Japanese Eroge Company Renames Rape Games to "Platinum Games"

[geldonyetich]

That third tangent again: I'm neither for nor against censorship of video games, I'm just pointing out that we don't live in a world where possession of portrayals of acts of indecency such as rape or lolita porn is going to earn you anything but scorn and potential legal action.

The entire game plays out as a rape simulator with its difficulty level set to "unfeasibly easy," but it's a rape simulator nonetheless, with quite a remarkable amount of detail spared to ruining lives.

These are separate arguments. Agreeing with another poster that a game is a rape simulator and inherently wrong is not the same as playing a third party tangential role explaining that media involving things like rape and lolita porn are socially frowned upon.

Game over.

These are separate arguments, therefore, game over?

Okay...

Your feigned ignorance of the (extremely obvious) connection between the two statements leads me to believe that you are nothing but an elaborate troll.

Either that, or you're such a hypocrite that you can't even make 5% of the necessary reader effort in your supposed 50/50 reader/writer effort distribution to understand such a basic statement.

No, you're just reading as "remarkable amount of detail spared to ruining lives" as having something to do with calling the game wrong. I was actually referring to the technical aspects translated into the game in order to simulate ruining lives.

 

[Wayne Insane]

Aaaahhh yes.
Rape finally went Platinum.About damn Time, I mean Records turn Platinum with 200.000 units sold and I'm pretty sure there was more rape in the World than this.

Man, seriously?That's just dumb.I guess it would be heretic to blame Rape Games while screamin "Games's don't make you violent!".
You gotta respect that their cultural heritage is just completely different from ours.I mean they have Gameshows with people fucking in front of a Life audience there and theit Whores have rich traditions and rituals.Yes I know a Geisha isn't technically a whore but you catch my drift.This wouldn't happen here because our culture developed itself so differently than theirs, much of the differences coming from our dastardly different Religions, seeing how Christianity is a rather prude religion.Still, Rape Games are just dumb to me.But you never know, they might save more wimen from Rape than one might think.You know, cause they provide an outlet for people who are turned on by or feel a strong urge to Rape.

 

[BGH122]

You, yourself, are not the authority that determines whether this is an acceptable within your society. If you are, hey, it's really easy to get away with anything because you deemed it acceptable. No, it doesn't work that way, sorry.

Free Speech is often misconstrued as a belief you can undermine common decency.

This is quite amusing. Not only is your only argument against people who justify rape games is that they're an operative from the other side and can't possibly be right, you are also a blatant hypocrite and apparently have no idea on how to conduct an open debate. Please, for all our sakes, either stop being close minded and ignorant about a topic that only concerns you by proxy, or just stop.

What? Those two quotes agree.

The first says that a person does not determine social mores all by themselves. The second says that people sometimes take Free Speech as believing that they can determine social mores all by themselves but it doesn't work that way.

I'm sorry you're unable to grok that.

No, you've misunderstood his point.

You're making the claim that society at large decides morality, not the individual and then you're using the defence against this forum that you fall in line with "common decency", thus you've decided what decency is and thus you've violated rule number one:

What I've actually been arguing here is this: the Internet proclaims everything is about the free exchange of ideas, and that's just awesome. However, outside of the Internet, there is a definite prevalence of social mores and laws which the users of the Internet may not be aware of.

You might think that Lolicon is cool because nobody real is being harmed in it. However, the real issue is deeper than that: You, yourself, are not the authority that determines whether this is an acceptable within your society. If you are, hey, it's really easy to get away with anything because you deemed it acceptable. No, it doesn't work that way, sorry.

This entire forum could agree with you, but it's pointless, because the context in which I'm operating here is an Internet forum.

You may not be directly stating that you're in line with "common decency", but your main attack against the defenders of free publication is that they're part of this 'other' camp which doesn't understand "common decency" and therefore isn't correct. By exclusion, since you've prevented the free publication camp from being correct due to their affiliation with the 'internet' which doesn't understand "common decency" you can either be a free agent who too doesn't understand "common decency" or Joe Everyman and thus in tune with "common decency". However, if you're more free agent than Joe then your defence against the free publication camp that they can't comprehend "common decency" fails, because nor do you and if you don't comprehend common decency then how can you be sure that they don't? After all, you don't comprehend it!

