214: Artificial Thrills

[NeutralDrow]

Huh. A dating sim where you actually create the women you date? I...think I'll stick with Casual Romance Club. Artificial Girl sounds particularly creepy, even without the disturbing imagery of the article.

Speaking of, the article was a pretty good read, but I'm not really sure I'll spend too much time pondering it (and it's a given I'm going to ignore most of the comments). It does give stuff to think about, but even despite my admittedly present love of eroge, I can't really think of any derivable applicability. Maybe it's because I prefer visual novels and apply higher standards to them. Or maybe it's because I can't think of a game with a character creation system without my immediate thoughts being, in order, "How many people can I make?" and "How can I turn their home into an utopia?" My control fantasies expressed in a game run less towards establishing dominance and more towards establishing a protectorate...after all, the characters can't do the same, don't have the chance to resist, and only in the best games do they consistently express conceivable, if still predictable, opinion.

There's probably some disturbing implications in that, too, especially since it seems to only half-translate into real life. But then, maybe that's simply because a game, as befitting an escapist model, doesn't require giving people space.

 

[ckeymel]

Really WEIRD to see this game reviewed on The Escapist, especially given the recent brouhaha over one of Illusion's other games, Rapelay (yes, it's the same company- their girls all look pretty much alike, even the customisable ones). It was also unusual to see the reviewer do more than just go "OMFG the Japanese are all weird, sick perverts!" like I was expecting.

That's because it's not a review of the game - it's an article about the game.

 

[Swaki]

seems kinda creepy, i googled artificial girl 3 it and on the first page half the links was to some user made porn.

 

[teisjm]

Artificial Girl 3: Cause gamers need a reason to be viewed as socialy handicapped eternal virgins.

 

[Allan Foe]

Finally,

It's a -fact- that since porn (and by association, porn games) started becoming widespread in Japan, rape crimes decreased.

You tote this as a "-fact-", however I have heard otherwise and doubt it. It wasn't my intention to combat said issue, but rather to dodge it, by casting said doubt over it. Quite frankly, I don't care to debate it, as I am not prepared and don't particularly want to do the research. However, I will not accept it at face value.

Well then, allow me to present you with -- "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" [http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html], a joint effort of the Japanese National Research Institute of Police Science and University of Hawai'i - Manoa John A. Burns School of Medicine, something I already quoted in one of the "Rape Simulations" article comments.

While this was no doubt an amusing article, Mr.Parrish forgot that algorithmic dating is nothing new to our favourite entertainment medium, as some posters have already noted, you can find it in some high-profile western games (GTA4, Mass Effect and any other game that provides freedom of choice in romantic relationships).
AG3 is just a glorified "make your own porn scenario" simulator, where virtual sex is the real subject matter, while the simulated relationship (no matter how shallow) is just there to flesh out your fantasy.
If anyone wishes to analyse the influence of interactive Japanese porn they might as well go and study their completely non-interactive Adult Videos and barely interactive pornographic Visual Novels -- they'll find that everywhere the prevalent fetishes and gender relationships play out the same (even though there is no lack of variety in said fetishes within any single medium).
And if you want to talk about how playing AG3 and its cohorts makes you an antisocial sexual deviant we might as well dig up the age-old argument of how GTA makes you a homicidal sexual maniac (wait, does killing her after you've had consensual sex count as a sexual offence or just plain homicide?).

On a more personal note, there was a time when I looked into this whole interactive 3D porn software category in an effort to diversify my "single-player" options, tried a couple of them and got bored very quickly -- they didn't provide the appropriate visual or sensual stimuli, probably because they're too deep down the uncanny valley for my taste.

Edit:

Artificial Girl 3: Cause Japanese gamers need a reason to be viewed as socially handicapped eternal virgins.

Corrected that for you.
...
Hah, couldn't help myself. But you do understand that it was never meant for consumption outside Japan?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Was I the only one who was somewhat sickened by the article? Playing such a game can surely not be good to having a respectful, healthy not to mention normal attitude towards real women. The game dehumanises women until they are no more than sex toys. Yes, I know it's a fantasy game but fantasy can easily spill over into real life. To turn sex into something so simple as a puzzle is a gross parady of real life.

GTA has totally made the world into a murder fest, oh wait, religion beat them to it. Damn. My actions on Oblivion have led me to a life of the occult, demon worship, and murder. Prototype has convinced me to the merits of cannibalism. Mass Effect has me convinced that I should seduce Alien Women, ala Kirk. Assassin's Creed has made me a neck stabbing abuser of peasant women. Saint's Row 2 has gotten me into the gangster mentality and on a huge course with drugs and violence.

