything created by an intelligent being -- as in, anything in which the creative process was employed, regardless of the ends the creator set out to achieve -- is art.

If you disagree with this, then we will never see eye to eye, as I consider this a fundamental truth of reality.

-Tom

It may be art, but it's art designed around selling animated child porn to a specific audience. NeoGAF has the right to not allow discussion of what is ostensibly animated child porn.

You can go publish this game or make it if you wish, but I think they are in the right here. A lot of anime goes over the line too. That's my line though.

There is a pretty universal ethical standard on the exploitation of children. These games exist as a loophole to serve a very specific audience.
 
You're right.

Children with developing brains and not able to conduct full thought should just be able to be exposed to all of this. There should be no ratings out there to help kids or those who don't want to be experienced to material.

It should be like a roll of the dice.

You see an anime girl and it could either be a fun family-friendly game about puzzles, or it could be a rape simulator, (not referring to this game in particular). There should be complete anarchy as you said!

Do people really think this?


You know, children aren't on their own. Parents could do their jobs and Parent. Doing some research before blindly going out and getting whatever your kid wants, would solve that issue.
 
I haven't played the game but from what people are describing it sounds exactly like pornography; others are claiming it's all part of the artistic process.

I mean, Shawshank Redemption wouldn't be less of a movie if there were censored scenes of Andy being sodomized over and over again (Which was part of the movie's narrative and a commentary on prison conditions). The movie doesn't have to show us that, we infer it.

Movies, books and other forms of media have all tackled sobering, taboo and unethical concepts without just showing a bunch of pornography thinly veiled as 'art'.



How about the game Rule Of Rose? It seems to tackle the same issues people in this thread are discussing without having us stroke a childs rude parts.
Ironically I think Rule of Rose got banned somewhere in Europe (I want to say Italy?) since the marketers for that particular region played up those controversial elements to the point where I guess people thought it was far worse than it actually was.
 

JDSN

Banned
Not at all. I'd be fine with far worse than that existing.

...I wouldn't buy it, mind you! But I'd be totally cool with selling it, discussing it, and debating it.

If there were lines in art that one should never cross, then art would no longer mean a damned thing.

-Tom

Would you still feel the same knowing that this could potentially harm childrens in development or that this rather favorable depiction of abuse could fuel someone into harming others?
 

kyser73

Member
It isn't. If I may be perfectly honest (and speak entirely for myself, not representing XSEED in even the remotest way), I'd prefer there exist no ratings board whatsoever, that no platform-holder ever turned down any game for any reason, and that no content was ever denied from existing in any work of art, no matter how reprehensible it may be.

In other words, I hope one day for complete, worldwide artistic anarchy.

I don't believe any art should ever be considered taboo, nor that anyone -- regardless of age or sensitivity -- should ever be restricted from viewing any work of art.

I believe that the mere existence of taboos is what causes most of society's problems -- if we were completely frank and open and exposed everyone to every aspect of the human condition from the very day they could learn to comprehend it all, I firmly believe the world would be a better place. Half of all crime is spawned by those who know they're doing something "naughty" or "forbidden" and get a rush from doing so... but if nothing were naughty or forbidden or taboo, there would be no rush, and therefore -- in my own armchair philosophy, at least -- there would be less inclination to commit crimes.

I know this is entirely impractical, but I am an idealist of sorts, and I will continue to do everything in my power to work toward this ideal of a world in which, quite literally, nothing is sacred.

-Tom

Great post, very well written.

Don't agree with any of it.
 

Zabant

Member
Let me throw out a few questions and thoughts.

If the characters in these games were very obviously fully-grown and adult women, and the discussion is pretty much in line with the previous Criminal Girl threads; in that they mostly involved discussion about the sexual pandering parts and "this game is for pervs/why does this exist?" would the moderation team object people to making threads about the game?

Is the issue here that the characters look like children or that there is sexual pandering and that's mostly what is being discussed?

I personally find the sexualization of children and teenagers that is present in a small number of Japanese games (Hyperdimension Neptunia etc) to be, well more than a little creepy, but it's obviously there for a reason and it does not seem like it's going to stop.

For example there's a scene in Persona 3 (Fantastic game IMO) that some people would argue is more than a little eyebrow raising.

As long as stuff like this is in games then this is going to be an issue and people are going to discuss it, whether that be in disgust or approval. Banning discussion on certain games outright is a very blunt and imprecise way to deal with the problem and sets a very bad precedent for the future.

