Quantcast
Sony to crack down on sexually explicit games |Update: Specifically Japanese games containing underage characters

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony to crack down on sexually explicit games |Update: Specifically Japanese games containing underage characters

Wow. The far left has achieved what the right could only dream of. This puritanical crackdown on games is sickening.
As adults we should be able to enjoy the entire spectrum of games available without censorship.
There is a reason why we have classifications for God's sake.
In any case this isn't all that surprising as major corporations will do what's necessary to avoid PR hits.



 

 

Around the Network
Ganoncrotch said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
That's a very important update.

This entire thread is an example of our age of outrage before facts.

No one should have a problem with this.

appreciate you letting us know what we can and cannot raise our concerns over the entertainment we are fans over.

I hope you're aware of using "this entire thread" and then adding this post to the thread.

If your entertainment is sexually explicit games with under-aged characters then I have some concerns of my own. 



o_O.Q said:
Otter said:

snip---

I'm not interested in going back and forth with you, so lets drop some of those ideological topics and go back to where this discussion began. 

1) You imply the character design is a reflection of how woman perceive and idealise themselves. Thus female and male characters are equivalents and equals in how they're created.

You: "people who are infested with the equality doctrine just dishonesty hand wave this away as "male power fantasy" without acknowledging that to be sexy and to be desired is an ideal for women just as much as being strong and powerful is an ideal for men"

I argue character design of both male and female characters is about male fantasy primarily and thus is unbalanced. I challenge your notion by asking you how female characters derived from a female team would look. By your logic, it would be just as sexualised because woman's fantasy's are to be desired.

Me: "How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?"

You: "i don't care, i'm not a sexist so it doesn't matter to me what sex a designer is"

......As a non-sexist maybe we can put more stock on arguments brought up actual woman and look to their own works for examples of how they'd like to be represented.

2. Yes sexualisation is about intent, and it is distinct from "sexuality".

You: "you seem to be arguing here that sexuality is about intent"

Sexuality is not about intent but sexualisation is, no one is trying to dictate your sexuality. I'm sure you're understand "sexualisation" in another context. Its a not problem that a video game has young underage characters in traditional swimwear during a beach scene. Its a problem that the camera pivots up their legs to sexualise them or that the designers alter the design of the swimwear to introduce a sexual context, sexualisation is the attempt to present something as a sexual object. In the less extreme case, we're looking at adult characters like SF5, its absolutely fair that people may find it off putting that all female character seem to first be designed around being objectified as sexual objects. 

Now when discussing adult characters, that can be ok, there's a time and place for everything. It doesn't have to be that serious. But then please don't make arguments that the male characters are designed with equal mentality in mind or reducing valid critic to "toxic femininity".

Last edited by Otter - on 20 April 2019

Its so nice to remember the days before game companies had an agenda.

Edit: I am just going to pay more attention to what I am interested in on the Sony side of things and not buy or support it, if it affects what I play which doesnt seem like much, yet, but usually this kind of thing just doesnt stop where it starts.



 

Otter said:
o_O.Q said:

snip---

I'm not interested in going back and forth with you, so lets drop some of those ideological topics and go back to where this discussion began. 

1) You imply the character design is a reflection of how woman perceive and idealise themselves. Thus female and male characters are equivalents and equals in how they're created.

You: "people who are infested with the equality doctrine just dishonesty hand wave this away as "male power fantasy" without acknowledging that to be sexy and to be desired is an ideal for women just as much as being strong and powerful is an ideal for men"

I argue character design of both male and female characters is about male fantasy primarily and thus is unbalanced. I challenge your notion by asking you how female characters derived from a female team would look. By your logic, it would be just as sexualised because woman's fantasy's are to be desired.

Me: "How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?"

You: "i don't care, i'm not a sexist so it doesn't matter to me what sex a designer is"

......As a non-sexist maybe we can put more stock on arguments brought up actual woman and look to their own works for examples of how they'd like to be represented.

2. Yes sexualisation is about intent, and it is distinct from "sexuality".

You: "you seem to be arguing here that sexuality is about intent"

Sexuality is not about intent but sexualisation is, no one is trying to dictate your sexuality. I'm sure you're understand "sexualisation" in another context. Its a not problem that a video game has young underage characters in traditional swimwear during a beach scene. Its a problem that the camera pivots up their legs to sexualise them or that the designers alter the design of the swimwear to introduce a sexual context, sexualisation is the attempt to present something as a sexual object. In the less extreme case, we're looking at adult characters like SF5, its absolutely fair that people may find it off putting that all female character seem to first be designed around being objectified as sexual objects. 

Now when discussing adult characters, that can be ok, there's a time and place for everything. It doesn't have to be that serious. But then please don't make arguments that the male characters are designed with equal mentality in mind or reducing valid critic to "toxic femininity".

