Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[Doug]

However, simply calling this censorship is slightly off, it's merely addressing the knee-jerk issue. The real problem at the bottom of this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech.

Instead, it has to do with if one's open-mindedness is so very open-minded as to induce genuine harm. In a scenario out of the game, we don't walk through a park and see a man raping a screaming 10-year-old girl, shrug, and keep walking, thinking to ourselves, "well, who am I to judge?" So there's a definite limit to how open-minded you can be before you're condoning harm. In other words, there's a point where being open-minded is no longer a function of intelligence, but rather an irresponsible lack thereof.

Creating games about raping people is pretty close to that line. It's a bit of a stretch to say that a game like RapeLay will definitely get a person to start raping people, even psychological experiments finding varying results. However, it's not a stretch at all to say that the open sale of such a product is condoning rape on the level of being content in a game you can buy. At the point where we're a society that chooses to condone rape on an additional level, we're that much closer to the "well, who am I to judge" scenario above.

So, when you break it all down to the fundamentals, the reason why a restriction of a game like RapeLay applies is because the harm condoning it may bring to a society is greater than the harm not condoning it may bring to the benefit free speech brings to society.

this same argument applies equally well to murder or any other crime portrayed in video games.

Yes, but as this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.128903.2785009] clearly outlines, you can't just say, "well, we allow violent games, so lets allow a game about tracking down and raping a 10-year-old." The reason being that the context is totally different, and the severity is a major factor.

i didn't say that. what i said was the argument that selling RapeLay condones rape can be applied equally well to GTA condoning murder. both encourage the player to commit violent crimes and reward them for doing so. if GTA isn't "severe" enough for you, i can point you to games about killing jews in concentration camps, or a suicide bomber trying to kill george w. bush.

And I just showed how it's not quite that simple. However, lets say I just accept your point at face value. What difference does this observation make?

Basically, you're trying to argue that one wrong makes two wrongs right. Does it really work that way?

I can find super violent games so we should have super sexual games! I can find examples of murder in real life, so there should be rape in real life too! Timmy hit me, so I raped Suzy!

No, it doesn't work that way. You might see this logic on a forum (e.g. alcohol's okay so MJ should be ok) and you'll even find supporters of that logic, but there is the only place the logic works: in uninformed mob rule.

This is because it's completely fallacious if you dig but an inch or two deeper: one wrong never makes two wrongs right, especially when you realize that these two wrongs are quite unlike eachother.

Erm his point is double standards on issues that are equally severe. For instance, murder is wrong, rape is wrong, I would say they are on par(give or take one to the other). Ergo, why is it okay for e.g. manhunt (lets go murder everyone) to be released, yet these rape games dont.
Just for the record, I didn't buy Manhunt and I don't buy eroge games. It's your choice what you buy, its not your choice to dictate that to other people.

Edit: Cleaned this post up a bit.

I don't think Manhunt should have been released, frankly - to me, its little more than a torture simulator - and Manhunt 2 was 'uncertified' by the BBFC, so effectivity banned from sale.

Sex games, in principle, are workable, but I don't think that excuses rape games. As has been mentioned before on here, rape is different to voilence/murder:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/the-needles/6127-You-Cant-Be-the-Hero-If-Youre-the-Rapist

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

Basically, Self-rightous Americans hate Rape games, so companies change names while keeping all the content, and these Self-rightous Americans get to feel like they did a good thing, when in reality, they had a chance to do what they claim they believe is right, and didn't do anything about it other than piss and moan. I'm actually siding with the game creators on this one. Self-rightous Americans make me feel ashamed I'm American.

Now, I must figure out how to use the word "Platinum" in the name of some kind of sexual wrestling move...

I think it is more than just Americans doing this, after all I am an American and don't really care what they consider entertainment.

 

[dochmbi]

This is just...really pathetic, disgusting, and sad. Call me a weak-stomached fool who wants to shut down games because I don't personally like them, but if I were in charge, those 'rape games' would be banned, all of them, and I'd put out a notice saying, 'If you attempt to replicate said rape simulators, there will be severe consequences and/or lawsuits against your companies.'

Creating a rape simulator is never justified no matter what you try and call it.

