Sony implements new policy censoring Japanese games for possible fanservice content
- Thread starter gyrobot_v1legacy
- Start date
^ That beautifully sums it up.CaitSeith said:
It's important to take a critical look at exactly what you find attractive.
If I always choose smart blonde women, then I have to approach both aspects. Which one is the primary draw? I have yet to encounter people who say they are attracted to loli's because they are 10,000 years old. Do you find grandmothers attractive?
It's cause it's part of the character. If someone has blue eyes, they have blue eyes. When you turn them into someone with brown eyes, that's not the same person any more, and you don't have to be someone who has a thing for blue eyes to feel this way. Unless you have a canon explanation for the change it will always be a corruption of the original that reduces the believability of the world.CaitSeith said:
It's like with the age thing. Nobody needs to be infantalized nor do I see any value in that trait, but if someone who I happen to like for whatever reason is infantalized, then that is who they are, so at that point when you take that out it's not the same character any more. In a sense it's purism and wanting to experience the original vision of a work. It's one of those neutral things that you don't really care about being there or not as long as the char's other traits are interesting. I think people are a little hysterical about people actually being into the infantalization when that's probably an infinitesimal amount of the fans.
Fiction is there to make you experience things you can't experience in reality. The value is to be found in its fictional nature, proportional to how removed it is from reality. The less it has to do with reality, the more removed it is, the less it can affect reality, the more value it has, because you're experiencing something that's that much harder to ever be experienced in real life. It may sound paradoxical but it is a sort of novelty that fiction has, one that shines brighter the more it fades away.Bombiz said:
You just have to know the rules and not get lost in it, you have to keep in mind just how not real fiction is. When you derive satisfaction out of acknowledging how not real fiction is, that is a sure-fire way of being grounded in the real world, and that helps you keep a balanced view and not be adversely affected by any fear-mongered ail that supposedly befalls those who partake in X type of medium (it used to be DnD and rock music and now it's games and it'll be something else in the future...maybe dubstep!)
Ideally, the best way to experience fiction is as though it has all the implications in the world within the confines of the fictional world and no implications at all in real life. Games that achieve a high level of immersion are good at providing you with that feeling for example.
Thing is, they are gonna still host that content, this is only affecting new games. Sony isn't going around and pulling down their dozens of games with similar content that's already out on sale, so it's not as though they have any firmly held beliefs on the matter. And I think a reasonable approach would have been to let those approved games get made and just not approve new games unless it was understood that they would have to follow the new policies to begin with.
none of this suggests "strangling artistic freedom" though. just that they practice bad business or are incompetent or hypocrisy.Dreiko said:
I just disagree with this take on fiction then. it seems to assume that you can't learn anything from fiction since it's all made up. and the more made up it is the more "value" it has. Anda again by this system games like undertale and Spec Ops the line or movies like Funny Games would be almost valueless. Or even military sims like Arma or movies like master and commander.Dreiko said:
Actually now I'm starting to wonder if Lord of the Rings would also be considered less valuable since a lot of it was based on real world myths and cultures and Tolkins experiences in WW1. Though I guess it's fantastical enough to get a pass.
the other thing I see is that it seems like you think people can't take messages away from fiction that can affect their real life or that if a piece of fictional work would give a message that could affect someone IRL that the work is inherently valueless. like Lord of the Rings would be valueless since his message with the hobbits was to show that even ordinary people living boring lives can do incredible things. Cause after all the best way to experience fiction is to act like the implication only exist with in that world and has "no implications at all in real life".
As much of a validity that argument has, in reality the original vision frequently isn't the best vision. Economic, legal, technological, business and time limitations aside; the authors have to consider if their original vision actually convey their original intent. If the original vision ends up looking like a child-molester simulator with a token story (because, like porn, everyone expects it to be there) and the rest of the game being a skinner-box with the teen-tits fondling being the unlockable reward; it won't be the audience fault if the original intent is missed.Dreiko said:
The point is: original visions usually suck.
I will keep this short cause that's super off topic but it's not as much that you can't learn from fiction as it is that fiction isn't there to teach you things as much as just to show you them. You can definitely glean wisdom from it as well as learn various things but those are all tangential things you pick up and not the actual purpose of fiction. There's literally nothing that you can't use to learn some type of lesson in life. Thing is, all these things are entirely based on the eyes of the beholder and whatever they come into the work with so you can't really make a broad judgement about it in a strict manner like "Harry Potter teaches you about courage!". Well, I'm sure it does to some people, but it probably also teaches a million other things to a million other people too. At this point we're kinda broaching the metaphysics of fiction and it's gonna go super off topic though lol.
But yeah, the moment fiction is trying to actively push a message in an intentional way, it ceases to be fiction and becomes at best an educational work and at worst propaganda. Few things turn me off more than to notice art trying to push some type of lesson or ideology that conflicts with its story and makes no sense being there. For example there's this fun adventure book series for kids/teens called Ranger and in one of the books the hero is trapped in a slaver compound forced to do work and he has to take this drug to survive the work which is a very clear reference to weed and it's just so very over the top in your face fearmongering about weed that it just cheapened every aspect that it touched into a "just say no" infomercial in an otherwise very fun series that I love.
