Every David Cage movie/game ever.
Was there one in Indigo Prophecy?
Every David Cage movie/game ever.
I wish this post didn't make me remember that rape/assault/whatever scene in Heavy Rain, but it just did. Oh god.
Since when did video game journalists start to think that they're a part of the creative process? Is this where their incestuous relationship with publishers has gotten us?
Did a journalist describe it? I only read that bit that Cox himself said that they had this in at some point but already removed it because it was too much for the marketing department. It would be weird if the journalists all saw different builds.I still have some confusion because it appears at one time it showed the child being fed upon, whereas now it doesn't.
Did a journalist describe it? I only read that bit that Cox himself said that they had this in at some point but already removed it because it was too much for the marketing department. It would be weird if the journalists all saw different builds.
there's a clockwork orange video game?
ITT: People think Bram Stoker created vampires or something.
It's bizarre, but it's also standard - killable children mean a refused classification, blood is T but urine is M and semen is AO (and thus effectively refused classification), killing American soldiers except when playing German or Chinese soldier means refused distribution even if you're classified, and so on. Why is catering to her sensitivities worse than catering to these sensitivities? If it isn't, why don't we have multiple threads going on GAF about these assaults on artistic integrity?
It's especially striking because the killing of a child in the very same scene WAS cut by the publisher, and no one in this thread seems to mind.
This is important, too. Drac having the option of meta-raping everything he can get his hands on is honestly way less potentially offensive, IMO, because it pushes him further toward being an elemental force of pure evil instead of focusing on that thinly-veiled Mina Harper metaphor.
So he feeds on all three, but he treats the woman a little differently? I want to know how differenf. Did he touch her in certain body areas?
I want to know how her feeding is "sexualized" goddammit!
W-why?Hopefully she never played Silent Hill 2.
Of course. I never said otherwise.
Everyone involved in this conversation is using very bold words.
We'll see how adult your game is when it's released.
I'm all for artistic integrity, maintaining it and all that stuff. They have made Castlevania into their own derivative. Some might love them for that others might hate them for it. Consider me in the latter.
Was there one in Indigo Prophecy?
Yeah, it could totally be that way around. It just seems like, in the way the first article was framed, that the writer said "this is uncomfortable because rape undertones" and the developer agreed with that assessment. I could've read this totally the wrong way, though. I could be giving them way too much credit for their writing for a God of War clone.
That being said, regardless of how smart or dumb the writers of Castlevania actually are, people getting defensive out of hand on the game's behalf because they don't think vampire fiction plays on rape are completely missing the point and are obfuscating what's actually worth debating here.

"Did you feel uncomfortable playing that scene?" Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 producer Dave Cox asks me.
I'm sitting in a roundtable interview with a handful of journalists after having just spent more than an hour playing Lords of Shadow 2...
...Yes, I told Cox. That scene did in fact make me uncomfortable. His reply is so swift that I can barely even get the word "yes" out of my mouth: "That's what we wanted. That's exactly what we wanted." [Cox continues to talk]
oh, I see. That's rather weird.The other three previews all said all 3 were fed upon but the child wasn't shown being fed on. The author in OP article claims she only saw woman fed upon. So, either she didn't see it all, or they changed it.
You're right about that version being removed, but it's not clear if anyone saw it.
Play Beyond, lol.
The outcry back then was very little from the press itself (such as it was). It tended to be driven by the likes of concerned parents groups, politicians, Joseph Lieberman, Jack Thompson, etc.It's always been this way dude. I remember reading stuff like this in the 90's when DN3D was the big news. And the articles surrounding Mortal Kombat? Forget it.
That sounds, to me, like Cox posed a question to a roundtable, Bailey said "yes," and then Cox immediately went off on how it was all his artistic vision. The subsequent comments related to this (as related by this and the other articles) all seem to Cox pointing to Dracula's need to kill and the violence as the central point of discomfort here (see: him claiming that the marketing department forced them to censor the image of a young girl's corpse after Dracula feeds on her).
It sounds like Bailey never actually tells Cox outright why the scene made her uncomfortable, but the article is framed in such a way that implies that Cox is agreeing with her assessment and claiming that her specific take on it was intentional.
Yeah, a big part of this rests on whether or not the Very Serious Moment animation for the other characters is just "press button, people dead" but a sexy long bodice-ripping neck kiss for the woman. I'm not really gathering a clear picture from any of the articles.
That sounds, to me, like Cox posed a question to a roundtable, Bailey said "yes," and then Cox immediately went off on how it was all his artistic vision. The subsequent comments related to this (as related by this and the other articles) all seem to Cox pointing to Dracula's need to kill and the violence as the central point of discomfort here (see: him claiming that the marketing department forced them to censor the image of a young girl's corpse after Dracula feeds on her).
It sounds like Bailey never actually tells Cox outright why the scene made her uncomfortable, but the article is framed in such a way that implies that Cox is agreeing with her assessment and claiming that her specific take on it was intentional.
The media in general is very selective when it comes to making an outrage. Tomb Raider's outrage was insane pre-launch, then when the game actually shipped no one made a comment about it, because it turned out to be pretty harmless. Beyond has a scene that clearly depicts attempted rape against a 16 year old girl, yet no one made a comment.Why am I not surprised Far Cry 3 isn't on the list? No one really seemed to have made an issue of it when happened.
http://youtu.be/yh6mgHgOJhE?t=3m28s
The only difference between this game and others is that the man was the victim of rape.
oh, I see. That's rather weird.
I'm all for letting devs make the game they want to make. If it's too extreme they will get cut down by the publisher but Journos should just shut the hell up and stop complaining about this kind of stuff.
God, i can't even imagine how much shit Kojima will get for MGSV.
It seems either she didn't see the whole scene or someone is being untruthful.
https://twitter.com/CastlevaniaLOS/status/422840586773995520
I read the article before coming across this thread or seeing any of the twitter backlash against Kat and US Gamer.
My takeaway after reading is that this is not what I want from "Castlevania". Can Konami please bring back Iga?!
It sounds like he's a vampire drinking blood. This is fucking stupid.
He'll probably get a free pass, because Japan is weiiiiiiird. At least I've seen arguments like that in gaming press in the past.
That sounds, to me, like Cox posed a question to a roundtable, Bailey said "yes," and then Cox immediately went off on how it was all his artistic vision. The subsequent comments related to this (as related by this and the other articles) all seem to Cox pointing to Dracula's need to kill and the violence as the central point of discomfort here (see: him claiming that the marketing department forced them to censor the image of a young girl's corpse after Dracula feeds on her).
It sounds like Bailey never actually tells Cox outright why the scene made her uncomfortable, but the article is framed in such a way that implies that Cox is agreeing with her assessment and claiming that her specific take on it was intentional.