You f*king fascist! There's no reason for any fiction to ever be illegal. Child porn, mass murder, torture, rape, anything goes as long as no real people are harmed.
Only the worst scumbags would deny people liberties that cause no harm to other people.

 

[Doug]

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?

Your post is unclear, are you saying you 'oppose'? And was that 'and' meant to be 'an'?

For those who oppose a rape simulator,
1. Would you oppose 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?

1. Oppose? No, not really, I oppose - I would think the woman involved had either had a bad experience whilst younger, or simply didn't think much of herself - further, I'd be certained that the situation could leave her exposed to emotional damage, but ultimately it'd have to be her right to get involved or not - the same way a beaten wife/husband can ultimately return to their abuser if they choose, but it would not be advicable. Obviously, their are going to be plenty of couples who want that role play, but its still odd to me. That said, they'd probably find some of my kinks wierd.

2. Not if one of them was under 18 - or rather, was under 18 or looked under 18. Given the Japanese obession with underage porn and sex, I don't see that happening. And if that condition was meant, not if it seemed too real.

 

[geldonyetich]

Only the worst scumbags would deny people liberties that cause no harm to other people.

Ah, but you can prove that rape games irrefutably do not cause harm, not even on a subtle level, to other people?

As I was just writing about, allowing the purchase of Rape games does condone the behavior insofar as being content in a game you can purchase. It does cause some harm on the subtle level of condoning a very negative behavior in a specific medium in the society.

I would argue that condoning rape on even this level is going too far. Japan agrees [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92126-Rape-Games-Banned-in-Japan-For-Real].

Violence in video games is another issue entirely, but it is interesting to note that there's a big difference between shooting an aggressor in a game versus staging a home invasion where you murder an innocent family. Grand Theft Auto is edgy enough - how would you feel about seeing "Columbine Highschool Massacre, The Game" for sale at the school bookstore? There's the trouble with a Rape game - it's not merely sexual, it conveys something highly invasive and wrong.

 

[dochmbi]

Of course I'm against rape and child molestation and murder and whatnot just like every person is and I would hate to see them increased because of propaganda, but at the same time I'm a hardcore libertarian and would love to get every person as much liberty as they possibly can get without causing harm to each other. It's a tough problem anyway. If you could just distribute this kind of material in a low-profile way without advertising, that would be good I think.

 

[geldonyetich]

If you could just distribute this kind of material in a low-profile way without advertising, that would be good I think.

I'm not sure if "good" is the word for, "well, it's okay for people to rape as long as it's done low-profile, in a completely simulated environment, without being advertised."

But, to be fair, I'm not sure "bad" is the word for it either. It's certainly better than an actual rape, and there's a certain sketchiness about whether it's harmful by extension of condoning the behavior on any level or not.

I'd probably use the term, "hypothetically dysfunctionally functional."

 

[fix-the-spade]

Aren't Sony's classic games already sold under the Platinum name?

I can't wait to hear what they make of this...

No that's Sony Greatest Hits. However the XBox ones are under the label of Platinum games.

http://www.beefjack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mgs4platinum.jpg
You don't get it in the US which is why Xbox can call itself Platinum (over here it's Xbox classics). If a game sells 400'000 units within a year of release in the PAL region it gets put on the Platinum range which go for half price. As far as I know only the PAL regions get Platinum.

PS1 and 2 cases are silver not yellow, it's been around since the PS1's early days.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

Aren't Sony's classic games already sold under the Platinum name?

I can't wait to hear what they make of this...

No that's Sony Greatest Hits. However the XBox ones are under the label of Platinum games.

http://www.beefjack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/mgs4platinum.jpg
You don't get it in the US which is why Xbox can call itself Platinum (over here it's Xbox classics). If a game sells 400'000 units within a year of release in the PAL region it gets put on the Platinum range which go for half price. As far as I know only the PAL regions get Platinum.

PS1 and 2 cases are silver not yellow, it's been around since the PS1's early days.

Blaaagh, stupid game companies doing things to confuse me.

 

[theultimateend]

Of course I'm against rape and child molestation and murder and whatnot just like every person is and I would hate to see them increased because of propaganda, but at the same time I'm a hardcore libertarian and would love to get every person as much liberty as they possibly can get without causing harm to each other. It's a tough problem anyway. If you could just distribute this kind of material in a low-profile way without advertising, that would be good I think.

