Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 126221]

These discussions always have a huge excluded middle, you are either outraged by the art, or you enjoy it for the purpose of sexual arousal, you couldnt perhaps be simply ignoring it in favour of the game in question? Calling people paedophiles is just a cheap (and effective) attempt to polarise the discussion into meaningless "Us vs Them" polemics

Sure, but if you're angrily defending the art on internet forums when someone said it made them uncomfortable, you're probably not simply "ignoring it".

 

[LordJim]

Yet people are still outraged at these posts two years later, to the point where he's apparently discredited forever as a journalist? Um ok... xD

;Gee , I just called people correcting me on using words I have no clue what THEY mean as pedophiles and i called a developer a 14 year old because why else would he give big breasts to characters? I actually do my job and write articles a few times for a site that belongs to the shittiest, most yellow information network , why hold things I said against me?'

 

[HGH]

Really? He called people human scum and insulted everyone (which is what "left and right" means)? I must have missed that.


I saw Parish's tweets and I fail to see where he was wrong or offensive, to be honest. Btw, like besada said, insinuating that people who enjoy looking at pictures of sexualized children are pedophiles is not an insult, it's factually accurate.


Is that so?
Edit: did you guys mean this post? If so, lol @ the "he's calling everyone who disagrees with him a pedo!!" spin.

Yes, insinuating or labelling people pedophiles and lolicons falls under calling them human scum.
Just because he candy coated it doesn't make it any less bad.
As for Parish, have you considered that maybe the people he's responding to are not in the fact these pedophiles he labelled them(which, by the way, was a topic that was barely a footnote in his article), but rather people with valid arguments? But it is easier to just dismiss criticism when you demonize your opponent.

 

[Uthred]

Sure, but if you're angrily defending the art on internet forums when someone said it made them uncomfortable, you're probably not simply "ignoring it".

Anecdotally I'd disagree, I dont find images of sexualised children arousing (But of course if I did I'd still say that wouldnt I?) and find fan service (as its seldom in my wheelhouse as it were) boring or amusing, yet I still generally engage in discussion of it (for numerous reasons, sometimes its interesting discussion, sometimes the moral objections are obnoxious and sometimes clearly for masochism). So no, I dont think just because you are discussing it on the internet you dont just simply shrug and ignore it in game. I think that argument is even more relevant for the genre's generally discussed. You spend most of your time in roguelikes and dungeon crawlers looking at your stats not trying to figure out if a fictional characters bust makes them legal or not. I'd happily play a dungeon crawler where all the characters were geometric shapes, as long as the mechanics were good.

 

[thegirlleastlikelyto]

Not just dungeon crawlers but low budget JRPGs in general are crawling with this stuff these days. It's very annoying.

It's crawling with this stuff because as the Japanese economy contracts, the normal Japanese people who bought stuff that genuinely appealed broadly outside of Japan (like Shibuya-kei music) are buying less, while otaku continue to have to buy things to stay remain in their subculture. They have more purchasing power, so more media is being created to appeal to them (and the cycle continues). David W. Marx has a great article about it.

From the 1960s to the end of the 1990s, the upper-middle class and middle-class controlled Japanese pop culture, yet there had always been a few important marginal youth consumer groups outside of the Japanese mainstream. The most solid subcultural voting blocs since the late 1970s have been the otaku — anti-social “nerds” interested in science fiction, comic books, video games, and sexualized little girls (lolicon) — and the yankii — “delinquent” non-urban working class youth with low levels of education and a blue-collar destiny. (The gyaru subculture — originally upper middle-class — should now be seen as the female manifestation of yankii values.)

