Developer Blames "American Culture" for Greenlight Ban

[Evil Smurf]

It sounds like a horrible 'game'. No great loss to anyone I think. Steam doesn't need sleazy shovelware on it.

Yeah, I don't want to log on and find ads for sex games in steam. There are plenty of websites for that.

 

[danon]

In a relative short time we have gone from free speech til free speech as long as you're sensitive and don't offend anyone.

 

[Ruley]

I've seen some points dotted around relating to the whole "So games can address murder but not sex?" issue, which have some merit, however not a lot. As has already been mentioned, do we really want a game that's all about leading up to sex? That being the goal of the game? That's a media firestorm waiting to happen, a game all gamers would distance themselves from if found by the BBC or Fox News. Sex may be a mature subject and one i think games have the right to address but not as a focal point of a game! Having sex in a game to flesh out the gameworld i am all for, that is how i would like games to incorporate these mature subjects, but not in the way this game is suggesting. Dangling girls in front of us dressed in scantily clad bathing suits oiled up by the pool side - seriously, what the hell?

I tip my hat to you Valve, I am still proud to talk about you and all your achievements for gaming as small talk at parties! ^_^

 

[danon]

The whole point of steam greenlight is that people vote. If it gets enough votes people obviously wants it.

 

[afroebob]

First its American culture is to obsessed with sex, now its American culture is to uptight about sex. I guess no matter what we do America is always wrong (at least according to morons like her).

 

[Sean Strife]

While I myself have absolutely no issue with sex games whatsoever, I will not shell out money for said games, which is why I gotta side with Valve on this: why would I shell out money for something that is, essentially, a Newgrounds Flash Portal-quality game. I say Flash Portal because Newgrounds games themselves can actually be really good (Castle Crashers, anyone?).

Also, everybody bringing up the Witcher games, GTA, Mass Effect, etc... I do believe the sexual stuff in those games is a little thing called "optional", whereas in this game, it's the whole point of it. Yes the aforementioned games have sex in them, but it doesn't mean you absolutely have to play those things.

So it's ok to ban a game from greenlight because you personally don't want to buy it.

No, it's okay to ban a game that's a glorified Newgrounds dating sim. If I wanted to play that, I'd swing on over to Newgrounds and play it. I look at Steam for more "legitimate" games, so to speak.

Many of the games on XBLA are games that could have been released on newgrounds. Any game is a "legitimate" game too. This one just involves sex.

You mean in the Indie section? Which, outside of a few decent games, is a joke anyways? Because that's the only place on XBLA I've ever seen Newgrounds-quality games (unless you're referring to Castle Crashers and Alien Hominid, both of which are Newgrounds games), everything else has at least some sort of polish to it. And as I've said before, if I wanted to play those sort of games, I'd go on Newgrounds and play something like it for free instead of playing a dating sim with some half-assed puzzle stuff forced in just to make it a "game".

Look, you can be upset that Valve decided to pull this from Greenlight all you want, but frankly, I think they made the right move. Valve is, first and foremost, a corporation, and to have a game like that would, as many have said, tarnish their reputation with gamers and devs everywhere, plus you know Capitol Hill would come barreling down on them for "peddling smut". If the developers seriously want to push this, then they can start advertising the hell out of it and sell it from their website (especially since now they've got means of free advertising with this controversy), because God knows there'll at least be a few idiots who'll shell out the money for it just out of curiousity. Otherwise, they can keep their mouths shut and move along.

 

[Nurb]

I've seen some points dotted around relating to the whole "So games can address murder but not sex?" issue, which have some merit, however not a lot. As has already been mentioned, do we really want a game that's all about leading up to sex? That being the goal of the game? That's a media firestorm waiting to happen, a game all gamers would distance themselves from if found by the BBC or Fox News. Sex may be a mature subject and one i think games have the right to address but not as a focal point of a game! Having sex in a game to flesh out the gameworld i am all for, that is how i would like games to incorporate these mature subjects, but not in the way this game is suggesting. Dangling girls in front of us dressed in scantily clad bathing suits oiled up by the pool side - seriously, what the hell?