 

[geldonyetich]

Ah, heck with you guys, I'm going to get something to eat. They've got some Jack in The Box Mini-Sirloin burgers down at the local one. If it makes you feel any better, you can pretend I'm raping the burgers with my tongue. NOMNOMNOM.

You may not be directly stating that you're in line with "common decency", but your main attack against the defenders of free publication is that they're part of this 'other' camp which doesn't understand "common decency" and therefore isn't correct. By exclusion, since you've prevented the free publication camp from being correct due to their affiliation with the 'internet' which doesn't understand "common decency" you can either be a free agent who too doesn't understand "common decency" or Joe Everyman and thus in tune with "common decency". However, if you're more free agent than Joe then your defence against the free publication camp that they can't comprehend "common decency" fails, because nor do you and if you don't comprehend common decency then how can you be sure that they don't? After all, you don't comprehend it!

I'm sorry, not to attack you personally, but that pedobear avatar of yours undermines anything you have to say about common decency so prolifically that I can't take a thing you're saying seriously. It's like you walked up to the podium to give us a lecture about "common decency," while wearing a "I am in favor of pedophilia" campaign button.

 

[antipunt]

wat
.......


>_>

 

[scotth266]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

I'm actually pretty sure that the Supreme Court ruled that drawn child porn is ok, probably as a result of an appeal from that case.

I forget, but I'm pretty sure there was a thread about it here too.

Spoiler: Once again, I say this:

Rape games are essentially interactive porn: that is their purpose, the intent behind their creation.

That having been said: porn is legal in the US, even the raping variety. So I fail to see us having any right to criticize the Japanese.

Also, one must wonder at the source of the uproar behind this: is it that the rapes are in the games, that they can be performed (as in, they are interactive), or that they are the goal?

In the case of the first option, I would like to remind everyone that rape has been a common factor used in both art, music, and movies for quite some time now (the latter especially so if you're a vivid watcher of Lifetime Movies like my mother is). So before you ban rape in games, you must ban it in all mediums.

With regards to the second option: I think that this isn't the real issue people draw with the game either. If rape were put into the game as a tool for pushing the storyline, or just as an extra option added to a sandbox game like GTA (as in, it would be a extra thing to do, and not the overall objective), people would get angry, but not as angry as they are now. That's just being realistic: we can't say NO USING RAPE to game developers, because that's discrimination against the medium. It's in the same school of thought as the Hide Your Children [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HideYourChildren] trope of game development, and I object to that. Why should we tell people that they can't use rape or child violence in games when they could be used to tell a story or make a point?

When venturing into the third option, I must say that my morals make me inclined to agree: rape as the goal of a game is disgusting. But should we generally ban rape in games just because of this? Or more importantly: why should we when rape is used in other forms of media?

I think that rape in games, for better or worse, is here to stay. All we can do is use our wallets to decide the context in which it is used.

 

[ryuutchi]

You know, the "Platinum" thing doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as "Thoroughbred" replacing "Sexual Slave Training". I mean, sexual slave training I GET-- D/s is hardly unpopular even in the US. But THOROUGHBRED? It makes the women sound like horses, for crying out loud. That's just creepy.

At least "Platinum" is just repackaging the rape games under an innocuous title that makes them sound more important than they are.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Define classic? Aside from normal packages, they have different packages with red banners on them saying "Greatest Hits." However, Microsoft labels such games with "Platinum Hits."

<spoiler=Playstation Platinum> 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.

 

[BGH122]

So, instead, I refuse to argue.

I'm sorry, but this might well be [an] argument

No, it isn't.

To clarify, I believe that any argument on any Internet forum is a complete waste of time. I know I've never convinced anyone on a debate in a forum, so I'm not bothering.

