Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[Krakyn]

An obscenity charge is still a charge, and he earned it from not being magically obscene, but rather from owning depictions of child pornography.

In response to me saying, "this is not child pornography, look at this law that says it's not," you say "this is child pornography." I think something is wrong with you.

Your complete failure to understand what I'm writing, then following it up with an accusation there's something wrong with me because of what you failed to read, is the reason I shy away from debating on forums.

But then, I shouldn't be surprised seeing this come from the guy who's just so very insistent than RapeLay isn't, in any way, applicable to the label of "rape simulator" just because you find the scenarios within to be infeasible.

You're still quite young.

You have a problem in not understanding what I'm saying. I understand what you're trying to say, that he still did something obscene. I'm arguing the fact that you're still calling it child pornography after it was proven not to be. Using terms like that are damaging and false.

You act like you're the only person intelligent enough to understand your views or motives. I understand them, but reject them. You purposely used the term "child pornography" after I told you the law said it wasn't in order to demean my argument. Seriously, you're the most Jack Thompson-esque, Fox News emulating person I've ever seen on the forums. It's disgusting.

Edit: Also, commenting on my age in relation to my mental functions is agism (I am an adult, thank you), and also demeaning. How's middle age by the way?

 

[Xanadu84]

When it was still called RapeLay, fine...I'm not touching it with a 10 foot pole, and I will probably judge the hell out of someone who does play it for fun, but it's still something you have the right to express. If you ban simulated rape, you have to ban the simulated murder of the innocent, logically. So fine, make the game, do what you want, but you damn well better make sure that anyone who so much as looks at an advertisement is over 18, and isn't going to be driven to uncontrollable anger from seeing it. But now, i'm upset. There basically makeing it easier to mistake these games for something more appropriate. That is wrong. They can argue freedom of speech, they certainly have a case, and I will agree that thy have a right to make and sell the game they want. But trying to hide the content from people is downright immoral, and there are people who would prefer being physically assaulted to being exposed to this game.

 

[geldonyetich]

An obscenity charge is still a charge, and he earned it from not being magically obscene, but rather from owning depictions of child pornography.

In response to me saying, "this is not child pornography, look at this law that says it's not," you say "this is child pornography." I think something is wrong with you.

Your complete failure to understand what I'm writing, then following it up with an accusation there's something wrong with me because of what you failed to read, is the reason I shy away from debating on forums.

But then, I shouldn't be surprised seeing this come from the guy who's just so very insistent than RapeLay isn't, in any way, applicable to the label of "rape simulator" just because you find the scenarios within to be infeasible.

You're still quite young.

You have a problem in not understanding what I'm saying. I understand what you're trying to say, that he still did something obscene.

No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he was prosecuted for being in possession of these materials.

If you really don't want to call them Child Pornography, that's your hangup. I don't give a damn what you call them. The bottom line is: he had them, he plead guilty because the jury saw them and probably would have given him something far worse, and the only reason I brought up the Wired case was to point out that social mores do not yet consider this material acceptable.

You act like you're the only person intelligent enough to understand your views or motives. I understand them, but reject them. You purposely used the term "child pornography" after I told you the law said it wasn't in order to demean my argument. Seriously, you're the most Jack Thompson-esque, Fox News emulating person I've ever seen on the forums. It's disgusting.

Edit: Also, commenting on my age in relation to my mental functions is agism (I am an adult, thank you), and also demeaning. How's middle age by the way?

As for this, you can go straight to hell. You're entitled to your opinions, but if you can't say anything nice, try to resist saying anything at all. I called you young, but I was being polite compared to what you're calling yourself here.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

We agree as a society that murder is worse then rape. You can murder in games and we are all fine with it so rape in a game shouldn't be an issue.

People keep saying this: do we? Do we murder in games?

I know we commit homicide, but do we really commit unjustifiable, inexcusable homicide with malice aforethought?

Aren't we soldiers a lot of the time, or trying to escape people intent on causing us death or grievous bodily harm, or people trying to prevent the end of the world?

How often do we actually commit murder as opposed to legal homicide?

Hitman. GTA. Stealth games where you can kill civilians or people just doing their jobs. And Sandbox games in general.

Lots of games feature acts of murder.

And lots do not, yet people keep saying 'murder' as if every game was one of those.

Also, what's interesting is how we couch the protagonist in some sort of context that reduces the impact of those murders, like how in GTA: Vice City you're part of the mob, you're a 'solider' of the underground. Agent 47 was genetically engineered to be who he is.

How often do we play a normal human being committing a 'normal' murder? A totally unjustified murder, as unjustified as the crimes in these Japanese games?

I'm not coming down on either side here, right now: I'm just pointing out a curious blind spot in how this discussion usually goes.

