By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Valve removes Japanese game from steam because its audience are Pedophiles, according to them

WhatATimeToBeAlive on 19 December 2017
Shadow1980 said:

"Won't someone think of the fictional children!"

The game is arguably creepy as hell (though as far as I'm aware of there's no nudity or sex), and Valve is within their rights to decline to post any game for sales on their platform, but, as some have seriously suggested, to argue that people ought to be prosecuted for buying a game that has cartoon characters in it... what the fuck? Literally nobody is being hurt by this.  Even actual hentai games, including ones with sexual violence and/or loli/shota content don't hurt anyone. The characters are not human beings, so no real abuse of actual humans occurred during production. Equating consumption of loli hentai to actual acts of pedophilia is like equating acts of video game violence to actual murder. A lot of you have probably played games where your player character has committed violent crimes, even up to terrorism and war crimes depending on the game, and we've all racked up an impressive body count, and I'm sure you don't think you or anyone else should be punished in real life for it.

I tend to take as absolutist of a stance as possible when it comes to freedom of speech. Unless something causes actual, demonstrable harm to someone, it should not be banned. That basically means that child pornography, false advertisement, perjury, incitement, and threats should obviously be criminalized, and defamation should arguably be subject to civil liabilities. But video games or cartoons or comics that have creepy content? Fine by me. You do you. You aren't hurting anybody by playing/watching/reading it, and nobody was hurt by the production of it. People simply being offended or creeped out by something is not sufficient grounds for the government to ban it.

But games like this can affect people who are sexually attracted to children. It can for example lead them to think that "it doesn't hurt when I only take a look". And then they start to harass children by staring at them. And releasing games that sexualize children on Steam would mean a huge "normalisation" of the issue, which would be really bad. I am sure there are other, not so mainstream ways, to access this kind of material. 



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

Around the Network
StarOcean on 19 December 2017
Arminillo said:
Nautilus said:

But that is a tricky thing to judge.Where do you cross the line between people that are phedophiles, and ones that simply like the cute girl asthetic, without having any sexual connotation to it?(The same reasoning would apply to games and animes)

As long as there is no explicit sexual imagery or heavy suggestions of pedophily on the game, I say its fair game.Otherwise its just Valve censoring what is essentially, in my view, different takes on a subject due to different cultures.

But one thing I will agree with you is that this is Valve service.If they dont want it because they dont like it, then its their right to remove it.

Well, given that there are many games still on Steam with "cute girl aesthetic" I think we aren't talking about that. This is a game about a 4th grade teacher who, in the summary, sets up cameras in bathrooms to prey on his 4th grade class. But no, that's just "cute girl aesthetic"

This place will openly support pedophilia if they feel it sticks it to those "evil sjw"



WhatATimeToBeAlive on 19 December 2017
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
Chazore said:

The people defending the game, and not getting what was shown from the trailer, am I allowed to post a screen of a part of the trailer?.

Because it's not as "family friendly" as some people claim, like who tf positions themselves like in the trailer in their every day lives, in public?.

You dont need to post the screenshots from the trailer, the people defending the game knows wtf is going in on, they just defending cause they like that type of weird shit. Its that simple.

Yeah, it's quite amusing reading these posts where people say that this game doesn't sexualize children. Do they realize how absurd their arguments are? Just a brief glance at the children's skirts, that cover almost nothing, should indicate what the "main idea" of this game is.

And the motive to defend this game is most likely "For research purposes".  



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

DetectiveKaito on 19 December 2017

The point is that it doesn't matter if they're kids, teens, adults, or elderly people.

It's fictional.

Get over it.



Chazore on 19 December 2017
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

You dont need to post the screenshots from the trailer, the people defending the game knows wtf is going in on, they just defending cause they like that type of weird shit. Its that simple.

I know, but it's clear the trailer gives off them creep vibes. A screenshot would just allow all to see just what the game is trying to sell, rather than what we are led to believe in what it's selling. 



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

Around the Network
DetectiveKaito on 19 December 2017
Chazore said:
ClassicGamingWizzz said:

You dont need to post the screenshots from the trailer, the people defending the game knows wtf is going in on, they just defending cause they like that type of weird shit. Its that simple.

I know, but it's clear the trailer gives off them creep vibes. A screenshot would just allow all to see just what the game is trying to sell, rather than what we are led to believe in what it's selling. 

Why does that matter though? You could argue that Hatred's target audience is serial killers.

Games are a form of art, and blaming them for events that happen in real life is stupid. People are responsible for their own actions.

Remember when people said that video games make kids violent? Everyone knows that's bullshit.



Flilix on 19 December 2017
DetectiveKaito said:

The point is that it doesn't matter if they're kids, teens, adults, or elderly people.

It's fictional.

Get over it.

This.



DonFerrari on 19 December 2017
Otter said:
DonFerrari said:

Nope, I'm acknowledging that you are seeing it like this. And that unless you think someone that shoot pixels is a murderer then there is no point to be made of objetification.

Then again, why would a developer draw a frames of a 9 years old pointed up at their crotch whilst the character is sat staring down at the camera? You said such a thing is a illegal in real life, I said why would someone impose such a gaze on a virtual character? For the same pleasure they would do it in real life, objectification.

