It's likely that Sony demanded to tone the game down so that it could be released in areas where it was refused classification, like UK/Australia/Germany/etc.

BraLoD said: What's exactly the content? Sex? EDIT: read the OP wall text, and lol. "In another mini-game, players are required to "fondle" a woman's chest to stimulate the growth of a crystal rod found between her breasts."

There are already games with that same mechanic on the Vita (i remember a pirate loli game a couple of years ago in which you also rub their breast by touching the screen in order to grow their boobs), but maybe it never realeased(?)...  i dont keep up with those sorts of games.

But i do know there is a game on the Vita (i think it was called Prisioner Girls or something like that) where you do indeed rub their bodies in order to punish them, and its pretty sexual (not to mention the girls are practically little girls).

And here is another game with the exact same gameplay function (called Mary Skelter) also on the Vita. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPuvqOpmw68

So that sort of thing isnt new on the platform but it seems Sony aint having none of that anymore.

BraLoD said: estebxx said: There are already games with that same mechanic on the Vita (i remember a pirate loli game a couple of years ago in which you also rub their breast by touching the screen in order to grow their boobs), but maybe it never realeased(?)...  i dont keep up with those sorts of games. But i do know there is a game on the Vita (i think it was called Prisioner Girls or something like that) where you do indeed rub their bodies in order to punish them, and its pretty sexual (not to mention the girls are practically little girls). And here is another game with the exact same gameplay function (called Mary Skelter) also on the Vita. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPuvqOpmw68 So that sort of thing isnt new on the platform but it seems Sony aint having none of that anymore. Rubbing them is not new indeed. Rubbing a pair of breasts to make a crystal in the shape of a sausage between them until it eventually gets large and all white... yeah, that's very damn new lol

LOL

Its just funny because lets be honest its not that different, i mean they were completely OK with games where you fondle little girls bodies (for whatever reason) with them moaning and everything but i guess the sausage in this one is where they draw the line.

Anime titties are dangerous.

twintail said: Hiku said: This type of game is common in Japan (which is why it got released in Japan) but some western countries like USA are fairly conservative about nudity and sex. You can show a man getting his head blown off with a shotgun, but not boobs. Because gun violence is equatable to the sexualisation of children?

 

It's a drawing and it's sugestion. Theres no depiction of children having sex. I don't know how one can make a case that this isn't ok but blowing heads off in gorish faction is ok. They are both not real. They are controller inputs and polygons or drawings. It makes no sense to take action against one and not the other. Theres no consistency in that position. Either they are both ok cause none of it is real (and tbh one sugests and the other one explicitly does it) or none is because they are representations of reality in entertainment. It's ridiculous. The reason is not to protect anyone. It's cause one sells millions and the other doesn't.

Nem said: twintail said: Because gun violence is equatable to the sexualisation of children?     It's a drawing and it's sugestion. Theres no depiction of children having sex. I don't know how one can make a case that this isn't ok but blowing heads off in gorish faction is ok. They are both not real. They are controller inputs and polygons or drawings. It makes no sense to take action against one and not the other. Theres no consistency in that position. Either they are both ok cause none of it is real (and tbh one sugests and the other one explicitly does it) or none is because they are representations of reality in entertainment. It's ridiculous. The reason is not to protect anyone. It's cause one sells millions and the other doesn't.

It doesn't have to be a depiction of a child having sex to be considered child pornography or at the very least child exploitation. Depictions of violence is not illegal, sexual depictions of children is.

There's no denying that the character in the middle here is a child:

This character is one of the specific reasons the UK's rating board gave for banning the game:

"The game is explicit in its setting within a “school” environment and the majority of the characters are young girls – one child is referred to as being a “first year” student and is seen holding a teddy bear. The game clearly promotes the sexualisation of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters."

I'd say the player having to touch and fondle a clearly underage character is very reasonable grounds for a ban. Violence on the screen and for real are very separate in our minds, sex is not, hence the majority of the world getting off on porn.