These marginal groups are true minorities when compared to the mainstream market, but their size is not what makes them marginal. The use of “marginal” here measures the distance from the subcultural consumer segment to both middle-class social norms as well as from the tastemakers, gatekeepers, and workers within the large companies that produce pop culture. The counter-consumers, for example, were never large in number, but they had their hands on the reigns of the culture industry. Otaku may likely work at independent game publishers who make erotic titles, and ex-yankii run yankii magazines, but Japan’s largest and most hallowed culture companies such as Magazine House, Nintendo, Sony, and Uniqlo mostly hire graduates from Waseda, Keio, and other top universities. Otaku and yankii had strong outcast communities, but they essentially had to live on the fringes of pop culture. Yankii and otaku spent their formative years as true social outcasts — blamed as juvenile delinquents and sociopaths.

In times of a substantial and profitable mainstream consumer market, large companies were justified in ignoring the yankii and otaku segments as potential customers. Moreover the culture industry had a great risk in indulging too conspicuously in these subcultures, lest they offend their core of middle-class consumers.

So until very recently, Japan’s culture industry — dominated by educated upper-middle class counter-consumers — worked hard to appeal to Japan’s large middle class. Tokyo’s powerful consumer base and Tokyo as industry center of cultural production made the wider culture gravitate towards the specific tastes of Tokyo upper middle-class youth. This, however, has drastically changed in the last decade with the fall of middle class consumerism. Next time we will look how the otaku and yankii have taken over the vacuum left by the middle-classes as they exit markets.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

Ok


I see absolutely nothing wrong with that post. He acknowledged his error in using the wrong terminology. So obviously it follows that he wasn't calling anyone a pedo. Yet people are still outraged at these posts two years later, to the point where he's apparently discredited forever as a journalist? Um ok... xD


Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose we greatly offend those poor pictophiliac/other-types-ofunderage-girl-fetishists people by calling them pedophiles. So unfair and bigoted and intolerant...

There are several arguments in that thread that Jason decided to avoid and group them all together as criticism that comes from lolicon savages in order to dismiss every ounce criticism to his terrible opinionated article that admitted no criticism because he had the moral higher ground.

 

[GamerJM]

Looks more like an older teen to me. Though there's also culture to keep in mind here. By western standards, Japanese adults can be incredibly youthful and you've got plenty of examples of people in their 20s and even 30s that could pass for 14. I blame the crazy skincare.

It's important to keep in mind that the characters often aren't just youthful in their appearance though. Like, a lot of them clearly actually act like children.

Though I will say, as a dude in his 20s who can pass for 14, I do think it's kinda wrong to assume that certain characters are children just because they look like children.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I don't want to be of bad faith, but what are the "valid arguments" that are ignored exactly? I've followed this thread and I haven't really seen one. People argue that "there's an audience for it", that questioning this sexualisation is somehow censorship (it's not) and that they feel personally insulted because they enjoy said games.

 

[thegirlleastlikelyto]

By western standards, Japanese adults can be incredibly youthful and you've got plenty of examples of people in their 20s and even 30s that could pass for 14. I blame the crazy skincare.

I can assure you that in my time living and working in Japan I never mistook 20-year-olds for 14, let alone 30-year-olds.

I swear to god, half the time on GAF Japan is like the old ocean maps where they'd just guess when they didn't know and write "here be dragons."

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Oh, I'm sorry, I suppose we greatly offend those poor pictophiliac/other-types-ofunderage-girl-fetishists people by calling them pedophiles. So unfair and bigoted and intolerant...

Feel free to call it a semantics thing. Just pointing out that it's a complex discussion made all the more complex by how much we still need to understand about human sexuality.

 

[Brakke]

Hey guys what's going on in this graveyard of a thread?

Looks more like an older teen to me. Though there's also culture to keep in mind here. By western standards, Japanese adults can be incredibly youthful and you've got plenty of examples of people in their 20s and even 30s that could pass for 14. I blame the crazy skincare.

lmao

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I can assure you that in my time living and working in Japan I never mistook 20-year-olds for 14, let alone 30-year-olds.

I swear to god, half the time on GAF Japan is like the old ocean maps where they'd just guess at what's over there and write "thar be dragons."

