Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[WinterOrbit]

geldonyetich,

I've followed this thread for the past hour or so, and I am unclear on your position. I'd be grateful if you could reply to this.

Okay, so here's the situation as I understand it.

Rape is bad, for it causes severe mental and sometimes physical damage to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through rape. Murder is bad, for it causes fatality to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through murder. As of now, people can play games featuring simulated murder with less social stigma than can people play games featuring simulated rape.

Now, here's what I don't understand. You've expressed the idea that the rape games should be banned (Correct me if I'm wrong on this point). As I mentioned before, rape causes severe emotional stress but is not in and of itself fatal. Murder is by definition fatal. I would then think that murder would be a far worse act to simulate in a game, and so would require stricter regulation if we require any regulation.

So, if you think rape games should be banned, do you also think that games that feature murder should be banned? Or do you think that rape is a more heinous crime? Or none of the above?

 

[geldonyetich]

geldonyetich,

I've followed this thread for the past hour or so, and I am unclear on your position. I'd be grateful if you could reply to this.

Okay, so here's the situation as I understand it.

Rape is bad, for it causes severe mental and sometimes physical damage to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through rape. Murder is bad, for it causes fatality to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through murder. As of now, people can play games featuring simulated murder with less social stigma than can people play games featuring simulated rape.

Looks good.

Now, here's what I don't understand. You've expressed the idea that the rape games should be banned (Correct me if I'm wrong on this point). As I mentioned before, rape causes severe emotional stress but is not in and of itself fatal. Murder is by definition fatal. I would then think that murder would be a far worse act to simulate in a game, and so would require stricter regulation if we require any regulation.

I don't find there to be any relationship between murder and rape here other than the idea that there are games about murder which are permitted and games about rape which are not permitted.

Bottom line, two wrongs don't make a right, so I don't care what is legal and what isn't. I don't drink and I don't smoke, but that doesn't mean I'm pushing for alchohol to be illegal nor that I'm pushing for cocaine (because MJ is just too well supported ) to be legalized.

That said, let me move on from my clarification of the premise to the point at hand.

So, if you think rape games should be banned, do you also think that games that feature murder should be banned? Or do you think that rape is a more heinous crime? Or none of the above?

None of the above.

While I have shown opposition to the idea that games about rape or fictional child pornography are ideas which should be mainstream, I believe the issue requires further investigation before true action can be initiated one way or the other.

In terms of a debate, you can consider me a fence sitter. Any opposition you've seen from me about starkly pushing for the widespread circulation of rape sims or fictionalized child pornography has to do with a desire to believe that any action, whether pro or con, is premature at this point.

 

[ztakashi]

Look, we all know that Japan is just a little different from us. they come from a place were Porn is more out of the open,

Actually, this might not be true. It's true that they have some pretty impressively gratuitous porn, this is even more censored in Japan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Japan#Censorship_laws] than it is in America.

Hmm... I'd argue that sexually explicit material and sexual connotations--not necessarily on the level of pornography, mind you--are far more open, even more culturally accepted, in Japan compared to the West (the U.S. in particular).

Every society has both its qualms and acceptances of sexual material and how accessible it is to the public, but I think it's the magnitude of accessibility to such material that speaks for the nation's "social acceptance" of pornography. I'm speaking more specifically about what we like to call fanservice in the media... I mean, when it's perfectly OK to air something like THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpPusmEMvXA in a children's cartoon show for the sake of pure humor, I'd undoubtedly say that sexually explicit material--anime, video/computer games, any media for that matter--are far more common and accepted in Japan, and I'd go further to assume that this social tolerance leads to the production and licensing of games like RapeLay. When animated porn is a marketable source of income, people are bound to opportunistically sell these kinds of games.

This isn't to say that America isn't accountable for its share of openness to sexual material, however it most often appears in television shows like Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and broadcast on networks like Comedy Central--all of which are intended for the more mature, adult audience, not the demographic fo children targeted by anime and manga which may be popular for their massive amounts of sexual fanservice.

 

[geldonyetich]

Look, we all know that Japan is just a little different from us. they come from a place were Porn is more out of the open,

Actually, this might not be true. It's true that they have some pretty impressively gratuitous porn, this is even more censored in Japan [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Japan#Censorship_laws] than it is in America.

Hmm... I'd argue that sexually explicit material and sexual connotations--not necessarily on the level of pornography, mind you--are far more open, even more culturally accepted, in Japan compared to the West (the U.S. in particular).