"I argue character design of both male and female characters is about male fantasy primarily and thus is unbalanced."

lol so tell me why are the kardassians, rhianna, nicky minaj etc etc etc for example idolosed by women? you think its men giving them their fame and prominence?

all of these women share the same body types we see in games as being ideal and use them unabashedly to generate their fame

so if i'm understanding your argument correctly, you don't actually believe women have an ideal physical form they generally aspire to become?

"I challenge your notion by asking you how female characters derived from a female team would look."

which is not necessary since we can look at the women that are brought most to prominence in the public by women as i have done above

i don't know of any female design teams and i don't care to know of any

"By your logic, it would be just as sexualised because woman's fantasy's are to be desired."

and again i'm asking you to define what exactly sexualised means

are you speaking of wearing less or no clothing?

does that means therefore that women sexualise themselves when taking showers?

does that means that when kim kardassian takes an almost naked photo of herself and puts it on the net that she is sexualising herself?

i honestly do not understand how anyone with any presence of mind thinks that word means something

"As a non-sexist maybe we can put more stock on arguments brought up actual woman and look to their own works for examples of how they'd like to be represented."

for one thing i could quite easily list female artists that draw half naked or naked women as their work

but regardless that doesn't make any sense, if you want to condense down the general motivations of a group, you need to look at the behavior of that group

which is why i say we look at how women present themselves and who they idolise as what they aspire to be

how many female scientists do you know of? can you list 5? why is that?

i guess that's the patriarchy working even though kim kardassian has like 1 billion followers

"Yes sexualisation is about intent, and it is distinct from "sexuality""

and how do you assess intent in this context?

"the camera pivots up their legs to sexualise them"

first off i never spoke about underage people so i'm going to state clearly right now that i'm talking about adults

why is a camera panning up the legs of a woman a problem?

" its absolutely fair that people may find it off putting that all female character seem to first be designed around being objectified as sexual objects."

street fighter is a game where women showcase their fighting abilities, why are you reducing them down to sexual objects?



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz said:
Ganoncrotch said:

appreciate you letting us know what we can and cannot raise our concerns over the entertainment we are fans over.

I hope you're aware of using "this entire thread" and then adding this post to the thread.

If your entertainment is sexually explicit games with under-aged characters then I have some concerns of my own. 

Your concerns are literally no concern of mine, just keep that in mind. I come from a country where the church is recently after unearthing 3 mass graves of abused children. One contained upwards of 800 kids and they refuse to share death records unless they can receive exemptions from prosecution for them... But aye you worry yourself about the perceived age of the cat girl in the pinball game I play, I would just rather spend concern where there's a reason to.

Still though, you don't think this thread should exist so I would imagine you'll not be posting a reply (or at least a one related to my post) so I'll leave it at that with you. 



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

twintail said:
shikamaru317 said:

I could show you pictures of adult women with a similar body type to Marie Rose. Alicia Vikander for one, and she is 30. Petite does not equal young. 

Ailcia Vikander doesn't look underage. I never referenced Marie Rose as petite. So, I stand by my previous comment. 

HoangNhatAnh said:

Then why that scene was censored on ps4 only? And then a lot people complained and only US PS4 ver was removed, wow, facepalm. 

Europe is Sony land, majority of PS fans there will eat anything from Sony and ps4 while in US, Sony have to compete with Xbox and partly 

You do realise that the Sony policy affects all regions including Japan? You do realise that DMC5 was not 'censored' in Japan?

So, if Sony's policy includes Japan but Japan didn't get censored, how do you know it was Sony and not a Capcom mishap?

Yeah, only on ps4 on the West, and now is EU/AU, nice effort, heh



HoangNhatAnh said:
twintail said:

Ailcia Vikander doesn't look underage. I never referenced Marie Rose as petite. So, I stand by my previous comment. 

You do realise that the Sony policy affects all regions including Japan? You do realise that DMC5 was not 'censored' in Japan?

So, if Sony's policy includes Japan but Japan didn't get censored, how do you know it was Sony and not a Capcom mishap?

Yeah, only on ps4 on the West, and now is EU/AU, nice effort, heh

EU/ AUS are considered the West. Doesn't change the fact that every game before this was censored in Japan, DMC5 wasn't.

Thanks for playing though.

Last edited by twintail - on 20 April 2019

twintail said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Then why that scene was censored on ps4 only? And then a lot people complained and only US PS4 ver was removed, wow, facepalm. 

Europe is Sony land, majority of PS fans there will eat anything from Sony and ps4 while in US, Sony have to compete with Xbox and partly 

You do realise that the Sony policy affects all regions including Japan? You do realise that DMC5 was not 'censored' in Japan?

So, if Sony's policy includes Japan but Japan didn't get censored, how do you know it was Sony and not a Capcom mishap?

Funny how this mistake only happens in the West and because some ridiculous unknown reason, only on ps4 in the West, poor them/s

twintail said:

You do realise that the Sony policy affects all regions including Japan? You do realise that DMC5 was not 'censored' in Japan?

So, if Sony's policy includes Japan but Japan didn't get censored, how do you know it was Sony and not a Capcom mishap?