Accounts of JET friends and my own more local experiences are different, but it's kind of hard to argue perception as well as anecdotal evidence, so fair enough. I definitely see people like Sakurai and Araki and think they could easily pass for 15, but that's just me.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

;Gee , I just called people correcting me on using words I have no clue what THEY mean as pedophiles

But he didn't...

and i called a developer a 14 year old because why else would he give big breasts to characters?

Here I thought this wasn't about his spat with Kamitani? But once again, he apologized to Kamitani and they resolved their differences amiably. Why are you still angry about that?

It's important to keep in mind that the characters often aren't just youthful in their appearance though. Like, a lot of them clearly actually act like children.

Good point.

Feel free to call it a semantics thing. Just pointing out that it's a complex discussion made all the more complex by how much we still need to understand about human sexuality.

No, it's really not about that at all.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I see people like Sakurai and Araki and think they could easily pass for 15, but that's just me.

Definitely just you

 

[thegirlleastlikelyto]

I definitely see people like Sakurai and Araki and think they could easily pass for 15, but that's just me.

Definitely just you

Sakurai now looks a bit like there ought to be a painting of him in an attic somewhere growing older, but despite the hair style and clothes, he doesn't look "15."

There's probably quite a discussion about how western culture has an emasculated view of Asian men, so that someone could write, with a straight face, that an obviously middle-aged guy like Sakurai "could pass for 15," but I'm not dying on that hill today.

And of course, there was the past...

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Sakurai now looks a bit like there ought to be a painting of him in an attic somewhere growing older, but despite the hair style and clothes, he doesn't look "15."

There's probably quite a discussion about how western culture has an emasculated view of Asian men, so that someone could write, with a straight face, that an obviously middle-aged guy like Sakurai "could pass for 15," but I'm not dying on that hill today.

And of course, there was the past...

I don't know, I feel like Sakurai looks younger now than he did then.

Maybe not 15, but definitely teenager age.

Then we got Araki, who doesn't look like this anymore, but did for a while (he's currently 55).

 

[AlucardGV]

If the target audience that enjoys content sexualizing underage people is larger than the target audience that enjoys sexualizing adults in a mature way, I'd say that's pretty fucking depressing.

you may want to know what's the most researched word on porn websites lol

Good thing we weren't talking about his beef with Kamitani, but instead his inability to apologize to the people who disagreed with his opinion on the Sorceress w/o calling them pedophiles more or less.

funny thing iirc Kamitani himself had to apologize for a picture with 3 naked dwarves, lmao

 

[AlucardGV]

double post sorry

 

[thegirlleastlikelyto]

I don't know, I feel like Sakurai looks younger now than he did then.

Maybe not 15, but definitely teenager age.

That's what I'm saying. He does look different (and at first glance, younger, perhaps), but that's mostly clothes and hair (and I think he lost some weight). Beyond that, and with more than a moment's glance, he does look like a middle-aged man.

Then we got Araki, who doesn't look like this anymore, but did for a while (he's currently 55).

So this Asian dude should be judged by some arbitrary western/white standards of who looks like an adult, basically?

 

[Nairume]

I don't know, I feel like Sakurai looks younger now than he did then.



Maybe not 15, but definitely teenager age.

Then we got Araki, who doesn't look like this anymore, but did for a while (he's currently 55).

Perhaps Araki hasn't fed lately. It's the only requirement for the mask keeping him young.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Parish out in front with the "let's get this weird Vita dungeon crawler or roguelike marked out asap" race. That's been one of his third-wheelhouses for a year or so, inbetween playing Etrian games. To be fair, it is a shame that roguelikes and dungeon crawlers have seen such a boon on Vita only for 99% of them to be entirely focused on generic, me-too loli stuff with a plain skeleton underneath. It'd be nice if Shiren the Wanderer 5+ made it over here. Gimme more Brandish and less Sorcery Saga.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

Where is the Mask Araki? I want to be immortal too.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

It's important to keep in mind that the characters often aren't just youthful in their appearance though. Like, a lot of them clearly actually act like children.