If we allow folks to go around blowing the heads off of people I don't see how we can justify being against this particular game either.

But then again the US is about glorifying murder. Ever seen those Army commercials? "We can make you a better person." By what? Teaching them that killing another person isn't something to get all uppity about? I mean I agree that the actual bootcamp stuff is pretty fruitful but beyond the bootcamp its not something that should be glorified.

That said, I find it odd that people can say "RAPE GAME IS BAD K!" then run off to play Company of Heroes or Grand Theft Auto. How can murdering someone rather violently be uber kewl but this sort of crime be terrible.

The only reason I have a hard time scolding the company is I realize that games are games and have no direct correlation with how I'll act in the real world. Basically every study I've ever read or been a part of has shown there is no direct correlation. As I said before, violent games are at an all time high, and violent crimes are at an all time low. So if we want to make correlations it'll be a negative one. Start pumping out rape games and rape should go down (if you want to believe they are related). I doubt it'll happen but the studies seem to show an inverse relationship.

 

[dochmbi]

If you could just distribute this kind of material in a low-profile way without advertising, that would be good I think.

I'm not sure if "good" is the word for, "well, it's okay for people to rape as long as it's done low-profile, in a completely simulated environment, without being advertised."

But, to be fair, I'm not sure "bad" is the word for it either. It's certainly better than an actual rape, and there's a certain sketchiness about whether it's harmful by extension of condoning the behavior on any level or not.

I'd probably use the term, "hypothetically dysfunctionally functional."

Would you consider it morally wrong or a crime on some level for people to do very evil things in virtual environments without any actual person (or conscious being for that matter) being involved? I sure as hell wouldn't. Of course not.

 

[geldonyetich]

Would you consider it morally wrong or a crime on some level for people to do very evil things in virtual environments without any actual person (or conscious being for that matter) being involved? I sure as hell wouldn't. Of course not.

I would not be so foolish as to demand your morals need to conform to mine. Such convictions, while not universal between are people, are so deeply seated that men of conflicting mind have fought and died in the thousands over them to preserve the sanctity of eachothers' collective ignorance. At best, I could entreat you to always test the solidity of your foundations on your own, as this is common sense to prevent collapse.

My morals believe this: wrongdoing exists in its greatest form only because it also exists in innumerable smaller wrongs. As everything is interconnected, whether or not we can see those connections, for me to condone an evil on a small scale would require that I be ignorant that even small evils radiate throughout everything surrounding them. No action is without reaction, this is the way of the universe.

However, if you believe your morals to be universal truths, then you should be certain that testing your foundations is a waste of time. So I'm sure my idea of morality seems like insanity to you, and you will continue to believe only in the wrongs that occur immediately before you without considering what may have lead up them. That is the way of small-mindedness.

I was called an arrogant prick more than once in this thread. Part of that is because I lost my temper and became one for awhile. Part of that is because I endeavor to speak the truth, to the best of my ability to discern it, regardless of how popular it makes me. This rejection actually emerges as a confirmation of sorts, as the truth will always seem a rather arrogant, uncompromising prick whenever it impacts our irrational desires.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

This is just...really pathetic, disgusting, and sad. Call me a weak-stomached fool who wants to shut down games because I don't personally like them, but if I were in charge, those 'rape games' would be banned, all of them, and I'd put out a notice saying, 'If you attempt to replicate said rape simulators, there will be severe consequences and/or lawsuits against your companies.'

Creating a rape simulator is never justified no matter what you try and call it.

You f*king fascist! There's no reason for any fiction to ever be illegal. Child porn, mass murder, torture, rape, anything goes as long as no real people are harmed.
Only the worst scumbags would deny people liberties that cause no harm to other people.

Oh, FFS...

Second page, post 39.

That's where I apologized for wording my initial post too strongly, as it was more of a knee-jerk reaction to it than anything else.

Read the thread before you post, please.

 

[esperandote]

Your post is unclear, are you saying you 'oppose'? And was that 'and' meant to be 'an'?

yikes. Yes and yes. Thanks for pointing that out, i must re-read my posts after before (it wasnt on pourpose lol) sending them.