Every society has both its qualms and acceptances of sexual material and how accessible it is to the public, but I think it's the magnitude of accessibility to such material that speaks for the nation's "social acceptance" of pornography. I'm speaking more specifically about what we like to call fanservice in the media... I mean, when it's perfectly OK to air something like THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpPusmEMvXA in a children's cartoon show for the sake of pure humor, I'd undoubtedly say that sexually explicit material--anime, video/computer games, any media for that matter--are far more common and accepted in Japan, and I'd go further to assume that this social tolerance leads to the production and licensing of games like RapeLay. When animated porn is a marketable source of income, people are bound to opportunistically sell these kinds of games.

This isn't to say that America isn't accountable for its share of openness to sexual material, however it most often appears in television shows like Family Guy, Robot Chicken, and broadcast on networks like Comedy Central--all of which are intended for the more mature, adult audience, not the demographic fo children targeted by anime and manga which may be popular for their massive amounts of sexual fanservice.

Well, I'd say it's less than Japan is less uptight than America so much as Japan is uptight in different ways. Here in America, you can purchase a magazine with genitalia completely uncensored. In Japan, they're supposed to fuzz it out - which is why most Hentai you'll find has distortion about the genitalia, something virtually unheard of in American pornography.

Furthermore, from my Japanese language studies (which always includes a bit of the culture) I picked up the impression that people in Japan are extremely polite, to the point where even saying "no" is a rudeness (to express hesitation is the polite means to do so). They're a very close-knit, socially close society that operates in such a way that the individuality we have here in America is relatively alien to them (though they're loosening up a bit in recent years).

So, all things considered, I believe a great deal of America's treatment of Hentai - looking at it and saying "wow, those guys are perverts" - is sorely mistaken. We don't understand their true cultural mindset - how Hentai exists within their culture as a very heavily socially controlled activity.

 

[Low Key]

And I'm not siding with the makers of these games in the least, but where is the difference between guys degrading women by making these sort of games and women bringing it on themselves when they dress up like sluts to go out for a night on the town?

One is consensual, the other is not.

But the consensual one provokes the non-consensual act.

...

Yes, but when one is brought on by the other, doesn't that make you think?

No, not for one second. If I wear expensive clothes does that mean I provoked the mugger into robbing me? If I drive a luxury car just for purposes of conspicuous consumption, does that mean when I get carjacked I was asking for it?

It sure helps someone who is out robbing people decide who to go for. That's why you don't flash the cash. If this were 10 years ago and I saw you walking down the street with an expensive chain, I'd rob your ass with the quickness.

So me sitting here having a cigarette is good for me because I made the decision myself, but god forbid if someone made me smoke a cigarette, that would be bad? Cmon people, use common sense.

Um, no--it's not about what's good or bad for someone. It's about freedom and your rights, specifically the difference your right of consent makes.

Um, yeah--because me having a cigarette and a women dressing like a slut can both be detrimental.

Um lolwut? Part of our freedom is the freedom to do detrimental things. Is eating a hamburger dressing like a slut? I could be eating healthier.

ESPECIALLY when the only thing 'detrimental' about it is that other people are assholes. That's way different than smoking giving you cancer: cancer is an amoral disease blindly following it's biology. Someone raping you is an immoral person committing evil.

If you do something you know could be detrimental to your health, you should be prepared to assume whatever risk might be attatched. Just because rape is an act committed by a twisted individual doesn't mean it wasn't provoked in any way. Sometimes it isn't, but sometimes people who don't smoke get lung cancer.

And who says someone who commits rape isn't just following their biology? A devious mind is one with a fucked up chemical balance, one that is created over time by reiterating to one's self that something bad is okay. Just because the results seem more severe doesn't mean one is worse than the other. Deaths can occur in both scenarios.

 

[McNinja]

Actually, death is subjective.

No, death is very *objective* at least the whole 'you are no longer alive' part.

Some believe nothing happens to you after death, while some believe that you will go to heaven or hell, and so on.

And everyone believes that when you are dead, you're actually dead. If we're going to introduce religious belief into this, then according to some there is no such thing as rape--all life is an illusion to some.

And I lump a drug empire with a (just) war (the hell you mean supposedly just?) because I can.

Sure, but *why* can you--and I--do that? That's what's interesting here.

And no there isn't something cool about being a drug lord, but then there's nothing cool about war, is there?

There's something different about a just, righteous war than there is about a drug lord war.