Any specific examples? I'd say most act like the teenagers they are. Only exception I can think of off the top of my had would be Lymle from Star Ocean 4, which there actually is a reason for (shoddy as it is). Doesn't change the fact she's a totally pandery character and the implied feelings toward/from Faize is still creepy, but there's at least an attempt at context.

It's usually the "thousand year old dragons" that act like children.

you may want to know what's the most researched word on porn websites lol

Futanari?

Perhaps Araki hasn't fed lately. It's the only requirement for the mask keeping him young.

Well that would suck if he gave up the vampire lifestyle. There's still like 6 decades of JoJo he still has to cover.

 

[encephalon]

People can be aroused by violence. To quote you "Your personal arousal or lack thereof is irrelevant to the purpose".

And secondly, is arousal some kind of uniquely forbidden taboo?

People can be, but that's not why violence is in games.

No, "arousal" highlights the key difference between why sexual content exists in games and why violent content exists in games.

The "Yeah but what about murder simulators" argument makes no sense because violence is not included in games to because of desire that stems from a fundamental biological imperative. Sexual content is.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

People can be, but that's not why violence is in games.

No, "arousal" highlights the key difference between why sexual content exists in games and why violent content exists in games.

The "Yeah but what about murder simulators" argument makes no sense because violence is not included in games to because of desire that stems from a fundamental biological imperative. Sexual content is.

Recently there was a thread talking about gory in video games, most people agree to the notion that gory provides a satisfying feedback to the violence. The key word here is satisfying, that means on some level all of us felt damn good when we made that Zandatsu and crushed that cyborg spine. Violent games for the most parts are design to make the players feel good when they perform violent acts against imaginary people.

The only small difference is that for most of us it's not related to sexuality (probably), which means somehow sexuality is the biggest nono as oppose to other sins.

Btw, biologically we're all also probably programmed to do violence as much as we're programmed to procreate.

 

[Tapejara]

Recently there was a thread talking about gory in video games, most people agree to the notion that gory provides a satisfying feedback to the violence. The key word here is satisfying, that means on some level all of us felt damn good when we made that Zandatsu and crushed that cyborg spine. Violent games for the most parts are design to make the players feel good when they perform violent acts against imaginary people.

The only small difference is that for most of us it's not related to sexuality (probably), which means somehow sexuality is the biggest nono as oppose to other sins.

Btw, biologically we're all also probably programmed to do violence as much as we're programmed to procreate.

A few thoughts:

- Gore/violence can still be satisfying and problematic at the same time. Stating that a violent game is fun isn't an approval of how it handles violence.

- Violence (and sexuality as well) can sometimes be justified by the narrative and settings. A game like The Last of Us is a good example of a game where the violent actions the player can participate in are justified by the game's setting. The problem many have with the games described in the article (though I disagree that Onechanbara) is that the use of sexuality just comes off as lazy.

- Sex isn't the sin that people have a problem with. It's the lack of nature relationships in games and the prominence of sex mini-games that typically involve characters of questionable age.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

A mature industry is big enough to allow and ignore immature stuff like this, not ostracize and shame it. No one makes the argument that the movie industry "needs to grow up" because Skinemax-level movies are released all the time.


The premise of this article is so bad, it's laughable.


I'm not even going to get into the Eastern vs. Western sensibility argument, and an American Male making blanket judgments on a piece of Japanese media intended for Japanese audiences. Ugh.

 

[Ingueferroque]

People can be, but that's not why violence is in games.

No, "arousal" highlights the key difference between why sexual content exists in games and why violent content exists in games.

The "Yeah but what about murder simulators" argument makes no sense because violence is not included in games to because of desire that stems from a fundamental biological imperative. Sexual content is.