Oh let me count the ways... -_-

 

[Sick Sad World]

While this was no doubt an amusing article, Mr.Parrish forgot that algorithmic dating is nothing new to our favourite entertainment medium, as some posters have already noted, you can find it in some high-profile western games (GTA4, Mass Effect and any other game that provides freedom of choice in romantic relationships).
AG3 is just a glorified "make your own porn scenario" simulator, where virtual sex is the real subject matter, while the simulated relationship (no matter how shallow) is just there to flesh out your fantasy.
If anyone wishes to analyse the influence of interactive Japanese porn they might as well go and study their completely non-interactive Adult Videos and barely interactive pornographic Visual Novels -- they'll find that everywhere the prevalent fetishes and gender relationships play out the same (even though there is no lack of variety in said fetishes within any single medium).
And if you want to talk about how playing AG3 and its cohorts makes you an antisocial sexual deviant we might as well dig up the age-old argument of how GTA makes you a homicidal sexual maniac (wait, does killing her after you've had consensual, sex count as a sexual offence or just plain homicide?).

nicely said, i wish i could've expanded more on what i said.

I was under the impression that 99.999999% of gamers thoroughly believed that video games are not bad for you and do not influence you. did a full circle just happen? where the arguement of "video games are bad for you" went round and bit someone on the ass?

Somehow I feel like dumbass articles like this are deliberately written to increase the number of members.

 

[pneuma08]

There is a slight difference here, however, in that GTA only depicts crime and violence and isn't in itself violent or criminal (excepting maybe selling it to minors, heh, but I digress). Games like AG3 can be considered in themselves sexually or emotionally deviant (e.g. possibly coloring of ones expectations of what healthy relationships are like). The counter arguments call into question whether this is a positive thing or not (being a game, it may distance people from what goes on in the game, an example of good coloring of expectations) and calls into question if other media do the same thing (like romance novels).

In any event, it's a different beast than GTA, Manhunt, and the like. While you can draw some parallels and learn from the other, the whole thing can't just be written off.

 

[Sick Sad World]

pneuma08 the AG3/eroge/visual novel audience realise that the relationships that happen in the game are not accurate depictions of what a real life relationship is like let alone a healthy one.

You can also say that GTA may affect ones expectations of what an acceptable social attitude is like. But we all know that a sane GTA player knows what is the real life standard of acceptable behaviour just like a sane AG3/eroge/visual novel player knows that the relationships and behaviour in the game are oversimplified and follow well known classic manga/anime logic.

The one time where the player(from both game genres) may be influenced is if they are batshit crazy or really young, but then again that just me underestimating those smart kids and the batshit crazy.

 

[Hank J.]

Are you guys stupid? This is a game made for guys to jack off, nothing more nothing less. It's a bit strange to come up with things like criticise the game for what it is. Nobody will take this game serious, as no one takes porn serious. You don't get a girlfriend when you strip off your clothes and show her you weener or something like that. You don't go out stealing cars and murdering people for no apparent reason just because you played GTA for a few hours. And you don't treat women like mindless love dolls just because you played a game like Artificial Girl.

ITT: Killing random people in the goriest way possible is fun and absolutely nothing is wrong with that! But virtual sex is the most disgusting thing and it WILL twist your mind.

Edit:

There is a slight difference here, however, in that GTA only depicts crime and violence and isn't in itself violent or criminal (excepting maybe selling it to minors, heh, but I digress). Games like AG3 can be considered in themselves sexually or emotionally deviant (e.g. possibly coloring of ones expectations of what healthy relationships are like). The counter arguments call into question whether this is a positive thing or not (being a game, it may distance people from what goes on in the game, an example of good coloring of expectations) and calls into question if other media do the same thing (like romance novels).

In any event, it's a different beast than GTA, Manhunt, and the like. While you can draw some parallels and learn from the other, the whole thing can't just be written off.

No, they're the same. You play games for fun, right? Not for teaching you anything about social behaviour or something like that. Is it fun to kill random people in GTA? Of course! Is it fun to mutilate civilians in Prototype? Yes. Is it fun to slice zombies in half with a chainsaw? Yeah!