1. Oppose? No, not really, I oppose - I would think the woman involved had either had a bad experience whilst younger, or simply didn't think much of herself - further, I'd be certained that the situation could leave her exposed to emotional damage, but ultimately it'd have to be her right to get involved or not - the same way a beaten wife/husband can ultimately return to their abuser if they choose, but it would not be advicable. Obviously, their are going to be plenty of couples who want that role play, but its still odd to me. That said, they'd probably find some of my kinks wierd.

2. Not if one of them was under 18 - or rather, was under 18 or looked under 18. Given the Japanese obession with underage porn and sex, I don't see that happening. And if that condition was meant, not if it seemed too real.

1. I wouldnt risk saying someone was involved in a bad experiece whilst younger because of their sexual practices. Theres a big branch on sexuality that is BDSM that doesnt differ much from a rape and not because of that some one can asume that people that practice it went through a bad experience whilst younger. Not to mention other sexual deviations.

2. You have a point there. Child porn is not excusable on any situation and yeah this games beign japanese will probably feature underage looking girls. On the other hand it was rape simulations that i was refering to not virtual child porn wich is another subject.

 

[Doug]

Your post is unclear, are you saying you 'oppose'? And was that 'and' meant to be 'an'?

yikes. Yes and yes. Thanks for pointing that out, i must re-read my posts after before (it wasnt on pourpose lol) sending them.

1. Oppose? No, not really, I oppose - I would think the woman involved had either had a bad experience whilst younger, or simply didn't think much of herself - further, I'd be certained that the situation could leave her exposed to emotional damage, but ultimately it'd have to be her right to get involved or not - the same way a beaten wife/husband can ultimately return to their abuser if they choose, but it would not be advicable. Obviously, their are going to be plenty of couples who want that role play, but its still odd to me. That said, they'd probably find some of my kinks wierd.

2. Not if one of them was under 18 - or rather, was under 18 or looked under 18. Given the Japanese obession with underage porn and sex, I don't see that happening. And if that condition was meant, not if it seemed too real.

1. I wouldnt risk saying someone was involved in a bad experiece whilst younger because of their sexual practices. Theres a big branch on sexuality that is BDSM that doesnt differ much from a rape and not because of that some one can asume that people that practice it went through a bad experience whilst younger. Not to mention other sexual deviations.

2. You have a point there. Child porn is not excusable on any situation and yeah this games beign japanese will probably feature underage looking girls. On the other hand it was rape simulations that i was refering to not virtual child porn wich is another subject.

On 1, I know about BDSM, and am a fan of at least the B - the other stuff - well, depends on how seriously they take it, but whatever works for them.

As for 2, well, I was specifically refering that evil blight "RapeLay", where the mother and her 2 under age daughters are enslaved and raped by the player.

I'll be honest here, for me, its not a valid, or rather safe, form of escapistism. When guys and gals, for example, play a war game, they are living out the vague fantasty that most of us have of being a "hero" - the idealised sort of course, who smites down death camp running Nazi's, or evaluatant in terms of evil, without much of the mess details of war, like the pain, suffering, agnony, Post Trauma Stress, etc. The way I see it, we want the idea of being a war hero without the horrifying mess and danger that goes with actually being one.

But the other sort of game, where we, for example, play Nikko Belkic in GTA 4, or any of the GTA characters, its more a matter of 'what if I where gangster', etc, etc. Without the questionable at best activities, prision time, etc.

Now, games like Manhunt...yeah, I don't really want to defend these as to me, from what I know it seems more like torture and the detailed mess of murder is the main focus of the game, and to me, thats not something the average health mind focuses on.

With these Rape simulators (and lets be honest, I doubt there are any other gameplay elements 'games' like RapeLay), again, its not something a health mind would focus on, in my own opinion.

 

[UnravThreads]

Meh, fair play I guess. I wouldn't, personally, play any of these games, but if there's a market then someone's gonna fill it.

But I do think some of the Japanese market goes "too far", especially with how childlike some of the characters within Hentai and other "Japanese cartoon porn" images/mangas/games seem, but hey, who am I to judge?

 

[Doug]

... but hey, who am I to judge?

A human being?

 

[geldonyetich]

I do have the evidence to support this, because it's self-evident. In saying that the open sale of a content in a product is condoning that content in so far that of being something you can buy in a product, I'm merely pointing out the obvious.