Are you sure of that?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

- Sex isn't the sin that people have a problem with. It's the lack of nature relationships in games and the prominence of sex mini-games that typically involve characters of questionable age.

Not to mention that the sexualization of characters is very one-sided towards one gender.

 

[Tapejara]

Not to mention that the sexualization of characters is very one-sided towards one gender.

Yes of course. I knew I was forgetting part of my argument.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

A few thoughts:

- Gore/violence can still be satisfying and problematic at the same time. Stating that a violent game is fun isn't an approval of how it handles violence.

- Violence (and sexuality as well) can sometimes be justified by the narrative and settings. A game like The Last of Us is a good example of a game where the violent actions the player can participate in are justified by the game's setting. The problem many have with the games described in the article (though I disagree that Onechanbara) is that the use of sexuality just comes off as lazy.

- Sex isn't the sin that people have a problem with. It's the lack of nature relationships in games and the prominence of sex mini-games that typically involve characters of questionable age.

I don't have a problem with what you've said.

But I would just want to add in something that's been bugging me- why is it that we can all agree there's a clearly difference between fake and real gory, cartoony and realistic violence, and can agree that just because you like to raise hell in Prototype or Saint's Row you're not a murdering psychopath in real life (probably).

But we would throw a blanket statement over anything sexual?

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Not to mention that the sexualization of characters is very one-sided towards one gender.

That's more a localization issue than anything. Thanks to the Fujoshi market, Japan has far more games with sexualized guys appealing to women than the west will ever have at this point in time. Though more are being brought over, so that's starting to change.

 

[Ingueferroque]

I don't have a problem with what you've said.

But I would just want to add in something that's been bugging me- why is it that we can all agree there's a clearly difference between fake and real gory, cartoony and realistic violence, and can agree that just because you like to raise hell in Prototype or Saint's Row you're not a murdering psychopath in real life (probably).

But we would throw a blanket statement over anything sexual?

Because people are less comfortable with sexuality than with violence, I guess.

The pedo calls and insinuations itt are insulting and just beyond any reason, it also belittles the atrocities that you would associate with a pedophile.

Or maybe Im wrong, and the FBI should raid Square Enix and confiscate all of the account details for people that ever rolled one of those childlike dwarfish characters in FF Online.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't have a problem with what you've said.

But I would just want to add in something that's been bugging me- why is it that we can all agree there's a clearly difference between fake and real gory, cartoony and realistic violence, and can agree that just because you like to raise hell in Prototype or Saint's Row you're not a murdering psychopath in real life (probably).

But we would throw a blanket statement over anything sexual?

Yes, cartoony violence isn't realistic, and doesn't make you a psychopath for enjoying it, but on some level you are enjoying the idea of the violence, yes? That's how media works, and its not a bad thing. Its not real, but the ideas inside it map to our understanding. I also really don't like the violence comparison these days: its useful insomuch as yeah, "games don't make you violent" also applies to "games don't make you a predator" but beyond that the way we handle sex and sexuality, both individually and as a culture or cultures is waaaaay different then how we handle violence.

By the same token cartoony sexuality might not be realistic, but on some level if you actively enjoy it you enjoy the idea of the sexualization depicted. Now the big conversation normally becomes how sexualization is depicted and what its trying to say, in what way it wants people to interpret what's depicted, but when it comes to, hm, sexualization of younger characters I don't know if the conversation is ready to go that far yet when we can't even get past "if you enjoy the sexualization of younger characters you enjoy the idea of the sexualization of those younger characters"

 

[Tapejara]

I don't have a problem with what you've said.

But I would just want to add in something that's been bugging me- why is it that we can all agree there's a clearly difference between fake and real gory, cartoony and realistic violence, and can agree that just because you like to raise hell in Prototype or Saint's Row you're not a murdering psychopath.

But would throw a blanket statement over anything sexual?