And in your second point you just conceded that you wouldn't care if it was sexualising virtual children so we can end our discussion there. My point was Valve correctly spotted it as fetishistic since you guys are acting like its innocent with no sexual gaze. 

And when are you going to turn yourself to jail time for all the pixel people you killed?

AlfredoTurkey said:
DonFerrari said:

I agree.

I do love children. I love my son, I love my nieces and nephews. I like to see pretty youngsters from 3 to 10 and their cute traces.

Same with being fond. When children aren't being crazy bulldozers I'm fond of them.

Probably it's western stupidity that think love is directly sexual.

We also should jail all teachers, nurses, pediatrics and others that threat child and love them, they are all clearly rapists...  

You see... being SFW with the authority on moral grounds allow you to decide what is acceptable or not, got it?

You should be terminated.

Except there is 0 sexual content.

That doesn't exempt the motive.

Their motive being?

WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
Shadow1980 said:

"Won't someone think of the fictional children!"

The game is arguably creepy as hell (though as far as I'm aware of there's no nudity or sex), and Valve is within their rights to decline to post any game for sales on their platform, but, as some have seriously suggested, to argue that people ought to be prosecuted for buying a game that has cartoon characters in it... what the fuck? Literally nobody is being hurt by this.  Even actual hentai games, including ones with sexual violence and/or loli/shota content don't hurt anyone. The characters are not human beings, so no real abuse of actual humans occurred during production. Equating consumption of loli hentai to actual acts of pedophilia is like equating acts of video game violence to actual murder. A lot of you have probably played games where your player character has committed violent crimes, even up to terrorism and war crimes depending on the game, and we've all racked up an impressive body count, and I'm sure you don't think you or anyone else should be punished in real life for it.

I tend to take as absolutist of a stance as possible when it comes to freedom of speech. Unless something causes actual, demonstrable harm to someone, it should not be banned. That basically means that child pornography, false advertisement, perjury, incitement, and threats should obviously be criminalized, and defamation should arguably be subject to civil liabilities. But video games or cartoons or comics that have creepy content? Fine by me. You do you. You aren't hurting anybody by playing/watching/reading it, and nobody was hurt by the production of it. People simply being offended or creeped out by something is not sufficient grounds for the government to ban it.

But games like this can affect people who are sexually attracted to children. It can for example lead them to think that "it doesn't hurt when I only take a look". And then they start to harass children by staring at them. And releasing games that sexualize children on Steam would mean a huge "normalisation" of the issue, which would be really bad. I am sure there are other, not so mainstream ways, to access this kind of material. 

So have we also changed the law to allow murder or do murderers now are all on a killing spree because shooters became massive genres for more than 15 years?

DetectiveKaito said:
Chazore said:

I know, but it's clear the trailer gives off them creep vibes. A screenshot would just allow all to see just what the game is trying to sell, rather than what we are led to believe in what it's selling. 

Why does that matter though? You could argue that Hatred's target audience is serial killers.

Games are a form of art, and blaming them for events that happen in real life is stupid. People are responsible for their own actions.

Remember when people said that video games make kids violent? Everyone knows that's bullshit.

It's funny how fast these guys will go for the throat of any news or celebrity that say VG is responsible to violent behavior, but at the same time are acting as if a game that have naked cartoon children make people pedophiles.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sundin13 on 19 December 2017

This is a weird story, but from only seeing that trailer, it does seem like it sexualizes children to some degree. If Steam wishes to have a policy in place against that sort of thing, I have no issue with that. That said, their opinion on the matter was quite poorly communicated and I'm not sure if this draws a line which will affect other games that they don't plan on removing.



Otter on 19 December 2017
DetectiveKaito said:
Chazore said:

I know, but it's clear the trailer gives off them creep vibes. A screenshot would just allow all to see just what the game is trying to sell, rather than what we are led to believe in what it's selling. 

Why does that matter though? You could argue that Hatred's target audience is serial killers.

Games are a form of art, and blaming them for events that happen in real life is stupid. People are responsible for their own actions.

Remember when people said that video games make kids violent? Everyone knows that's bullshit.

No one here is making these arguments. If we can first all be honest about the fact that it is sexualising its 9-12 year old protagonists, we can then move onto the discussion about whether those experiences should be sold to the public and the implications of that. Valve obviously have their own ethical stance which is why the game is not available on their platform. All publishers do the same whether it be games based on hate speech or depicting extreme violence against kids.

The first distinction between generally violent games and this, is that violent content (fantasy or not) is not illegal, child pornography is. So again, Valve are not acting irrational or unfair in wanting to distance themselves from this game which is explicitly targeting such a demographic. The developers can sell their "art" somewhere else as of now. 

Further more when you play your typical violent game, you don't think "wow, I bet the creators and primary audience of this game are serial killers" but you if you play a game centred on the sexualisation children (Watch the trailer) its kind of hard not to think "I bet the creator and primary audience for this game are people who want to have sex with children". These two things are not the same...

Last edited by Otter - on 19 December 2017