I tip my hat to you Valve, I am still proud to talk about you and all your achievements for gaming as small talk at parties! ^_^

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.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Are the Leasure Suite Lary games on steam?

 

[Baresark]

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.

 

[danon]

Sure Steam has the right to just ban games. But it makes the greenlight system pretty useless. Then it would be pretty much as before. They might as well go back to where we didn't have a choice. People doesn't seem to want it anyway.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

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. Quite the opposite. The message of being "sexually aware" is constantly being translated to females: sex toys, abortion rights, artificial insemination. They don't need a man.

Now look to the male gender, starting early as elementary school with the removing of recess. I don't know about y'all, but I can only concentrate on a subject for so long before I need to get up and take a break. Recess is essentially a break. It allows you personal time to recharge your batteries. And should you exhibit any qualities of physically active, they diagnose you as ADD, or (like myself) ADHD and dope you up. Television shows promote violence against men, where both male and female are the aggressor, and tells us that it is OK. But, should a man punch a woman....

Americans live in a culture filled with overt feminist attitudes, and fellas, that is BAD. (No offense, ladies. I absolutely adore y'all.) Estrogen is being pumped into our meat, competition between young boys is frowned upon, males are constantly being told how to be more sensitive, *more males are stay home, taking care of the children!*, and the words like "sexist" or "sexism" are being thrown around to limit speech.

I strongly urge those interested to look into Gloria Steinem, and read between the lines.

I agree with the violence against men thing, though a good chuck of what you said is degrading stay-at-home dads and men who find the concept of being "manly" ridiculous. I think a good chunk of it comes from the protective attitudes most American men have towards women. To many, women are something precious and fragile that must be taken care of. Look at the "don't hit a woman" motto, or the virgin-slut mentality. Men who sleep with many a woman is seen as something to look up to, my belief being that obtaining so much of something "precious" like women is seen as a form of status. Women who sleep around on the other hand, are viewed as "tainted" and less valuable. Overall, this mentality that idolizes women is actually hurting genuine feminism and discouraging equality between the genders.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

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.

 

[Vigormortis]

I thought this was going to be about the rise of sociopathy in America leading to trolling on Greenlight. But seeing what the story's about, I'm just going to quote this:

You can't put sex games on Steam.

Why are you surprised by this?

And walk away, shaking my head.

I think I'll do the same, possibly chuckling to myself at the utter idiocy of that 'indie developer'.

"Waah! Valve won't let us try to sell our crappy, flash-esque porn game on Steam! It's clearly just Valve placating to the prudish, squeamish nature of America!"

Christ...get over yourselves.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The game is also kind of sexist. Where's the mode where I can play a generic female socialite and seduce one of four hot men, huh?

Yeah but if they had that then you'd just accuse them of being heteronormative.

You know, I almost edited my post to include that, but then I was like "eh, it's not like it matters now anyway".

The point I was trying to make was that, while she is correct that American culture is why her game got axed, that fact isn't entirely bad - cause it kinda looks like a bit of a sucky game.

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.

But yes, since I'm replying anyway, I might as well add my edit comment of "And what about a male for the male protagonist to romance? Huh? What if my socialite is a hot gay man?"

There you go. Feel better now?

Captcha: moveable feast. Why yes, I suppose it was.

 

[octafish]

We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene!

America, and I'll admit most of the English speaking world has the weird duallity where people fucking is taboo but casual violence is Ok. I find it a little disturbing, but Steam isn't free it isn't open and they have the right to refuse entry.

 

[axlryder]

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 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.

 

[godofslack]

It's not SEX IS BAD BURN SEX GAMES! It's do this and you get this saucy little image of a half naked woman. That wouldn't be allowed if it was a guy having his head shot off with a shotgun.

 

[Baresark]

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]

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]

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".