The issue comes from the age of the characters. People who play games like Bayonetta or Dead or Alive aren't really called perverts - though yes, these games have caught some flack, there isn't as much criticism compared to something like Criminal Girls or Monster Monpiece. With the latter games, the reason comes from the characters designs that appear quite young.

On the violence side, there is criticism towards games like Hatred, where the game is essentially a murder simulator. But, that aside, I think a good reason violence isn't as taboo is due to, once again, the age of the characters. As beseda said earlier in this thread, there are next to no games that focus on killing children. I'm sure that more people would be judged for playing a game where the key is to kill children, much like how games that sexualize underage characters share a similar reputation. Not sure I'm making sense with that last point as I am on mobile, so please excuse any poor formatting on my part.

Edit: good points coming from Technomancer (as usual).

 

[cosmicblizzard]

The issue comes from the age of the characters. People who play games like Bayonetta or Dead or Alive aren't really called perverts - though yes, these games have caught some flack, there isn't as much criticism compared to something like Criminal Girls or Monster Monpiece. With the latter games, the reason comes from the characters designs that appear quite young.

On the violence side, there is criticism towards games like Hatred, where the game is essentially a murder simulator. But, that aside, I think a good reason violence isn't as taboo is due to, once again, the age of the characters. As beseda said earlier in this thread, there are next to no games that focus on killing children. I'm sure that more people would be judged for playing a game where the key is to kill children, much like how games that sexualize underage characters share a similar reputation. Not sure I'm making sense with that last point as I am on mobile, so please excuse any poor formatting on my part.

Edit: good points coming from Technomancer (as usual).

Can't you kill children in Fallout?

Also, there's Postal, but no one takes it seriously because it's so stupid, which is what I'd expect people to think of these games we're discussing as they're equally as stupid if not more so.

 

[The Technomancer]

Can't you kill children in Fallout?

Also, there's Postal, but no one takes it seriously because it's so stupid, which is what I'd expect people to think of these games we're discussing as they're equally as stupid if not more so.

But who admits to liking Postal? Or says "well yeah the violence is kind of awful but I look past that and enjoy it anyway"

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Yes, cartoony violence isn't realistic, and doesn't make you a psychopath for enjoying it, but on some level you are enjoying the idea of the violence, yes? That's how media works, and its not a bad thing. Its not real, but the ideas inside it map to our understanding. I also really don't like the violence comparison these days: its useful insomuch as yeah, "games don't make you violent" also applies to "games don't make you a predator" but beyond that the way we handle sex and sexuality, both individually and as a culture or cultures is waaaaay different then how we handle violence.

By the same token cartoony sexuality might not be realistic, but on some level if you actively enjoy it you enjoy the idea of the sexualization depicted. Now the big conversation normally becomes how sexualization is depicted and what its trying to say, in what way it wants people to interpret what's depicted, but when it comes to, hm, sexualization of younger characters I don't know if the conversation is ready to go that far yet when we can't even get past "if you enjoy the sexualization of younger characters you enjoy the idea of the sexualization of those younger characters"

Honest to Aiwass, I would love to understand the bold part further.

Cause if it's like you've said, and we enjoy the idea of the sexualization, doesn't that also mean we enjoy the idea of the violent act (ie. ripping out spines)?

 

[cosmicblizzard]

But who admits to liking Postal? Or says "well yeah the violence is kind of awful but I look past that and enjoy it anyway"

I mean people bought enough for it to get a sequel, so I imagine there's a surprising amount.

 

[The Technomancer]

I mean people bought enough for it to get a sequel, so I imagine there's a surprising amount.

Okay fair enough. Second point still stands though

 

[Uthred]

Parish out in front with the "let's get this weird Vita dungeon crawler or roguelike marked out asap" race. That's been one of his third-wheelhouses for a year or so, inbetween playing Etrian games. To be fair, it is a shame that roguelikes and dungeon crawlers have seen such a boon on Vita only for 99% of them to be entirely focused on generic, me-too loli stuff with a plain skeleton underneath. It'd be nice if Shiren the Wanderer 5+ made it over here. Gimme more Brandish and less Sorcery Saga.