So, if anyone here is hoping to convince anyone of something of a forum, stop wasting your time. Internet forum debates are a farce.

That's a demonstrable attitude towards free discussion, I've learned a massive amount from debating with others on the internet. Even if I haven't fully agreed with their argument in the end, my objector has always, at lest, taught me more about my own argument.

Your problem is that you view an argument as having the final goal of 'winning'. I view an argument as a way to accrue truer knowledge, even if that means me 'losing'.

Oh and, FYI, in Philosophy, an argument is any proposition you claim to hold; so the second you posted your opinion you posited an argument.

 

[Jepix]

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.

It's entertainment. There is a lot more cruel "killing-simulators" out there, but I bet you never thought about banning Unreal Tournament, did you? You are simply programed to accept sonme sorts of cruelty, and do not accept others by society/your parents.

Entertainmet is entertainment.

 

[Shogoll]

No, you're just reading as "remarkable amount of detail spared to ruining lives" as having something to do with calling the game wrong. I was actually referring to the technical aspects translated into the game in order to simulate ruining lives.

Sounds to me that you perhaps need to make more effort when writing your posts.

Didn't it ever occur to you that such a statement is very easy to misunderstand?

 

[geldonyetich]

Your problem is that you view an argument as having the final goal of 'winning'. I view an argument as a way to accrue truer knowledge, even if that means me 'losing'.

That would be truly excellent... but I'm afraid that your approach to Internet forums is sadly in the minority. I can evidence this by just how often my messages are misconstrued. These people aren't here with the goal of accruing truer knowledge, they're here with the goal of being "right."

 

[Xan Krieger]

I have no problem with the game and am glad that its still on the market (though I won't buy it). Sure it offends people but if only you would've heard my mother get on my case about Conker Live and Reloaded for the vulgarity and the time the pitchfork tries to kill itself. She doesn't like jokes about suicide or "bad language" though I laugh at both. So because the game offended my mother it should be banned? Nah it was a fun game that kept me laughing the whole time. As for games about rape, I think that's the only way a guy like myself would ever be able to experience sex (talking about the games, we all agree rape is morally wrong in real life). That's not just speculation, that's cold hard fact.

 

[Kriptonite]

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

What if said rape simulators were keeping actual rapists off the streets?

It's a stretch I know, but I'm just trying to be awkward

Is your avatar Abe?

They're games people, come on. Manhunt had you murder people as violently and efficiently as possible. If that's allowed in a game, anything should be allowed in a game if the people want it. We, as the developed world, believe censorship is bad, remember? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it should be banned.

What if I was in charge and banned something like...bacon? Or Christianity? They're two things that majority of people in the U.S. want, but I can argue that both of them have a bad affect on people.

In summary: do to others as you would have done unto you. Don't censor lest ye be censored.

This guy has a point (as a matter of fact, in Manhunt you were also killing people for the purposes of filming snuff and violence fetish films).

I find it strange that we seem to have this belief that banning something from the media will purge it from our society (like how we can't have people smoking in films without an 18 rating, imagine a child going to see a movie where no-one smokes and then steps outside the cinema and sees mummy light up a cigarette).

Wow, this is true. I personally don't think there should be games that revolve around raping people...But I don't make or buy the games and I have no say who does soooo, I should just shut up. It is weird how violence is okay but raping isn't. Like, they are both bad but one is generally more accepted by society. But Japan is also just weird, only they would have whole categories devoted to rape games and rape games alone, let alone whole theme parks. Theme? SEX!

 

[geldonyetich]

No, you're just reading as "remarkable amount of detail spared to ruining lives" as having something to do with calling the game wrong. I was actually referring to the technical aspects translated into the game in order to simulate ruining lives.

Sounds to me that you perhaps need to make more effort when writing your posts.

Didn't it ever occur to you that such a statement is very easy to misunderstand?

When you consider everyone's unique opinions and backdrop in life, how everyone might be thinking of something else when they're thinking of the word "tree,' and how the only difference between a polish sausage and a sausage covered in polish is a matter of context, then it occurs to me that every single statement ever written is very easy to misunderstand.