Maybe because playing as a morally reprehensible thug committing an unspeakable atrocity with no justification is boring. And poor characterization, generally speaking. I can't get into a character I can't identify with. Violence in a game can be exiting, but a character with no just reason for being violent (when said violence is depicted in a realistic and brutal fashion) is repulsive.

Vice City justifies crime in the same way Goodfellas does. That is, it tries to on the surface, but we know the truth.

 

[geldonyetich]

If you're convinced you're not seeking differences after so painstakingly doing so,

You haven't shown in any way that I am, let alone that I am "painstakingly doing so"

This is because, if you don't already know you are, there's no way you're in a mindset conductive to my pointing it out to you.

If you're really that insistent, I can provide a PayPal link, and you could hire me on as a consultant. It's a bit too much work for me to do for free.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Maybe because playing as a morally reprehensible thug committing an unspeakable atrocity with no justification is boring. And poor characterization, generally speaking. I can't get into a character I can't identify with. Violence in a game can be exciting, but a character with no just reason for being violent (when said violence is depicted in a realistic and brutal fashion) is repulsive.

Vice City justifies crime in the same way Goodfellas does. That is, it tries to on the surface, but we know the truth.

Sure. And that certainly changes things: maybe the reason we have so few 'violence porn' games is not because we're so 'morally upstanding' but because...they're boring.

Yeah, I started thinking about that right after I posted. The majority of "adult" games I've seen were either crap or really dull. Visual novels are probably the worst.

Speaking from an entertainment standpoint, rape in a game (as a player-initiated action) will never add to the experience (in my opinion). At most, it should be a "Colonel Volgin" hinted-at plot element which goes to character motivation. Because banning a subject which has real-world relevance from ever being discussed/shown in a video game would be lame, but a game based entirely around a thoughtless and juvenile approach to the subject is also lame.

Maybe these Japanese game devs should just make games that are fun to play.

 

[esperandote]

I love this thread, i has make me realize how some of those that speak for virtual violence will not stand up for other illegal virtual acts and i also start to understand where virtual violnece opossers come from.

for those who oposse rape simulator,
1. Would you oposse and adult couple roleplaying as rapist-victim in their privacy?

if you're ok with it
2. Would you be ok if the game had an intro in wich the characters say that they are acting/roleplaying the raping?

 

[Krakyn]

An obscenity charge is still a charge, and he earned it from not being magically obscene, but rather from owning depictions of child pornography.

In response to me saying, "this is not child pornography, look at this law that says it's not," you say "this is child pornography." I think something is wrong with you.

Your complete failure to understand what I'm writing, then following it up with an accusation there's something wrong with me because of what you failed to read, is the reason I shy away from debating on forums.

But then, I shouldn't be surprised seeing this come from the guy who's just so very insistent than RapeLay isn't, in any way, applicable to the label of "rape simulator" just because you find the scenarios within to be infeasible.

You're still quite young.

You have a problem in not understanding what I'm saying. I understand what you're trying to say, that he still did something obscene.

No, that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he was prosecuted for being in possession of these materials.

If you really don't want to call them Child Pornography, that's your hangup.

What you're saying is wrong. That's my hangup. When you call it child pornography, you are wrong. Plain and simple.

The bottom line is: he had them, he plead guilty because the jury saw them and probably would have given him something far worse, and the only reason I brought up the Wired case was to point out that social mores do not yet consider this material acceptable.

The only reason he was up for the obscenity charge was because the material wasn't listed as pornography. If it was, he would've been fine. And I don't care what mores are acceptable, as you said before when you still thought you were right:

The law agrees with me [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/] and so you apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

Humble pie...mmmm...

 

[geldonyetich]

Humble pie...mmmm...

I already explained that when it was brought up before by that other guy that you're taking this out of context.

As for the rest, you continue to demonstrate you are unable to understand what I'm talking about.

I'd say you should leave because the adults are talking, but then, apparently the main point of contention I've generated is "no, geldonyetich, fictitious child porn is actually an absolute good (and RapeLay isn't in any way a rape simulator)".

So I'm not sure how many actual adults are involved, other than me, who has been wasting my free time very impressively this Tuesday out of some kind of caustic Diet Dr. Pepper related mood alterant effect.

 

[Amnestic]

Humble pie...mmmm...

I already explained that when it was brought up before by that other guy that you're taking this out of context.

As for the rest, you continue to demonstrate you are unable to understand what I'm talking about.

I'd say you should leave because the adults are talking, but then, apparently the main point of contention I've generated is "no, geldonyetich, fictitious child porn is actually an absolute good (and RapeLay isn't in any way a rape simulator)".

So I'm not sure how many actual adults are involved, other than me, who has been wasting my free time very impressively this Tuesday out of some kind of caustic Diet Dr. Pepper related mood alterant effect.