So, I ask you: Is it fun to play with attractive, yet mostly mindless lovedolls in an eroge? Absolutely. Why? Because men desire power more than anything. Games like GTA, Prototype or Half-Life² are mostly just about power. If you kill your enemies it's fun. If your enemies kill you it isn't fun. It's fun because you can do anything you want to do without hurting someone.

 

[pneuma08]

I feel like you guys are missing the argument I set forth. It isn't that actions in-game extrapolate actions out-of-game. It's that the act of playing the game - an action that happens in real life, not "game space" - that is questionable. This is possible because playing games (as well as reading novels, watching movies, etc) are in effect an emotional experience.

Even if the game is emotionally and/or sexually deviant, I'm not even putting forth that the game makes people that way. (In fact, it's probably the opposite: the game, being deviant, attracts other deviants.) Rather, I'm calling into question its value to society (the best argument I've heard that it provides catharsis, which is probably true).

Finally, we have to be careful about what we're talking about. AG3 is about creation of women and subjecting them to your will, which is what is being called into question. I wouldn't lump it with, say, visual novels (although I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, visual novels are in effect a storytelling medium and many contain socially valuable themes and points, which is lacking in AG3).

Hank J.: I think you're also gravely mistaken about your thoughts on the role that power plays in games. For instance, Half Life is not about beating your enemies down, but rather a desperate quest for survival and throwing off the shackles of oppression. (Explain the endings if it's about power! And the role of the G-man.) GTA IV has an extensive story with many themes and a lot to say (although you could be talking about the sandbox gameplay...which doesn't really put you in the position of power either, you're constantly being chased by the cops for your escapades, and most of the time you're way less powerful than they are).

Some games are about power (like Godfather II, unless I'm missing something). But a lot of games aren't.

I also find it somewhat amusing that you are attacking points of view that have not been established at all (namely the disparity between general moral outrage of violence and sex). I happen to agree with you there, but that happens to be off-topic, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Hank J.]

I feel like you guys are missing the argument I set forth. It isn't that actions in-game extrapolate actions out-of-game. It's that the act of playing the game - an action that happens in real life, not "game space" - that is questionable. This is possible because playing games (as well as reading novels, watching movies, etc) are in effect an emotional experience.

Even if the game is emotionally and/or sexually deviant, I'm not even putting forth that the game makes people that way. (In fact, it's probably the opposite: the game, being deviant, attracts other deviants.) Rather, I'm calling into question its value to society (the best argument I've heard that it provides catharsis, which is probably true).

Finally, we have to be careful about what we're talking about. AG3 is about creation of women and subjecting them to your will, which is what is being called into question. I wouldn't lump it with, say, visual novels (although I'm sure there are some exceptions to this, visual novels are in effect a storytelling medium and many contain socially valuable themes and points, which is lacking in AG3).

Hank J.: I think you're also gravely mistaken about your thoughts on the role that power plays in games. For instance, Half Life is not about beating your enemies down, but rather a desperate quest for survival and throwing off the shackles of oppression. (Explain the endings if it's about power! And the role of the G-man.) GTA IV has an extensive story with many themes and a lot to say (although you could be talking about the sandbox gameplay...which doesn't really put you in the position of power either, you're constantly being chased by the cops for your escapades, and most of the time you're way less powerful than they are).

Some games are about power (like Godfather II, unless I'm missing something). But a lot of games aren't.

I also find it somewhat amusing that you are attacking points of view that have not been established at all (namely the disparity between general moral outrage of violence and sex). I happen to agree with you there, but that happens to be off-topic, wouldn't you agree?

All games cause actions out-of-game. Take any first person shooter, for example. While you're playing, you're having fun IRL. Or you're afraid when you are playing games like Condemned or something like that. Just because you don't move your body that much while playing doesn't mean that everything that happens in the game stays in the game.

The value for the society is irrelevant. Games are made for entertainment, nothing more. I could imagine that there are a lot of people out there who can't understand how you're enjoying killing zombies, aliens or humans in a video game. If you see it that way, games in general are worthless for society. I say, you can enjoy whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone in any way.

AG3 and other games of that genre are basically just sex simulators, animated and interactive porn so to say. If games like AG3 are "dangerous" in some way, then every porn flick out there is dangerous, too. Because in porn women are depicted as mindless sex slaves who only exist to please men.

Yes, the story in HL² is about survival and whatnot, but the actual gameplay is all about crushing every enemy who stands in your way. Like in GTA or almost every other game. Story and gameplay are often seperated.