Barkley said: Nem said:   It's a drawing and it's sugestion. Theres no depiction of children having sex. I don't know how one can make a case that this isn't ok but blowing heads off in gorish faction is ok. They are both not real. They are controller inputs and polygons or drawings. It makes no sense to take action against one and not the other. Theres no consistency in that position. Either they are both ok cause none of it is real (and tbh one sugests and the other one explicitly does it) or none is because they are representations of reality in entertainment. It's ridiculous. The reason is not to protect anyone. It's cause one sells millions and the other doesn't. It doesn't have to be a depiction of a child having sex to be considered child pornography or at the very least child exploitation. Depictions of violence is not illegal, sexual depictions of children is. There's no denying that the character in the middle here is a child: This character is one of the specific reasons the UK's rating board gave for banning the game: "The game is explicit in its setting within a “school” environment and the majority of the characters are young girls – one child is referred to as being a “first year” student and is seen holding a teddy bear. The game clearly promotes the sexualisation of children via the sexual interaction between the game player and the female characters." I'd say the player having to touch and fondle a clearly underage character is very reasonable grounds for a ban. Violence on the screen and for real are very separate in our minds, sex is not, hence the majority of the world getting off on porn.

No, that is not a child. It's a drawing.

This is a child.

 

Also, there's no fondling. There's moving the analog sticks.

 

See, i have trouble with this. People not being able to differentiate reality from games and then saying one is ok depicting murder but the other one isn't for depicting suggestion. It's completely arbitrary.

The real reason is but one. One ranks in millions and the other one doesn't. So, it's ok to antagonize one but not the other.

All i'm saying is that both have to be censored or none. Can't have it both ways and still holding the high ground flag. just not possible.

Last edited by Nem - on 26 June 2018

Nem said: No, that is not a child. It's a drawing.   Also, there's no fondling. There's moving the analog sticks.   See, i have trouble with this. People not being able to differentiate reality from games and then saying one is ok depicting murder but the other one isn't for depicting suggestion. It's completely arbitrary.

It's a drawing of a child. That's why it's called a "depiction" because it's not real, doesn't mean it's ok.

The difference between violence and sex is that sex on screen and in real life illicits the same response, arousal. Violence on the screen and violence in real life does not illicit the same response.

Don't defend the sexual depiction of a child in a game designed to sexually arouse the player. It doesn't matter if it's a drawing or not, the game is saying "hey look it's a child, get off on this."

Barkley said: Nem said: No, that is not a child. It's a drawing.   Also, there's no fondling. There's moving the analog sticks.   See, i have trouble with this. People not being able to differentiate reality from games and then saying one is ok depicting murder but the other one isn't for depicting suggestion. It's completely arbitrary. It's a drawing of a child. That's why it's called a "depiction" because it's not real, doesn't mean it's ok. The difference between violence and sex is that sex on screen and in real life illicits the same response, arousal. Violence on the screen and violence in real life does not illicit the same response. Don't defend the sexual depiction of a child in a game designed to sexually arouse the player. It doesn't matter if it's a drawing or not, the game is saying "hey look it's a child, get off on this."

I'm not defending no option. I'm saying it makes no sense to consider one something and the other something else. It's hypocrisy.  Both need to be censored in my opinion or none.

Also, why doesn't violence illicit the same response? We all know school shootings are a common occurrence. Have you never practiced Street fighter or Mortal Kombat moves as a child? How is it different?

 

Screw this though. I am not gonna be accused of defending something i'm not for pointing out the hypocrisy.

Last edited by Nem - on 26 June 2018

Nem said: Also, why doesn't violence illicit the same response? We all know school shootings are a common occurrence. Have you never practiced Street fighter moves as a child? How is it different?

I'm not saying that violence in video games has no effect on the person playing, there's many studies and debates about that and people come to different conclusions, that's another discussion. But what I'm talking about is general responses to the content.

If you see something sexual on screen the general response for most people is Arousal, be it Movie, Game or Book. The response in real life to a sexual situation is also Arousal.

The response to violence in a Movie, Game or Book varies based on the person but for most they're just having fun, whereas if they are in a violent situation in real life there response is not "I'm having fun", the general response to violence is terror. This is the difference.

Sex on Screen - Aroused
Sex IRL - Aroused

Violence on screen - Fun
Violence IRL - Terror

It's instinctive that we're in danger in a real violent situation, whereas when it comes to sexual situations there is no danger (at least for the instigator) so the reaction to onscreen and real is the same with sex, but not with violence.

Nem said:  Screw this though. I am not gonna be accused of defending something i'm not for pointing out the hypocrisy.

I apologise for taking your words the wrong way, I assumed you were saying both were ok, rather than saying both were wrong.