I don.t get how a mob hit is the equivalent of being terrorized by the legal system. Oh and no, it wouldn't be fun. At least not to me. But to each their own.

There's a mission in GTA Vice City where you have to terrorize a juror into voting 'not guilty'.

Yeah, that part isn't subjective, but the part about what happens afterwards is. You claimed that you feel nothing after you die, which means that you believe that nothing happens after you die. I don't believe that, hence making it *subjective*

You know what, I'm not going to respond to the next part. Good lord.

Why can we? Because it's not rape, and neither are particularily feasible(one already happened, one you wont live through).

the difference is one (WWII) prevented Hitler from taking over the world and the other happens all the time and promotes drug use and the notion that selling drugs and fighting your way to the top is somehow cool.

And I wouldn't know about GTA, I don't play it. And no it wouldn't be fun. I don't like terrorizing innocent people.

 

[geldonyetich]

This paypuh fellow has a patience I no longer do for explaining these things.

 

[ztakashi]

geldonyetich,

... Rape is bad, for it causes severe mental and sometimes physical damage to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through rape. Murder is bad, for it causes fatality to the victim. Some game companies make games that allow players to play through murder. As of now, people can play games featuring simulated murder with less social stigma than can people play games featuring simulated rape.

... As I mentioned before, rape causes severe emotional stress but is not in and of itself fatal. Murder is by definition fatal. I would then think that murder would be a far worse act to simulate in a game, and so would require stricter regulation if we require any regulation.

Strictly from the context of humanitarianism, and in my own personal opinion, I would consider rape a more heinous offense then murder, but hear me out first. Murder is without a doubt a terrible thing, as it disregards the value of a human life... not to mention it can be both physically and mentally unbearable on the victim's part. However, in most cases, murder is the instrument through which one attains their objective of ending another person's life, and the method they use can be either quick and painless or cruel and excruciatingly painful... much more comparable to torture.

The object of rape is to satisfy one's sexual desire, setting aside the consent and mental well-being of the victim. I'm not one to argue which of the two crimes is more painful, physically or mentally, but I would argue that forcing someone through that traumatic experience, and bearing those emotional scars for the rest of the life, is more cruel than murder in the conventional sense (i.e. in a way that involves minimal amount of intentional torture).

Now from the perspective of gameplay, I would apply these opinions to my own tolerance of games featuring murder as the core mechanic, like CoD:4 or Halo, and also to eroges like RapeLay. Note that I'm not a fan of survival/horror games, and I haven't played anything Manhunt or even Resident Evil, heheh.... so I speak solely from the context of FPS featured in games like CoD. Now, simply gunning down an enemy unit with a squeeze of the trigger is entirely casual in the gaming world. Click-Boom-Dead. You just owned some German insurgent, +40 points, brag about it to your friends, someone else on the server shouts into his mic "crap, that's the last time I'm picking Close-Qurters." This experience of entertainment, I would say, is much more mentally healthy (as crazy as that sounds), and culturally acceptable, than the gameplay which RapeLay has to offer, which involves forcing an innocent, possible underage girl into submission and forcibly having sex with her.

If common games like CoD allowed the player to kick down the door to some civilian's home and find an innocent mother cradling her baby, and allowed you to shoot them both in the head on a whim, then I'd definitely have a problem with that. I know that all the aforementioned acts of cruelty are morally wrong nonetheless, but they vary greatly in their context and the experience they bring to the player. I'm not saying we should ban such games for their content, but I would expect most people to have a problem with the scenarios they present.

 

[geldonyetich]

If common games like CoD allowed the player to kick down the door to some civilian's home and find an innocent mother cradling her baby, and allowed you to shoot them both in the head on a whim, then I'd definitely have a problem with that. I know that all the aforementioned acts of cruelty are morally wrong nonetheless, but they vary greatly in their context and the experience they bring to the player. I'm not saying we should ban such games for their content, but I would expect most people to have a problem with the scenarios they present.

Best argument I've heard so far as to why the question of existing violence in already released games has nothing to do with the question of rape in games. They're completely different activities with completely different contexts, and each individual example of a violent/sexual game will vary drastically in terms of severity.

RapeLay... in some ways is not so explicit. The scenarios are highly artificial and, in a completely infeasible move popular in Japanese rape media, the girls apparently come to enjoy their subjugation. However, the overall scenario of RapeLay - these three women deserve to be raped because one had you arrested for fondling them or even the idea that someone deserves to be raped at all - is incredibly over the barrier of social mores in the West. Never mind that we've a 10-year-old girl as one of the victims. This game is so very explicit as to be a very uncomfortable fit for the American mainstream.