Well, some guys condemned games like AG3 here, or am I mistaken? And I'm sure that most of the users here have no problems with virtual violence and gore.


Ah well, what a wall of text.

 

[S_K]

"WHAT!?!? she is showing signs of real personality to the player!?!? EMERGENCY: CRASH THE GAME NOW!!!"

lol yeah that was pretty much what I thought xD

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Hypocritical Statement 1#: "AG3 is about creation of women and subjecting them to your will, which is what is being called into question."

By that logic, The Sims is just as much a danger to society as AG3. The point of that game is subject people to your will. Now I am going to say a few things bluntly.

It's a game, a release, a mental orgasm to relieve stress. You play a game to simplify a certain aspect of your life that you can remain detached from and thus can enjoy the challenge of your choice. Best thing of all is that a game has an off switch. You can turn it off and walk away, that is called choice. The Value that you are seeking in this game is that it is a simple release for everyday boundaries.

To question its value to society is to be hypocritical as a gamer. You talk about Half Life but don't get its intrinsic point. Entertainment, release, relief. It offers a challenge with a simplification of boundaries and loosening of mores. You can shoot and kill your enemies, even gun down anybody that looks at you funny, right? Care to explain how that lesson carries value to society? Care to explain where vigilante justice and dog eat dog thinking is valuable in what is supposed to be a humanistic society?

Finally, to be perfectly frank, I am wondering why the sexual nature and objectification is such a big deal to begin with. Notice how few people make a fuss over violent content but heaven help us if there is going to be an orgasm? Which leads to me to...

Hypocritical Statement #2: "I also find it somewhat amusing that you are attacking points of view that have not been established at all (namely the disparity between general moral outrage of violence and sex). I happen to agree with you there"

If you agree that the disparity of outrage between sex and violence is stupid then why attack this game while defending violent games? The same bending and twisting of acceptable social values is there. The same basic premise of a video game being a release is there. So why oppose it and not GTA? You actually sound like you were defending GTA's violent content but deriding the objectification of women in this game. I hate to break it to you but a lot of the current GTA games allow for hiring prostitutes and then killing them to get your money back.

If you are technically okay with violent content then you should also be okay with sexual content. You simply don't have to play the game, right? By all means wish it away if you want but trying to debate its value to society is foolhardy at best and absolutely hypocritical at face value of reading your posts. There is no merit to discussing a video game's merit to society as all video games boil down to emotional releases, mental orgasms, and psychic back rubs. If you are looking for something more than that, I challenge the fact that you ever played a video game that made society move in any way but laterally, as in not at all.

 

[Pillypill]

I'm kinda freaked out bu that- very good read though.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

The evolution of sexual games only seems natural to me. We all learn to masturbate as a matter of "discovering ourselves" and over centuries we have invented numerous devices and media to "entertain" us. With video games being the next great step in the evolution of media, why wouldn't we jump on the opportunity?

Of course, a video game needs a game behind it -- inputs, a hidden set of rules, feedback, and an eventual goal. It's interesting to see how we've evolved from adding nude models to abstract games (with the implicit goal of getting the model naked) to actually making "getting the model naked" the explicit goal, complete with all the actions, rules, and feedback that it involves. It makes much more sense and should certainly help with the overall point of the game: arousal. I know I'd be a bit more "in the mood" having convinced a woman to sleep with me than having finished a game of Tetris.

What's probably most interesting about these games is how the public reacts to them, at least in North America. While it would be hard to deny the fact that a vast majority of North Americans enjoy strippers, porno mags, movies, and even insist on some softcore stuff in their regular entertainment, they are also quick to deny participating in those things, or any sort of self-satisfaction. There is a vocal minority who works constantly to limit and supress these forms of entertainment (though often, they secretly enjoy the same naughty pleasures).

Given the hypocritical double-standard, perhaps it's not surprising that we immediately denounce these "games" for being chauvinistic, purile, and creepy. If the rest of the erotica industry is any indication, the majority of people are probably quite interested in trying these games -- they just won't admit it to their friends.


Frankly, I find the possibility of designing and enacting a sexual fantasy a major breakthrough. As has been shown many times, not only do people often imagine and desire things which aren't allowed (including generally having fantasies of murder, rape, and other illegal acts), allowing them to play out those fantasies in an imaginary setting prevents these desires from turning into serious problems. Instead of a lonely 24 year-old male being frustrated and repressed, he could act out his fantasies and get them off his chest. What more could we ask for?