Ad Hominems do not a debate win.

And yes, calling someone a child in a disparaging way is an ad hominem as it implies they are too stupid/not experienced enough in the world to take part.

 

[Krakyn]

Humble pie...mmmm...

I already explained that when it was brought up before by that other guy.

As for the rest, you continue to demonstrate you are unable to understand what I'm talking about.

I'd say you should leave because the adults are talking, but then, apparently the main point of contention I've generated is "no, geldonyetich, fictitious child porn is actually an absolute good (and, your case, that RapeLay isn't in any way a rape simulator)". So I'm not sure how many actual adults are involved.

Like I said before, thanks for your demeaning, ageist attacks and word-twisting Fox News! Nobody here said it was an absolute good; you're delusional. It's pornography, so it's neutral. It's not harming anybody. This isn't the 50's, porn is allowed now.

And yeah, I still believe it's not a rape simulator just like I don't think that Modern Warfare 2 is a war simulator. It's a game about war, just like Rapelay is a game about rape.

 

[geldonyetich]

Humble pie...mmmm...

I already explained that when it was brought up before by that other guy that you're taking this out of context.

As for the rest, you continue to demonstrate you are unable to understand what I'm talking about.

I'd say you should leave because the adults are talking, but then, apparently the main point of contention I've generated is "no, geldonyetich, fictitious child porn is actually an absolute good (and RapeLay isn't in any way a rape simulator)".

So I'm not sure how many actual adults are involved, other than me, who has been wasting my free time very impressively this Tuesday out of some kind of caustic Diet Dr. Pepper related mood alterant effect.

Ad Hominems do not a debate win.

And yes, calling someone a child in a disparaging way is an ad hominem as it implies they are too stupid/not experienced enough in the world to take part.

Ad Hominem is trying to win a debate by discrediting the individual. In this case, I'm saying screw the debate, I just want nothing to do with anyone who isn't able to understand what I'm talking about.

You might say it's the same thing. I say it's something born out of necessity. When the other guy really doesn't understand what you're talking about, message after message, for several pages, then you really have no choice but to tell him you're ignoring him now.

 

[geldonyetich]

Like I said before, thanks for your demeaning, ageist attacks

The shoe fits. Would you prefer I lie to you? All I'm doing is saying you seem rather young to me in your approach. When you're 32, you'll realize that this isn't a flat out insult, as there's a certain underpinning of envy to it.

 

[Krakyn]

Like I said before, thanks for your demeaning, ageist attacks

The shoe fits. Would you prefer I lie to you?

All I'm doing is saying you seem rather young to me in your approach. When you're 32, you'll realize that this isn't a flat out insult, as there's a certain underpinning of envy to it.

You seem rather brain damaged to me in you're approach. When I'm 32, I'm pretty sure I'll still feel the same way about an individual's rights instead of turning into an empty husk of a human being who has no empathy or perspective.

 

[geldonyetich]

You seem rather brain damaged to me in you're approach. When I'm 32, I'm pretty sure I'll still feel the same way about an individual's rights instead of turning into an empty husk of a human being who has no empathy or perspective.

Well, I'm certainly lacking in empathy. It's an INTP thing [http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html], actually. As far as I'm concerned, your hurt feelings are irrelevant to any line of discussion, debate or otherwise.

However, perspective-wise... mmm, well, the difference between me and you there is rather central to the problem. The reason why a lot of people don't understand what I'm getting at here is because they don't see quite as far. Yes, yes, privacy concerns, censorship, how you should label something - those are really just mere surface concerns - I look a little deeper.

I go far as to say, what if... Rape games really do have something to do with the kind of people who play them... what then? Maybe we could try this. I outline possibilities, and what do I get? Outrage from people still sitting on the surface issues.

Be careful what accusations you make. You may not like what you see when you get there: in being so concerned about the surface issues, you're much, much, closer to playing into the hands of Fox News and Jack Thompson than I ever was.

 

[esperandote]

on topic?

 

[asinann]

Japan never stops scaring me, or well... some of the people in japan. That place is like a theme park for perverts (and scarier things than that)

With one of the lowest rates of sex crimes in the world. So they have to be doing something right.

 

[geldonyetich]

on topic?

Insofar as an Ad Hominem back and forth can be. When you get deep enough into any debate, I think sooner or later you began to question the debater. It's not so much a question of irrelevance, really, there's a question of why do they hold that belief.

If anything, the main trouble here is that this thread has been seen through to a much greater degree. I pretty much spent my entire Tuesday doing it... which was a thorough waste of time for all involved parties.

I tried to avoid debating entirely, but BGH122 talked me into giving it a spin. The conclusion was the same: people still don't read each other's points on Internet forums well enough to deduce anything.