That's not an argument, it's the reality of the thing. In many ways, an argument resolves itself if one but clears their head and opens their mind to the obvious reality of the situation. This is why I tend to prefer not to truly take a side in a debate: mere observation free of bias is a more effective framing of truth, while debating requires you take a bias of some sort or another.

 

[Pendragon9]

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?

Wow. You've got quite a point.

I guess rape is worse because, where killing ends someone's life, rape leaves them to live a life of misery and be forced to birth/abort/orphan a new life into the world.

In the end, I suppose both aren't a ways off from being evil in a sense. Though I guess people will support violent games because the point of the game isn't to be violent, but to survive. When you make a game where the only point is to rape, it really seems unrealistic. Why can't the raper simply go out and get a job, or go find some porn if he's such a sicko?

But I have a feeling someone will quote my post and insult me no matter what I say on this subject, since it's very touchy and people on both sides will be angry. So I'm going to raise my flame shield and hope for the best.

Besides, let's be honest. Murder and rape are both very wrong, and games should really be giving you an option to avoid both whenever possible.

 

[blank0000]

If common games like CoD allowed the player to kick down the door to some civilian's home and find an innocent mother cradling her baby, and allowed you to shoot them both in the head on a whim, then I'd definitely have a problem with that. I know that all the aforementioned acts of cruelty are morally wrong nonetheless, but they vary greatly in their context and the experience they bring to the player. I'm not saying we should ban such games for their content, but I would expect most people to have a problem with the scenarios they present.

This.

I wont pretend I've read 10 pages of text. However I totally agree here. The whole "well if murder is ok to show then ANYTHING is ok right?" Motive plays a huge role.

 

[versipellem]

That game looks fun- I'll look into where I can get it from.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

But NOBODY gets over death.

Spoiler: besides JESUS!

Actually, I agree with what you said.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.128903.2784201

I just...I had to.

And I agree with you!

Spoiler: This is a landmark moment.

But this whole debate about how there's "no more pain" after death, and apparently the psychological damage of rape is irreversible, and people can "never get over it," well.. It reminds me of this Chinese story we read recently in my class. It's very short.

http://www.renegadezen.com/zen-stories/knowing-fish

I think that about sums up my feelings on the debate over which crime is "worse." Murder is objectively bad. It causes damage which is not fixable by any earthly method. It is impossible to continue physical life after dying. The person who dies never has a CHANCE to try to get over the damage done to his life.

It is not so with rape. Rape is bad, yes, and I feel there's no justification for the actual act in real life, but the extent of the damage varies from person to person. At least they have a chance to continue living and try to move on.

I also agree with you about geldonyetich.

 

[Del-Toro]

You can all talk rape to your heart's content, the one thing I pull from this story is a large level of pity for Platinum, the element, not the form of video games, now throughout Asia whenever some scientist mentions platinum some Otaku or dumbass (not that people can't be both) will start cackling like a ninny for half an hour. Also, I feel it appropriate to add that if people say you are wierdo pervert for enjoying watching other's suffering and debasement for the sexual enjoyment of another, it's because they think you are, and they are right, something far worse than that for enjoying watching other's suffering and debasement for the sexual enjoyment of another. Do not label that viewpoint narrow minded or ignorant, because it's not, I bet hearing that girl beg for mercy as any innocence she had is being ripped away from her makes you horny doesn't it? I bet if you saw or hear it happening in real life you wouldn't stop it until you had gotten your fill. Calling me names won't make your arguement stronger, regular porn is one thing, but there has to be a line somewhere.

 

[geldonyetich]

I also agree with you about geldonyetich.

I don't think I really operate on the same level as him, really. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that the way he communicates is not the way I communicate. Consequently, I'm not even sure what you're agreeing with him about in the apparent evil badness of me.

I mean, come on, am I the only one that thinks being confronted with deliberately obscure side-comments [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.128903.2784985] is a really weird way of conducting any kind of reasoned debate? He was doing the same thing to me back here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.128903.2781487], and that's when I cut him off.

Maybe some people can operate that way, but I sure won't. You want to beat around the bush? Do it on your own time. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Asehujiko]

The Rape category will be renamed "Platinum" games, while the Sexual Slave Training category

?

I didn't even know such a cateogory existed.

It's the same genre Remember, we have shooter games, fps games, first person action games and half a million other names for the same kind of game too.