 

[ReverseEngineered]

OK so we are a western culture, and they are an eastern culture. Each with it's own viewpoints and morals, ect, ect...But I look at it and think haven't the women have been raised submissive over centuries (sp?) so it doesen't suprise me that a game that revolves around the pleasuring of the male audiance exists...

I'm more surprised that a game revolving around pleasuring of the female audience doesn't exist. After all, isn't that what dime store romance novels are all about? There is one major difference: men focus on the physical act of having sex as an end in itself, whereas women typically focus on the emotions and relationships that revolve around sex.

Given that games are a lot better at modelling physical interactions and tend to be terrible at communicating stories and emotions, maybe it's not surprising that similar games don't focus on a female audience. It probably also helps that, despite a change in trends, video games are primarily a male market.

When it comes to sex, men want women to be submissive because it makes it easier to get to their goal. Likewise, women want men to be attentive to their needs, because that leads to their goal. If you'll agree with these, then it's not difficult to understand why a game directed at male pleasure involves submissive women -- it's not about the culture, it's about the target audience. A female version might still involve wooing males, but the rewards would be being showered with gifts and praise, rather than having sex.

 

[Nanaya Vash]

Loved the article and understood every word of it. Having played that title and others from the same company (and also more disturbing) I completely relate to what's written about the game. The fact is, unless for jackin' off, the game pretty much is boresville. Seriously, I never thought a sexual game could be this boring. The only thing that you could possibly find ANY fun in that is the customization of the girls and their clothes. And even that gets old, because of the limited options. Unless you want to learn to program the outfits, and modify them all as in some communities (hello Hongfire). Well, each one has a right to decide what to do with their time and I'm not criticising. At first it's cute and sexy, but ultimately it's a drag.

 

[pneuma08]

Wow, I think I need a disclaimer to my posts. NB that what I personally believe should be marked with the personal pronouns and everything else is hypothetical for the sake of argument.

The Sims is slightly different in a few respects, the first being due to perspective - it doesn't put the gamer into the game. This can be rectified by making a Sim of "yourself", but even that's a bit different in that they still remain some level autonomy; the Sim that "you're" virtually wooing can in fact reject "you". Both of these things create a significant disconnect between the character and the player. I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever played the Sims for sexual release.

Nevertheless, stripped of that the parallel of control still remains, and it is an interesting one at that. It certainly helps put things in perspective.

I also think you're selling entertainment short as a medium. I would love to see a game that invited the players down a path of vigilantism, slowly drawing them into more darker decisions in the name of justice, before the dramatic twist and the full extent of their path is revealed. (I should mention that DeathWyrmNexus's challenge is not an effective measure. Video gaming as we know it has only existed for around 20 years, and is only now being used to its fullest extent as a medium.) But really, what is there a novel can do that a video game cannot (besides establish pacing, I suppose)?

Secondly, you guys are still painting in broad strokes. It's not that "violence is good" and "sex is bad" and that "violence is okay" -> "sex is okay", which would be a logical paradox; it's all about context. In Half-Life you gun down people mainly because you have no other choice; when running is an option it's many times preferable. And just because it's an option to gun down anyone you don't like (which it isn't in Half-Life - the game expressly forbids shooting friendlies) doesn't mean that it's both acceptable and encouraged. Furthermore just because games are able to provide positive benefit to society, that doesn't mean that all games must, nor does it mean that we should destroy or eliminate it if it has no positive value, or things of questionable value.

Finally, AG3 gets lumped into general porn once again. It is kind of a sticky situation because many people DO object to general sexual situations being depicted, so drawing a line adds more ire to both sides of -that- argument. But could it be that some forms of porn are acceptable and some are not? Could it be that references to sexual acts (like the GTA IV girlfriend sidequests) are acceptable but depictions are not? Could it be that AG3's form of creation/subjection in regards to sexual release is objectionable while most porn's narrow focus on the act of copulation is not?

Hank: You say that, "AG3 and other games of that genre are basically just sex simulators" but is that really the case? There seems to be disagreement regarding that point, because it is not just about sex, it's about custom-made women and the player's control over them (with regard to sex).

(Footnote: How does "GTA IV has an extensive story with many themes and a lot to say" defend GTA IV's violent content, especially how it allows "hiring prostitutes and then killing them to get your money back"? You lost me there.)

 

[Grand Peep]

So What you have issue with isn't the sex but the fact that your building a person to have sex with? Would you have the same problem if a shooter let you build your victims in a similar fashion?