Consequently, it seems more likely to me that the real burden of understanding a writer is mostly shouldered by the reader. It's not enough to read the word and assemble them in your head, you need to think about them and understand that there may be more than one meaning involved.

 

[BGH122]

Ah, heck with you guys, I'm going to get something to eat. They've got some Jack in The Box Mini-Sirloin burgers down at the local one. If it makes you feel any better, you and pretend I'm raping the burgers with my tongue. NOMNOMNOM.

You may not be directly stating that you're in line with "common decency", but your main attack against the defenders of free publication is that they're part of this 'other' camp which doesn't understand "common decency" and therefore isn't correct. By exclusion, since you've prevented the free publication camp from being correct due to their affiliation with the 'internet' which doesn't understand "common decency" you can either be a free agent who too doesn't understand "common decency" or Joe Everyman and thus in tune with "common decency". However, if you're more free agent than Joe then your defence against the free publication camp that they can't comprehend "common decency" fails, because nor do you and if you don't comprehend common decency then how can you be sure that they don't? After all, you don't comprehend it!

I'm sorry, not to attack you personally, but that pedobear avatar of yours undermines anything you have to say about common decency so prolifically that I can't take a thing you're saying seriously. It's like you walked up to the podium to give us a lecture about "common decency," while wearing a "I am in favor of pedophilia" campaign button.

Oh! What a surprise! You can't possibly respond to my criticism with logic, instead you have to use a common fallacy.

The truth of a proposition is totally unlinked to the state of the proposer. Try and actually argue with the aid of functioning logic.

Furthermore, I'm actually not in favour of paedophilia and I've had a number of positive remarks about my snazzy avatar because, despite the connotations, pedobear is adorable.

 

[geldonyetich]

Ah, heck with you guys, I'm going to get something to eat. They've got some Jack in The Box Mini-Sirloin burgers down at the local one. If it makes you feel any better, you and pretend I'm raping the burgers with my tongue. NOMNOMNOM.

You may not be directly stating that you're in line with "common decency", but your main attack against the defenders of free publication is that they're part of this 'other' camp which doesn't understand "common decency" and therefore isn't correct. By exclusion, since you've prevented the free publication camp from being correct due to their affiliation with the 'internet' which doesn't understand "common decency" you can either be a free agent who too doesn't understand "common decency" or Joe Everyman and thus in tune with "common decency". However, if you're more free agent than Joe then your defence against the free publication camp that they can't comprehend "common decency" fails, because nor do you and if you don't comprehend common decency then how can you be sure that they don't? After all, you don't comprehend it!

I'm sorry, not to attack you personally, but that pedobear avatar of yours undermines anything you have to say about common decency so prolifically that I can't take a thing you're saying seriously. It's like you walked up to the podium to give us a lecture about "common decency," while wearing a "I am in favor of pedophilia" campaign button.

Oh! What a surprise! You can't possibly respond to my criticism with logic, instead you have to use a common fallacy.

The truth of a proposition is totally unlinked to the state of the proposer. Try and actually argue with the aid of functioning logic.

Furthermore, I'm actually not in favour of paedophilia and I've had a number of positive remarks about my snazzy avatar because, despite the connotations, pedobear is adorable.

It wasn't Ad Hominem. I'm just expressing that I'm too busy laughing my arse off over the irony of the situation to care about anything you had to say there. In a way, it's my admission of a failure to read.

But, any any case, that you dragged "Ad Hominem" out of your bag of tricks indicates to me truly definitively that you are no truth seeker despite your earlier message to that effect. You want to prove me wrong. So... sorry, not interested.

 

[geldonyetich]

The worse part about this discussion is I can't blame my usual scapegoat, caffeine, for it. All I had today was a caffeine-free Diet Dr. Pepper. Perhaps the real cause is a lack of breakfast.

In any case, if it's not abundantly clear you're completely wasting your time trying to argue anything with me, then perhaps this sentence will clarify. Have a good life.