Yeah, only on ps4 on the West, and now is EU/AU, nice effort, hehYeah, only on ps4 on the West, and now is EU/AU, nice effort, hehYeah, only on ps4 on the West, and now is EU/AU, nice effort, heh. Only censor game with loli, hm, clearly DOAX3 are for children with loli/s

Immersiveunreality said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Then why that scene was censored on ps4 only? And then a lot people complained and only US PS4 ver was removed, wow, facepalm. 

Europe is Sony land, majority of PS fans there will eat anything from Sony and ps4 while in US, Sony have to compete with Xbox and partly Nintendo

Does Sony deserve all the negative focus because they just had 1 more thing censored compared to the others?

Well, i thought they only censor JP loli games? Where is DOAX3?

Hiku said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Then why that scene was censored on ps4 only

I've answered that many times.
You even cited it in your previous post.

Why do patches for games on different systems some times differ?
The answer is not that it's always deliberate on the orders of the console manufacturer.

HoangNhatAnh said:
And then a lot people complained and only US PS4 ver was removed, wow, facepalm. 

Europe is Sony land, majority of PS fans there will eat anything from Sony and ps4 while in US, Sony have to compete with Xbox and partly Nintendo.

First of all, do not make generalizations like "the majority of the fans of *insert group* will eat anything from *insert company*". Especially when you have no means to back them up.

Secondly, if Sony are worried about losing PS4 owners over this, then they stand to lose the most in EU.

Try using your generalization with Xbox.
They dominated US last generation, so US Xbox fans "will just eat anything from MS", right?
No, there was a massive shift of Xbox players in the US going to PS4 this generation, after MS's DRM policies, etc.

If Sony assessed that they stand to lose customers over this, it would seem very unlikely that they'd willingly lose customers in Europe, especially over a silly bodypart that is not important to them.

"Why do patches for games on different systems some times differ?
The answer is not that it's always deliberate on the orders of the console manufacturer."

And censor only for ps4 in the west in the first place, quite hilarious, isn't it?

"If Sony assessed that they stand to lose customers over this, it would seem very unlikely that they'd willingly lose customers in Europe, especially over a silly bodypart that is not important to them."

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/will-sony-continuing-censorship-practices-effect-your-ps5-purchase.1473890/

Don't think so, look at this site, well, only a small fish, they clearly don't care too much about what Sony is doing 

"They dominated US last generation, so US Xbox fans "will just eat anything from MS", right?
No, there was a massive shift of Xbox players in the US going to PS4 this generation, after MS's DRM policies, etc."

If Xbox 1 have many Japan exclusives like ps4 then you would have a point, compared to 360, the amount of JP games on XB1 are a lot worse



SpokenTruth said:

..........

LivingMetal said:

1). Are you saying slavery was never a problem?  2). Are you saying character depicted in ways that do not favor your personal criteria is slavery?  I express my maturity by giving people freedom of choice, me being tolerant of that choice, and me working on common grounds while agreeing to disagree to work to a general greater resolution.  3). I don't get self-righteous in the name of "maturity."

1). For many societies in the past, they didn't consider it a problem.  It wasn't morally wrong to them.  We obviously know better now.  We have matured as a society.

2). Oh, no.  Not at all.  There is not correlation I'm trying to draw between the two other than things in the past that were morally acceptable are later recognized as wrong or even reprehensible.

3). You are confusing personal maturity with social maturity.  What is acceptable and moral in any given society is a wide range individually but as a whole group...that's the social morality, social norms and customs. See point 1 above.

LivingMetal said:

Did YOU read my post?  This type of reasoning is NOT faulty when applied to something that is NOT faulty to begin with, creative freedom and consumer choice.  And WHO are you to apply you're preferences of the acceptance of certain societal norms and customs on everyone else?  That's FAULTY.

I never said "creative freedom and consumer choice" were faulty.  I said that "just because something in the past was acceptable means it should be acceptable today" is faulty. 

And it's not me pushing my preferences on anyone.  Sony isn't changing policy because I told them to.  It's society doing that. Societies change over time. What was once acceptable can become unacceptable - and vice versa.  In fact, I'd say far more things have been acceptable over the years than unacceptable.

DEAD WRONG.  I was saying that creative freedom and consumer choice is not faulty.  That was my context from the very beginning, and it still is.  You're the one who misinterpreted my original post and came up with such an asinine example of slavery that had NOTHING to do with it.  You made a mistake, and you were called out on it.  Then, you attempted to sound intelligence by backing peddling on that mistake.  But all you're doing is insulting our intelligence.  So man up to your mistake as a display of the maturity that you preach.  Own it.  And guess what society is made of..... PEOPLE!  People such as "you" and "I" are the ones who are influencing Sony to change their policy.  So in principle, you are pushing your preferences on others.  So let me reiterate that attempting to sound intelligent when your wrong does nothing to further the "MAtURitY Of soCIetY." Next time you say something, better make sure it lives up to your handle.