I understand that the moderation team does not want to deal with threads involving arguments about pedophilia or threads that have lots of NSFW images posted, but I would argue for clear cut rules that allow for discussion of the game as a whole, but not the controversial and thread derailing conversations within.

Something like "If a game has scenes of a (particular) questionable nature, please refrain from posting images or video of these scenes or derailing discussion so that they are the main topic.

and to back that up if mods don't want discussion of a certain subject like pedophilia as it leads to shit threads:

"Do not makes threads solely discussing scenes of a (particular) questionable nature within a certain game"
 
I love this thread. Like Adam Jensen, I don't even know what side I'm on. I'm not exactly thrilled by wyrdwad artistic anarchist future but I can see the appeal given some reactions here.

I think is not worth for Criminal Girls so I'm going to sleep, I have class tomorrow.
 

Relativ9

Member
And thank god for it, lets hope the mods start closing more threads like this (games depicting underage characters in sexual contexts). If you like thst kind of thing go to 4chan, Neogaf gets enough shit from the industry not to be recluse of (harsh but true) pervs and pedophiles.
 
Yeah, this one threw me off too for a minute - "triteness" wasn't referring to your post or bishoptl's. Glittering Crux said GAF didn't allow niche titles and MormaPope used bishoptl's response to your post as an example of how a niche post would be allowed. (check the bolded lines)
That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.
 

MormaPope

Banned
Criminal Girls is art.

But not all art holds the same merit or has meaningful context.

Like, this movie is art:

220px-Ernestcamp1987.jpg


But the merit it holds probably isn't substantial.
 

Yuuichi

Member
You know, children aren't on their own. Parents could do their jobs and Parent.

Woah there, that's a lot to ask of the average american for what I see everyday at work. I have a customer service job and it's usually pretty obvious who the good parents are.
 
It isn't. If I may be perfectly honest (and speak entirely for myself, not representing XSEED in even the remotest way), I'd prefer there exist no ratings board whatsoever, that no platform-holder ever turned down any game for any reason, and that no content was ever denied from existing in any work of art, no matter how reprehensible it may be.

In other words, I hope one day for complete, worldwide artistic anarchy.

I don't believe any art should ever be considered taboo, nor that anyone -- regardless of age or sensitivity -- should ever be restricted from viewing any work of art.

I believe that the mere existence of taboos is what causes most of society's problems -- if we were completely frank and open and exposed everyone to every aspect of the human condition from the very day they could learn to comprehend it all, I firmly believe the world would be a better place. Half of all crime is spawned by those who know they're doing something "naughty" or "forbidden" and get a rush from doing so... but if nothing were naughty or forbidden or taboo, there would be no rush, and therefore -- in my own armchair philosophy, at least -- there would be less inclination to commit crimes.

I know this is entirely impractical, but I am an idealist of sorts, and I will continue to do everything in my power to work toward this ideal of a world in which, quite literally, nothing is sacred.

-Tom

You're the best, Tom.

I 100% agree with you.
 

wyrdwad

XSEED Localization Specialist
That you take such a detached view is a bit unsettling actually. The whole underlying meaning to art is how it both reflects and effects reality in a relationship of synthesis.

I disagree, actually. I think art reflects reality, but I don't believe it AFFECTS reality. Not on any significant level, anyway.

Art can be a catalyst for behavior, certainly... but it's not the art that CAUSES the behavior, but rather TRIGGERS it. The potential for that behavior always existed within the individual, and if the art in question didn't exist, something else would inevitably have set him/her off in its place.

I believe that as long as reality is dark and full of horrible things, so too will art be dark and full of horrible things. Art is solely a mirror of reality.

Because no argument is complete without a slippery slope - a guy slicing another person to death in the middle of the street (let's just say with consent from the man he killed for the sake of terrible hypotheticals) calls it art. Is it art? Maybe, to some. Is it a valid form of expression that shouldn't be curtailed? Nope.

The difference, however, is that such an act has robbed another of his freedoms. And as soon as you're directly harming others in the name of art, you are a criminal.

A game which depicts horrible acts directed at fictional characters, however, is not directly harming anyone. Some may claim that it's INDIRECTLY harming others... but I would not. I believe that such art is completely and utterly harmless.

-Tom
 

collige

Banned
Many, including the supreme court of the united states, sees a distinction between pornography and art. What isn't defined is where that distinction exists, and that is a subjective measure inherent to society and the individual.
The Miller test is bullshit though. I honestly can't see how anyone who's given the obscenity issue serious thought can think it's a good idea.
 