Most of the dungeon crawlers that get localised are fairly solid mechanically, a recent example would be Dungeon Travelers 2, which is on the banned list here, has some fairly interesting upgrade mechanics. It is unfortunate for fans of the genre who cant ignore the visuals (though generally the amount of time you'd actually be looking at objectionable stuff is limited)

 

[The Technomancer]

Most of the dungeon crawlers that get localised are fairly solid mechanically, a recent example would be Dungeon Travelers 2, which is on the banned list here, has some fairly interesting upgrade mechanics. It is unfortunate for fans of the genre who cant ignore the visuals (though generally the amount of time you'd actually be looking at objectionable stuff is limited)

I'm a huge dungeon crawler fan, but I enjoy enough mechanical diversity in the genre (and usually one big crawler a year is enough for me) that I don't currently lack for entries there. Between the EO games, the occasional classical SMT game, the Grimrock games on PC and some other indie projects like Paper Sorcerer I'm doing okay there without having to feel restricted by the...skeevier japanese offerings.

Strategy RPGs though? or more traditional JRPGs that don't come from Squeenix? Much harder in my experience

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Okay fair enough. Second point still stands though

I imagine people just laugh at the absurdity of it. Not gonna lie, it is kind of hilarious.

 

[Uthred]

People can be, but that's not why violence is in games.

No, "arousal" highlights the key difference between why sexual content exists in games and why violent content exists in games.

The "Yeah but what about murder simulators" argument makes no sense because violence is not included in games to because of desire that stems from a fundamental biological imperative. Sexual content is.

Violence is most certainly included in games because it causes arousal in the audience, an arousal that is just as primal and just as much a biological imperative. You seem to be making the (common) mistake of equating arousal and sexual arousal. Arousal is just a physiological and psychological reaction, one which we undergo due to numerous stimuli, not just sex, one of those stimuli is violence, for example the fight-or-flight response is tied to arousal (a synonym for it is hyper-arousal). The idea that violence isnt included in games in order to elicit a state of arousal in the audience is naive and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how we operate as a species and of the (literally) ancient role violent spectacle has played in human entertainment. Ultimately in modern media both are included for commercial reasons (or sometimes artistic reasons if youre feeling unduly charitable)

The reasons the two states of arousal get treated differently is all about cultural and moral values, mainly American ones (due both to the population of this board in particular and the US's dominant place in global entertainment culture in general).

I'm a huge dungeon crawler fan, but I enjoy enough mechanical diversity in the genre (and usually one big crawler a year is enough for me) that I don't currently lack for entries there. Between the EO games, the occasional classical SMT game, the Grimrock games on PC and some other indie projects like Paper Sorcerer I'm doing okay there without having to feel restricted by the...skeevier japanese offerings.

Strategy RPGs though? or more traditional JRPGs that don't come from Squeenix? Much harder in my experience

Dungeon crawlers have enjoyed something of a renaissance lately so it is indeed easier to find alternatives (and even if you want Japanese Wizardry clones you have Elminage on Steam, etc.) SRPG's seem to be harder to find full-stop, though really I dont think any of the localised titles at least are particularly objectionable? (Depending on ones tolerance I suppose)

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Also, anyone that doesn't think kids should be killable hasn't played Danganronpa: Another Episode. That's going to be a fun discussion when it comes out here.

 

[MHWilliams]

Can't you kill children in Fallout?

In the first two. Fallout 3 and New Vegas don't allow it.

 

[Nairume]

Well that would suck if he gave up the vampire lifestyle. There's still like 6 decades of JoJo he still has to cover.

Maybe he became the ultimate lifeform, and part of that was aging a few years to look more regal.