Not really, we use sin taxes to discourage people from buying things that are still legal, there are things that are legal that we as a society allow to exist that we don't condone, like Nazi rallys or the WBC both are protected by free speech. Hell Mein Kempf is protected free speech and we tried to kill it's author.

I'm saying a duck is a duck because it is a duck. If you read something else, it is an incorrect interpretation.

It is, like I said, "that much closer" to the precedent of ignoring rape entirely. It is, indeed, going exactly that far, irrefutably - and therefore it is not slippery slope.

Oh ok then what effect does going that much further have on society, demonstrate harm that comes from going that much further and nowhere else. We've done so with murder a LONG time ago and dear Lord we still think it's a horrible crime deserving of death penalty and we don't even put rape on that list. If you can't demonstrate much than it seems the concerns are trivial.

As you did not understand that I was saying a duck was a duck because it's a duck, it follows you wrote this with the wrong understanding.

Even Japan felt that was going too far [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/92126-Rape-Games-Banned-in-Japan-For-Real].

Irrelevant

It is an unfortunate habit to want to ignore something so basic as establishing there truly exists no precedent in which even the country of origin of the rape game condones it openly.

I agree. I'm not in favor of condoning open sale of games about raping people.

Then don't. There's an old saying that goes 'I disagree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it'. You are still free to criticize the makers and buyers of said games even if they are legal and you're also free to not buy the game.

Once again, your context over what was being discussed is so disjointed as to render your reply completely nonsensical.

Whether or not it actually drives someone to rape is irrelevant, I just don't like the idea of living in a society where games about raping people are openly condoned.

Oh so it's more of societal attitudes then, ok so what you're basically saying is 'this speech may spread ideas I strongly disagree with, it should be censored'. Jack Thompson would be proud.

If you believe this has anything to do with censorship, you've no idea that I'm talking about. Jack Thompson has nothing on me, and you're deluding yourself to so easily categorize me.

It's not a free speech issue, it's a question of where the line of common decency is drawn.

The official bullshit line of anyone who wishes to censor things they don't like. "What about common decency", this assumes that your definition is indeed what everyone else considers common decency. These are not public events they are games played mostly in private and to say that we shouldn't let people partake in private activities that violates common decency then say you're all for free speech is the biggest joke ever made. Congratulations you've shown your true colors as nothing more than 'it offends me please get rid of it'.

If you believe this is a bullshit line for anyone who wishes to censor things, again, you've no idea what I'm talking about. Once again, I see you're in a rush to categorize me - you certainly enjoy stereotyping.

Despite what select corners of the Internet would seem to indicate, free speech is not a license to push those boundaries.

If you do not have a right to offend people you do not have free speech, period. There is no middle ground.

Impressively hypocritical of you to first say I'm being an absolutist, and then yourself demand that there is only such thing as an absolute answer.

On the contrary, having free speech is as much about the freedom to express what you don't want to express as it is what you do. Don't quash my freedom by saying I have no right to say I don't want America to be known as the Rape Sim nation.

You honestly think making it legal will turn it so mainstream that we'll become rape sim nation? Well if that's the case than that means a lot of people wanted to play that but apparently letting the public decide to tolerate something you don't like violates common decency.

You honestly think that's what I said? There's a subtle difference between what I said and what you read, but it's wide enough to contain galaxies.

Incidentally, I'm quite liberal. I just put more thought into how I go about it. I hope this little demonstration establishes that not paying attention and diving onto a scene like a jackal, laughing hysterically, produces more harm than good.

You put thought into it?

"I don't want this game spreading ideas I disagree with, and yet this somehow isn't a free speech issue."

Seems openly contradicting.

If something someone has said seems openly contradictory to you, then don't be surprised if you simply misunderstood what was being said.

I can think of no greater waste of my time than writing while in full belief that whatever I write would only be misunderstood, and you've just provided about 6-9 good block quotes that have greatly instilled this belief in me. Consequently, you're out of luck if you were expecting a debate. Perhaps next time you should read the entirety of what was written, consider how it works instead of how it doesn't work, and then reply with a reasoned point instead of this mere collection of easy-but-wrong nitpicks.