Morgan Jolley
Senior HTF Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2000
- Messages
- 9,834
Russell - regarding the radicalization stuff, I was more pointing out that there are real measurable effects on people that come from the media they're exposed to, but I wasn't necessarily using that as an argument in favor of what Sony is doing. In fact, I don't think Sony is even using that particular argument. They're more worried about negative PR from a kid seeing one of these games on a stream from a PS4. Most of the issue that developers are running into with Sony right now stems from content being released for the US market, which will never see laws regulating what content is available. I don't think they're trying to get ahead of anything like that.
Again, I'm not advocating that we ban content or force it to be censored, but if a platform holder, movie theater, retail store, etc. decides that they do not want to allow the sale/viewing of particular content in their privately-owned space then what's wrong with that? There's no constitutional right that forces Sony to put tentacle porn on their PlayStation consoles.
As for a butt shot in DMC5, no, it's not going to be "the thing" that hurts women (in the broad sense of "hurt") but it will certainly be one of the thousand cuts, which is kind of the reason there's a movement away from those things being the norm in culture. That said, I personally have no issue with Capcom or whoever else making whatever kind of content they want to make and selling it to whoever wants to buy it. It may be gross or disturbing to me but I actually have almost no personal reason for why content shouldn't be made available. But...this is Sony's platform and the people who want to be on it need to abide by Sony's rules.
Leo & Jeff - in all seriousness, does the stated vs. interpreted age of a character really matter? If a character is explicitly designed by its creator to look like a 10 year old but then their bio states that they're 1000 years old and they are the subject of sexual exploitation in a videogame, does the age of the character really matter? Does it suddenly become acceptable and okay simply because the game says they're old? Because if that's the case then you've just made the loophole for pedophilia (and no, I'm not saying that you support pedophilia, but rather I'm turning your argument around to show you why I find it weak). I understand the point you're trying to make but the end result is that these are still games where male players treat young-looking female characters as exclusively sexual objects, and Sony is hesitant to embrace that.
I find it kind of bizarre that there are so many real issues affecting the world of games (severe crunch, abusive leadership, terrible underpay, burnout, mismanagement, etc.) but what we're focusing on is that 1 platform holder is asking a handful of publishers of a handful of games to tone down just how much female sexual objectification their games have. I mean, with DMC5 aside (which was de-censored in the US after release, anyway), all of the games affected by this are visual novels or Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 6.
Again, I'm not advocating that we ban content or force it to be censored, but if a platform holder, movie theater, retail store, etc. decides that they do not want to allow the sale/viewing of particular content in their privately-owned space then what's wrong with that? There's no constitutional right that forces Sony to put tentacle porn on their PlayStation consoles.
As for a butt shot in DMC5, no, it's not going to be "the thing" that hurts women (in the broad sense of "hurt") but it will certainly be one of the thousand cuts, which is kind of the reason there's a movement away from those things being the norm in culture. That said, I personally have no issue with Capcom or whoever else making whatever kind of content they want to make and selling it to whoever wants to buy it. It may be gross or disturbing to me but I actually have almost no personal reason for why content shouldn't be made available. But...this is Sony's platform and the people who want to be on it need to abide by Sony's rules.
Leo & Jeff - in all seriousness, does the stated vs. interpreted age of a character really matter? If a character is explicitly designed by its creator to look like a 10 year old but then their bio states that they're 1000 years old and they are the subject of sexual exploitation in a videogame, does the age of the character really matter? Does it suddenly become acceptable and okay simply because the game says they're old? Because if that's the case then you've just made the loophole for pedophilia (and no, I'm not saying that you support pedophilia, but rather I'm turning your argument around to show you why I find it weak). I understand the point you're trying to make but the end result is that these are still games where male players treat young-looking female characters as exclusively sexual objects, and Sony is hesitant to embrace that.
I find it kind of bizarre that there are so many real issues affecting the world of games (severe crunch, abusive leadership, terrible underpay, burnout, mismanagement, etc.) but what we're focusing on is that 1 platform holder is asking a handful of publishers of a handful of games to tone down just how much female sexual objectification their games have. I mean, with DMC5 aside (which was de-censored in the US after release, anyway), all of the games affected by this are visual novels or Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 6.