Or it's the perfect of his stand 'FRESH PRINCE'

 

[encephalon]

Humans certainly seem to be predisposed to violence. That doesn't mean that humans are "programmed" to commit acts of violence in the same way that the system to pass on our dna is hardwired into us.

Violence is most certainly included in games because it causes arousal in the audience, an arousal that is just as primal and just as much a biological imperative. You seem to be making the (common) mistake of equating arousal and sexual arousal. Arousal is just a physiological and psychological reaction, one which we undergo due to numerous stimuli, not just sex, one of those stimuli is violence, for example the fight-or-flight response is tied to arousal (a synonym for it is hyper-arousal). The idea that violence isnt included in games in order to elicit a state of arousal in the audience is naive and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how we operate as a species and of the (literally) ancient role violent spectacle has played in human entertainment. Ultimately in modern media both are included for commercial reasons (or sometimes artistic reasons if youre feeling unduly charitable)

The reasons the two states of arousal get treated differently is all about cultural and moral values, mainly American ones (due both to the population of this board in particular and the US's dominant place in global entertainment culture in general).



Dungeon crawlers have enjoyed something of a renaissance lately so it is indeed easier to find alternatives (and even if you want Japanese Wizardry clones you have Elminage on Steam, etc.) SRPG's seem to be harder to find full-stop, though really I dont think any of the localised titles at least are particularly objectionable? (Depending on ones tolerance I suppose)

You are conflating two separate meanings of "arousal."

to stir to action or strong response; excite

to stimulate sexually.

The "arousal" in "hyper-arousal" is not linked to desire.

“a state of increased psychological and physiological tension marked by such effects as reduced pain tolerance, anxiety, exaggeration of startle responses, insomnia, fatigue and accentuation of personality traits.”

It's a form of stress, not one of "two types of arousal."

 

[potatohead]

It's crawling with this stuff because as the Japanese economy contracts, the normal Japanese people who bought stuff that genuinely appealed broadly outside of Japan (like Shibuya-kei music) are buying less, while otaku continue to have to buy things to stay remain in their subculture. They have more purchasing power, so more media is being created to appeal to them (and the cycle continues). David W. Marx has a great article about it.

Nice article, really liked those quotes.

Most things I read on this topic give me a similar impression of how this kind of content filled a gap where other different content kind of just got up and left.

And also similar to what the article says, despite us noticing the promotion of this new type of loli-related content, it also feels like the attention towards it is more exaggerated because of its attention grabbing value than its genuine popularity... by popularity I mean people actually buying the stuff. And for various reasons, not alone that different interest groups might be attracted to it, for different reasons too.

Not to say I don't think it's popular. But it seems to be a type of content that seems larger and louder than it really is.

I think the article I posted earlier complements your own article well in these ideas: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34005681

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=176116658&postcount=488

 

[daegan]

I often wonder when pieces like these (and their respective threads) blow up, what can you really compare it to?

There are movies that exist purely for teenage-level arousal but they aren't something that you see regularly - there's no studio, for example, that only turns these out (although whoever owns the American Pie brand certainly tried for a while.) Did movie critics write pieces about these types of movies being widespread/bad for film as a community/industry?

There have been raunchy games for a while in the west mainly on pc - I remember feeling oddly grossed out in my preteen/early teen years seeing pages of ads for these in the back of Computer Shopper and other PC rags; even Leisure Suit Larry did (and still does!) make my stomach turn over. I get that some people find it funny, but these types of games make me feel like I'm overhearing a disgusting comment from a creepy uncle.

Yet those bother me more than what I've seen of the game that spurred this piece - but I've only seen the parts included in the article, so I can't speak to that too directly. Criminal Girls really bugged me; I go back and forth on Senran Kagura. I haven't bought any of these, but I don't have a problem with them existing; I think it's more disappointing that people capable of making fun gameplay systems layer this stuff on top.