Would you still feel the same knowing that this could potentially harm childrens in development or that this rather favorable depiction of abuse could fuel someone into harming others?

You know that this is the same argument people make about violent video games, right?
 

Mik317

Member
And thank god for it, lets hope the mods start closing more threads like this (games depicting underage characters in sexual contexts). If you like thst kind of thing go to 4chan, Neogaf gets enough shit from the industry not to be recluse of (harsh but true) pervs and pedophiles.

and this is exactly why some are worried about this precedent.

If Criminal Girls is the line fine...but if it begins to move to other perverted games..is where I think many get worried.
 

213372bu

Banned
You know, children aren't on their own. Parents could do their jobs and Parent.

Well, it's kinda funny about that. Because the ESRB dictates what's exactly in the game and it even has a suggested rating for that. Parents, who aren't exactly into gaming or feel the need to delve into matters whether to see what game has certain content.

The ESRB makes that job easier by stating what is exactly in the game. The cool thing is, that ESRB doesn't say whether one should buy the game because of said content, rather it helps parents as said earlier.

By saying such an organization shouldn't exist as to people of all ages being exposed to all content as it leads to a "healthier" environment is really bizzare. Another thing is bizzare is that Tom says he approves of all forms of art, and that all things created are art and should be experienced.

I'm just wondering if people like Tom believe if videos of sexual abuse of children are infact art and what his thoughts on it are.
 

NewGame

Banned
Ironically I think Rule of Rose got banned somewhere in Europe (I want to say Italy?) since the marketers for that particular region played up those controversial elements to the point where I guess people thought it was far worse than it actually was.

I was going to say it was banned in Australia but sometimes 'banned in Australia' also means 'Atlus published it'.

I could never find it at retail, only through Amazon did I find it more recently.


EDIT: Yep! Here we go < Very interesting reading

At E3 2006 Atlus announced that it would be releasing Rule of Rose in the United States,[37] following Sony's decision to pass on a U.S. release.[38] This was on the grounds of the game's erotic undertones involving a cast of female minors.

In November 2006 505's Australian distributor, Red-Ant advised that the game's Australian and New Zealand release would be cancelled.[43] The game had yet to be rated by the Classification Board.[44]
 

Raticus79

Seek victory, not fairness
That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.

I was scrolling around and didn't see the first half of that post at first. Sat there staring at it for about 2 minutes straight trying to figure out how someone still had an active account after saying bishoptl was being trite and didn't read the thread. Eventually deciphered it, lol
 

Krejlooc

Banned
The Miller test is bullshit though. I honestly can't see how anyone who's given the obscenity issue serious thought can think it's a good idea.

The point wasn't to champion that specific "test," it was to answer his rhetorical question about not seeing pornography as art, as though that was a ridiculous sentiment. The point I was making is that most would draw a distinction between pornography and art, and that the line is different for every person. Then I explained my personal line (the bit about expression).
 

wyrdwad

XSEED Localization Specialist
Would you still feel the same knowing that this could potentially harm childrens in development or that this rather favorable depiction of abuse could fuel someone into harming others?

I would, because I don't believe for a second that that's true. Art, as far as I'm concerned, can never make anyone do anything they wouldn't have already been inclined to do in the first place.

It amy be art, but it's art designed around selling animated child porn to a specific audience. NeoGAF has the right to not allow discussion of what is ostensibly animated child porn.

To be clear, I'm actually not arguing this point at all. NeoGAF's moderators are free to run the board however they wish. I may not agree with their decisions, but this isn't my board, and I'm not about to tell them what to do within their own jurisdiction.

I'm merely engaging in this debate on a philosophical level, because I strongly believe that censorship is morally and ethically wrong -- much more so than the acts being depicted in this or any other game.

-Tom
 

Krejlooc

Banned
The difference, however, is that such an act has robbed another of his freedoms. And as soon as you're directly harming others in the name of art, you are a criminal.

The guy in my example consented to being executed. he willingly forfeited his freedoms. Or are you saying (dun dun dun) that people don't have the freedom to choose to die?
 
Damn, I'm laughing so much right now.

One of the main reasons I'm never changing my avatar is for this haha.

Edit: I know you're joking and I'm fine with it, but I was not expecting a mod to make such a joke when it's shunned to judge people over their avatars on GAF.

I know others will get really pissed about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom