Developer Blames "American Culture" for Greenlight Ban

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
V da Mighty Taco said:
Baresark said:
People are looking at this all wrong. I personally find it offensive that "American Culture" gets blamed on this. It was offering up risque material, and Steam didn't want to take a chance. That is all. Valve has the right to deny any game they wish from their service. End of story. In Steam rejection letters, they are all generic and never give an explanation as to why games are turned down. But make no mistakes about it, it is their prerogative to do it, but don't scapegoat "American Culture".

Edit: Looking over the comments, people are way too influenced by the conjecture of this person. Use your reasoning and you will discover that this is not uncommon for Valve and has nothing to do with "American Culture" as compared to Valve worrying about their image.
That's the point - why is it risque material in the first place? Why would this hurt Valve's image? How is this more risque than games that have you run around lighting people on fire while they scream in agony? It come's back down to American Culture and how it treats sex as worse than killing.
You are missing the point. Videogames and violence is a solved issue. That fight was had out starting back in the early 90's. Constantly trying to censor or deny violent games. They were protected by first amendment ultimately. This is more than just decapitations and dismemberment. This is tougher on a deeper level. And it's not an "American" problem, it's an everybody problem. The reason why this is not ok is the same reason that people exploded all over Duke Nukem Forever. This is objectification of women, where the ultimate goal is to bag sex with women. The issue of violence and this are completely different. I probably would not have upvoted this game, but I would have just ignored it (that down vote button shouldn't exist).
 

danon

New member
Jul 20, 2009
102
0
0
Well you learn something every day. Apparently games where you kill civilians by the hundreds with automatic rifles are far more accepted than games with sexualised content. It's good to see the puritanical nonsense continues strong today.
 

V da Mighty Taco

New member
Apr 9, 2011
890
0
0
axlryder said:
V da Mighty Taco said:
Baresark said:
People are looking at this all wrong. I personally find it offensive that "American Culture" gets blamed on this. It was offering up risque material, and Steam didn't want to take a chance. That is all. Valve has the right to deny any game they wish from their service. End of story. In Steam rejection letters, they are all generic and never give an explanation as to why games are turned down. But make no mistakes about it, it is their prerogative to do it, but don't scapegoat "American Culture".

Edit: Looking over the comments, people are way too influenced by the conjecture of this person. Use your reasoning and you will discover that this is not uncommon for Valve and has nothing to do with "American Culture" as compared to Valve worrying about their image.
That's the point - why is it risque material in the first place? Why would this hurt Valve's image? How is this more risque than games that have you run around lighting people on fire while they scream in agony? It come's back down to American Culture and how it treats sex as worse than killing.
It's not just about being risque. It's sleazy. The concept itself is sleazy, and sex games/film have always been associated with low quality, exploitative business practice, and crappy, scummy people. It's just how it is. Perhaps that too is a product of American culture, but it does generally ring true from my experience (even in countries that aren't American). Valve doesn't want to be associated with that image. It's entirely understandable.
True, it's sleazy. But why is sleazy worse than gruesome? Even in the world of exploitation films, the pornos are looked down upon more than the gorefests. Saw and Hostel are not nearly as condemned as porn; yet you can't really classify either as "wholesome", "thoughtful", or "dignified".
 

Emiscary

New member
Sep 7, 2008
990
0
0
"Offensive content" is anything the person viewing it doesn't like.

Therefore, everything is "offensive content" by some standard.

So by that logic, Steam should have no games.
 

Ruley

New member
Sep 3, 2010
192
0
0
Nurb said:
Ruley said:
It has a lot of merit because it shows that violence, death, murder and other crimes are more acceptable than sex for no other reason than opinion, which is part of the culture issue.

"Is sex the goal? Is there sex in it? What would the media say?" who cares if it's a focal point, it's a game, it's made how the developer wanted to make it, and others might want to buy it. You don't have to buy it, but there could be an area that would offer the option for such a game and you wouldn't even have to see it.

Your position on censorship is based on your opinion and your feelings, which proves the double-standard.
I should have clarified that my personal thoughts on the matter are that sex should be able to be addressed by videogaming as they already address the worst possible crime a human being can commit, murder. I am not suggesting that such a game where sex is the objective should not be made ever (many already exist, professionally developed or not), but that it be handled better than this game was suggesting.

My point about the media again needs clarifying. Again, i don't mind if the media find a game with sex in it if it has been handled properly. I know those words can be interpreted any way and the counter argument can be drawn of "well how do you define handing murder properly?" But all i mean by that is used creatively such that it benefits the game and doesnt transform it into something perverted to the majority (see later). I would not want to see a game made that is essentially a personification of a steriotypical male power fantasy, in that beautiful women flock to you and you have to choose the one you want to woo. This game had elements of that which i felt were a determent to the videogaming comunity. Note my praise for Valve here, again i should have expanded. Steam is used by a wide age range of users - i would not want a game whose focus is sex to be on the front page of a minor. I know steam asks users for their date of birth but they don't exactly require parental approval if a child is just browsing the store. Steam is not the place for this game.

I am behind the mindset of creative freedom, in that i want anyone and everyone to make whatever they want (hence why i support books like 50 shades of grey being written despite the book itself being a horrible, horrible example of the genre and not one i would recommend). Thus their might be a place for this game somewhere, yes, but not on steam nor anywhere else so public. Just in the same way you don't see similar content on the shelves of your local blockbuster or waterstones (at least i don't!), would you really see such erotic snapshots in those stores? Hence my commenting on the media - the media knows pornography exists and other erotic works, but if this game were to be made so public the media would pounce on it in a "think of the children" mindset and some might attempt to re-ignite the fire of videogames as a bad influence for children and young adults.

My position on censorship is influenced by my opinions, yes, but i hope i have showed it is grounded in logic. :)
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
If you want to see at what point an immature, childish view of sex enters the story here, it's at the game's conception, not at its prohibition; this looks like something a high school boy thought up with his friends in AV Club. American culture aside, the desire to block this tacky masturbation fantasy disguised as a video game is coming less from a prudish aversion to sex and more from an understandable aversion to dumb, childish shit.

caturdaytimes said:
I think it comes down to a form of societal "peer pressure", if you would. It appears that the game tells a story of a male looking to get laid. Nothing new in history. I'm sure some of my male fellows on the forums here has experienced a desire to have sex (like I said, nothing new)..... but, somehow, that is bad. Just think for a minute. Wanting to get laid is wrong. lol Ridiculous, I know, but that is an underlying message within American culture. Now, this message *is not* directed towards females.
Yes, because female sexual empowerment is all the rage in America. What planet are you living on where women are encouraged to have a lot of sex but men aren't?

Ruley said:
I should have clarified that my personal thoughts on the matter are that sex should be able to be addressed by videogaming as they already address the worst possible crime a human being can commit, murder.
And they haven't come even close to addressing it in a realistic, wholesome, or otherwise mature way. Couple that with the fact that, as a whole, video game portrayals of sexuality are even more infantile, and you've got a good argument for why we shouldn't be even trying to approach sexuality until we as a community grow up.

The fact that meat-headed, empty violence is a common fixture of video games is an argument AGAINST attempting to deal with sex, not FOR it.
 

V da Mighty Taco

New member
Apr 9, 2011
890
0
0
Baresark said:
V da Mighty Taco said:
Baresark said:
People are looking at this all wrong. I personally find it offensive that "American Culture" gets blamed on this. It was offering up risque material, and Steam didn't want to take a chance. That is all. Valve has the right to deny any game they wish from their service. End of story. In Steam rejection letters, they are all generic and never give an explanation as to why games are turned down. But make no mistakes about it, it is their prerogative to do it, but don't scapegoat "American Culture".

Edit: Looking over the comments, people are way too influenced by the conjecture of this person. Use your reasoning and you will discover that this is not uncommon for Valve and has nothing to do with "American Culture" as compared to Valve worrying about their image.
That's the point - why is it risque material in the first place? Why would this hurt Valve's image? How is this more risque than games that have you run around lighting people on fire while they scream in agony? It come's back down to American Culture and how it treats sex as worse than killing.
You are missing the point. Videogames and violence is a solved issue. That fight was had out starting back in the early 90's. Constantly trying to censor or deny violent games. They were protected by first amendment ultimately. This is more than just decapitations and dismemberment. This is tougher on a deeper level. And it's not an "American" problem, it's an everybody problem. The reason why this is not ok is the same reason that people exploded all over Duke Nukem Forever. This is objectification of women, where the ultimate goal is to bag sex with women. The issue of violence and this are completely different. I probably would not have upvoted this game, but I would have just ignored it (that down vote button shouldn't exist).
In case we're misunderstanding each other - I'm not supporting censoring violence in video games, but condemning the censorship of sex in video games. While I agree about the objectification of women and that I too would have ignored this game while rolling my eyes at it; the fact remains that consensual sex in video games isn't viewed as something to be protected by the first amendment, whereas games about killing cops and soldiers are. At least in America, pointless objectification of women is seen as worse than pointless torture and murder. A lone sex scene in a movie will automatically give it an R-rating, yet something incredibly violent like the Expendables 2 gets a mere PG-13 rating (granted, I haven't seen Expendables 2). That just doesn't make any sense, unless we find sex to be worse than killing. Considering that consensual sex doesn't have victims and is a natural part of life, I find that treating it as worse than maiming people to be incredibly hypocritical.
 

peruvianskys

New member
Jun 8, 2011
577
0
0
V da Mighty Taco said:
In case we're misunderstanding each other - I'm not supporting censoring violence in video games, but condemning the censorship of sex in video games. While I agree about the objectification of women and that I too would have ignored this game while rolling my eyes at it; the fact remains that consensual sex in video games isn't viewed as something to be protected by the first amendment, whereas games about killing cops and soldiers are. At least in America, pointless objectification of women is seen as worse than pointless torture and murder. A lone sex scene in a movie will automatically give it an R-rating, yet something incredibly violent like the Expendables 2 gets a mere PG-13 rating (granted, I haven't seen Expendables 2). That just doesn't make any sense.
First off, I think that has a lot to do with the fact that while seeing someone torture another man to death will probably not encourage young children to go on killing sprees, a constant bombardment of exploitative sex and objectification can definitely have a large effect on how a young boy relates to women.

Secondly, this isn't a first amendment issue. Steam is a private company that can choose what products they allow on their system. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.
 

II2

New member
Mar 13, 2010
1,492
0
0
Do I agree "American culture" is to blame? Yes and No.

In broad strokes, yeah, American everything has a hang up about sex, that's just the situation on the ground. The puritan values and conservatism towards sexual content are not an intrinsically or exclusively American trait, though.

The decision of what to allow on a private service is the decision of Valve, as a private entity, not American culture. They've got the money and good will, if anyone does, to allow such games to be sold, but choose not to because they don't wish to be seen (rightly or wrongly) to be pornography.

I'd like them to be more open minded and have less nebulous offensive content rules, but I've got no horse in this race.
 

DRes82

New member
Apr 9, 2009
426
0
0
Oh look, stupid generalizations are 'official' now. I expect to see that kind of drivel only on forums with an abundance of inexperienced adolescents.

Yes, American Culture...a mixture of an uncountable number of different cultures, is responsible for Steam taking down this shitty wank-fest of a game.

I'm all for a game that approaches this kind of material in a tasteful, interesting, constructive manner. This was none of those things.

Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I've dreamed of playing a game where I could be a 'faceless beefcake' and wonder around at a digital party while trying to score with insipid, poorly drawn, misogynistic representations of women.

Good call, Steam. Even if it wasn't for the right reason.
 

RhombusHatesYou

New member
Mar 21, 2010
5,800
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
That doesn't make American culture any less hypocritical in regards to the sex vs violence thing, and it doesn't make me like the fact that Steam doesn't allow what it considers to be "racy" games. It just means that her game looks kind of crappy.
I dunno... if it's a quality issue then, IMO, the game should have been left to sink or swim on it's own merit - no intervention required.

I mean, sure it might look like the usual sleazy, pandering drivel that floats around but there's also the chance (practically zero but work with me here) that it expores important themes and gives an emotionally satisfying experience. Hell, for all we know, it's actually a scathing criticism of western sexual norms (heh 'sexual norms' sounds like the world's worst male stripper group) and the representation of sex and sexuality in games...

It could also be the rancid crap it looks like.

The issue I have is all that is now irrelevent because apparently someone got their knickers in a twist (or panties in a bunch if you prefer - see, cultural sensitivity) and decided that it was all badnasty and shouldn't be listed in with all the wholesome gore-splatter-death.

Sure, one less crappy game is an admirable result in itself but I'm not a 'ends justify the means' kind of guy.
 

danon

New member
Jul 20, 2009
102
0
0
Look i don't have the slightest inclination to buy this game either. But the point is that i don't go hurrdurr i don't want this game so no one can get this game. Do people kind of see that, that is a bizarre stance to take.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
V da Mighty Taco said:
Baresark said:
V da Mighty Taco said:
Baresark said:
People are looking at this all wrong. I personally find it offensive that "American Culture" gets blamed on this. It was offering up risque material, and Steam didn't want to take a chance. That is all. Valve has the right to deny any game they wish from their service. End of story. In Steam rejection letters, they are all generic and never give an explanation as to why games are turned down. But make no mistakes about it, it is their prerogative to do it, but don't scapegoat "American Culture".

Edit: Looking over the comments, people are way too influenced by the conjecture of this person. Use your reasoning and you will discover that this is not uncommon for Valve and has nothing to do with "American Culture" as compared to Valve worrying about their image.
That's the point - why is it risque material in the first place? Why would this hurt Valve's image? How is this more risque than games that have you run around lighting people on fire while they scream in agony? It come's back down to American Culture and how it treats sex as worse than killing.
You are missing the point. Videogames and violence is a solved issue. That fight was had out starting back in the early 90's. Constantly trying to censor or deny violent games. They were protected by first amendment ultimately. This is more than just decapitations and dismemberment. This is tougher on a deeper level. And it's not an "American" problem, it's an everybody problem. The reason why this is not ok is the same reason that people exploded all over Duke Nukem Forever. This is objectification of women, where the ultimate goal is to bag sex with women. The issue of violence and this are completely different. I probably would not have upvoted this game, but I would have just ignored it (that down vote button shouldn't exist).
In case we're misunderstanding each other - I'm not supporting censoring violence in video games, but condemning the censorship of sex in video games. While I agree about the objectification of women and that I too would have ignored this game while rolling my eyes at it; the fact remains that consensual sex in video games isn't viewed as something to be protected by the first amendment, whereas games about killing cops and soldiers are. At least in America, pointless objectification of women is seen as worse than pointless torture and murder. A lone sex scene in a movie will automatically give it an R-rating, yet something incredibly violent like the Expendables 2 gets a mere PG-13 rating (granted, I haven't seen Expendables 2). That just doesn't make any sense, unless we find sex to be worse than killing. Considering that consensual sex doesn't have victims and is a natural part of life, I find that treating it as worse than maiming people to be incredibly hypocritical.
I think that fight is still coming. It will eventually show up in front of the Supreme Court. My express wish is that stuff like this should be up to individuals, not societies. I don't think this is viewed worse, but the censors have already lost the fight to violent videogames, at least in America ( I can't speak for any other country). What people who want to censor this will just have to come to realize that fantasy is fantasy and is not bad for any society, just like was the ultimate conclusion for violent video games.

All that aside though, even if this was protected by Supreme Court, Valve could still deny the game on their service. So I come back to my original idea that blaming it on Society when it clearly is a preference by Valve to not have the game on there. All societies have parts of them that don't like this type of thing, and blaming "American Culture" is a cop out.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
657
0
0
WAIT. Hold on for one second.

So American culture is both the inspiration for the game AND the reason Steam is too prudish to allow it?

Can't have it both ways, lady. And incidentally, American culture is neither of those things.

Oh wait, I'm on the Escapist. What I meant to say was "Everyone in America is a prudish, gun wielding, religious nut job! Literally EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Fuck those guys!"
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
Your game got denied on Steam? Blame America! That's sure to solve your problems!

The internet's got your back, assholes!
RoBi3.0 said:
American is not a race therefore you can't call them racist. You however can call them assholes if you want, and to some extent you could accuse them of being ethnocentric.
Very well, then.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Here is a copy pasta of the responce that I put in another thread relating to this
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387446-Steam-Gaming-Industry-Violence-OK-Sex-not-OK?page=3#15488905

I think the issue is kinda obvious.
-Valve is an American company
-Americans are known for having an abject dislike of porn in plain sight
-The game developer of "Seduce Me", by their own admission, didn't bother to actually check with Valve to see if it would be alright to put their game up, and instead just assumed
"I think we'd managed to convince ourselves that there was a reasonable chance that they'd take it, and the game was close enough to being finished when Greenlight came around, so we thought we'd get in at the start and see what the community said."
-The people on Steam got pissed, as any sane person would know they would.
-Valve pulled the game because of user backlash to it.

The removal of the game sits SOLELY on the lap of the developers of "Seduce Me" who made an asinine assumption without actually bothering to check before hand if their assumption was right, and then had to face the consequences of their wrong assumption.

As they say "assuming only makes an ass out of you and me", Valve only looks like dicks because of "Seduce me" Developer's assumption, and I don't believe Valve has to explain themselves in a situation that was caused by SOMEONE ELSE's stupidity.

If anything, the people who made "Seduce Me" should have to explain why on earth they thought, when all other past evidence of American companies actions and culture shows otherwise, that Steam would accept their game.
I would like to make a note of that I wasn't saying that Valve has a dislike of porn because they are American, but that they will follow the general opinion of Americans because they are an American company., and a large part, if not the majority, of their user base is American also.

I really have zero sympathy for the makers of this game, they made an idiotic move, and they faced the consequences of their idiotic move.
 

godofslack

New member
May 8, 2011
150
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
Here is a copy pasta of the responce that I put in another thread relating to this
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.387446-Steam-Gaming-Industry-Violence-OK-Sex-not-OK?page=3#15488905

I think the issue is kinda obvious.
-Valve is an American company
-Americans are known for having an abject dislike of porn in plain sight
-The game developer of "Seduce Me", by their own admission, didn't bother to actually check with Valve to see if it would be alright to put their game up, and instead just assumed
"I think we'd managed to convince ourselves that there was a reasonable chance that they'd take it, and the game was close enough to being finished when Greenlight came around, so we thought we'd get in at the start and see what the community said."
-The people on Steam got pissed, as any sane person would know they would.
-Valve pulled the game because of user backlash to it.

The removal of the game sits SOLELY on the lap of the developers of "Seduce Me" who made an asinine assumption without actually bothering to check before hand if their assumption was right, and then had to face the consequences of their wrong assumption.

As they say "assuming only makes an ass out of you and me", Valve only looks like dicks because of "Seduce me" Developer's assumption, and I don't believe Valve has to explain themselves in a situation that was caused by SOMEONE ELSE's stupidity.

If anything, the people who made "Seduce Me" should have to explain why on earth they thought, when all other past evidence of American companies actions and culture shows otherwise, that Steam would accept their game.
I would like to make a note of that I wasn't saying that Valve has a dislike of porn because they are American, but that they will follow the general opinion of Americans because they are an American company., and a large part, if not the majority, of their user base is American also.

I really have zero sympathy for the makers of this game, they made an idiotic move, and they faced the consequences of their idiotic move.
Was it really dumb though? They are getting a lot of advertising for 100 bucks. I mean all they had to do is make a stink and we have tons of "mature" gamers bring out the metaphorical picket fences for a game that's about exploiting women. It's turned into a entire discussion about the use of sex in video games when it's really just a poorly made smut game.
 

ResonanceSD

Guild Warrior
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
4,535
3
43
Country
Australia
Krantos said:
You can't put sex games on Steam.

Why are you surprised by this?

Sure, American culture is prudish when it comes to sex, but that's hardly anything new. Why in the world are you surprised that an American company won't publish your sex game?
When they make a game which allows you to set fire to people, then cut them in half with an axe.

When they sell games through their service where the central aim is murder, and other games where each headshot gives an x-ray picture of a bullet going through someone's head.
 

RoBi3.0

New member
Mar 29, 2009
709
0
0
Xpwn3ntial said:
Your game get denied on Steam? Blame America! That's sure to solve your problems!

The internet's got your back, racist assholes!
American is not a race therefore you can't call them racist. You however can call them assholes if you want, and to some extent you could excuse them of being ethnocentric.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
godofslack said:
Was it really dumb though? They are getting a lot of advertising for 100 bucks. I mean all they had to do is make a stink and we have tons of "mature" gamers bring out the metaphorical picket fences for a game that's about exploiting women. It's turned into a entire discussion about the use of sex in video games when it's really just a poorly made smut game.
I meant it was dumb of them to think that they could put the game on Steam.

If they had ulterior motives, knew that it wouldn't work, and had intended to start a controversy to promote their game, I am not sure, and thus wont comment on.

But, based on their stated belief, i.e "we thought this game could actually be put on Steam" yes, they are dumb.