But yeah, the moment fiction is trying to actively push a message in an intentional way, it ceases to be fiction and becomes at best an educational work and at worst propaganda. Few things turn me off more than to notice art trying to push some type of lesson or ideology that conflicts with its story and makes no sense being there. For example there's this fun adventure book series for kids/teens called Ranger and in one of the books the hero is trapped in a slaver compound forced to do work and he has to take this drug to survive the work which is a very clear reference to weed and it's just so very over the top in your face fearmongering about weed that it just cheapened every aspect that it touched into a "just say no" infomercial in an otherwise very fun series that I love.
Art is a product of it's time in the end. Whether people miss it's meaning due to the passage of time or not isn't really it's fault. In a sense it's kind of the natural way art evolves as it ages. You will always have purists and people seeking to modernize things for a fresh audience. I think both serve a useful function but I myself feel strongly attached to the worlds and stories I like so I can't help but land strictly within the purist side is all. It's not about whether the work is the "best" or not, I really don't think in those terms. It's about whether it still is itself or not.CaitSeith said:
okay so first of all this isn't that off topic. it relates directly to what we're talking about. if you think fiction can't teach you things or that it's only their to show stuff then we're obviously gonna disagree about the loli thing.Dreiko said:
I just disagree. hell by showing you it is teaching.Dreiko said:
wtf. how can you even say this? there is no purpose to fiction just as there isn't any purpose to reality. the only purpose is the one given by the reader and the one given by the author. so to say that gaining wisdom from fiction is tangential is beyond missing the point. this is like saying gaining wisdom from myth is tangential its purpose. it's just wrong. (myth is fiction)Dreiko said:
so? I don't see how this is/. relevant. humans learn best from being told stories.Dreiko said:
okay. but you can make arguments for it with examples from the work to back up what you're saying. everything is subjective true but you need evidence to backup your claims. so in a sense we can make a broad judgement about harry potter in a strict manner like saying it teaches you about courage.Dreiko said:
then lord of the rings is either educational or propaganda. cause I'm 99% sure it was trying to push a message.Dreiko said:
okay so already you disagree with you own point. you don't mind a piece of fiction pushing a some type of lesson or ideology, just as long as it doesn't conflict with the story or doesn't make sense being their.Dreiko said:
so I'm just gonna trust what you're saying about Ranger is true. did that message conflict with the story or not make sense being there?Dreiko said:
Bombiz said:
Well...would you want other countries? value systems pushed onto yours? Do onto others and all that. Disimissing such a notion is actually a pretty big factor in how enemies are created in the world.
hanselthecaretaker said:
depends on the values. which I think is the point. Certain values can be good like the rights of the worker or the rights of women or the right to practice whatever religion you want.
Though I'd argue the way in which that happens is the bad part.
Are you saying that lessons cannot be learned from fiction? People can't gain wisdom from learning from the mistakes of fictional characters? The endless fables, legends, and religious books would like a word with you.Bombiz said:
Art and fiction are all forms of expression. Sometimes there are parallels to real world people, events, locations. But that doesn't mean that they are directly connected. Fiction exsists in it's own world, it has too, otherwise you should arrest the countless authors of murder mysteries for somehow directing and desiring to kill people.
There are also merits to fiction beyond the negative themes it might contain within. Look at H.P Lovecraft and all his racist biggotry and how it doesn't take away from the influence he has made on the world of horror in all aspects of future books, movies, paintings, video games, etc. Would you condemn Bloodborne and the developers who created it because it was influenced by a Racist?
I doubt it, because I am assuming you have the ability to separate the work from the creator. You have the ability to take the fiction out of the reality and still allow yourself (or if you don't like Lovecraft this applies to many other artists that you've enjoyed) to enjoy the work without having to like the person.
This works in reverse as well. You can let yourself enjoy vile, and disgusting acts in a fictional context because you know that the fiction is in no way connected to reality. At least you should. (Grand Theft Auto players aren't career criminals, Call of Duty players aren't War Heroes or mass murderers, and loli fans are not pedophiles.....99.9% of the time).
wtf? did you not read the rest of my response? I'm saying that gleaning purpose and wisdom from myth is the point not just tangential to it. that those myths exist to give us wisdom or to explain how something worksCritialGaming said:
like my whole problem is that that dude was saying gaining wisdom/learning something from a piece of fiction/work is tangential to the purpose of fiction. and I just find that such an outlandish idea. especially when the first works of fiction (myths) where their specifically to give us wisdom or at least attempt to explain something that couldn't be explain via normal means.
i don't get it. what do you think my positions are and what are you trying to tell me? cause none of this relates to what I was talking to Dreiko about. mainly that his opinions about fiction seem really absurd to me since them seem to discount a lot of fiction.CritialGaming said:
I don't think I really disagree with anything you said, so?
...in what world wouldn't the creator be choosing the ages of their characters? "They choosing to sexualize minors" isn't the defense that you apparently think it is.Dreiko said:
...nah, I'm gonna think I'm more moral for not wanting sexualized minors when it's piss easy to not do that compared to the guy who thinks it's vitally important to defend sexualizing high school kids.Dreiko said:
Let them, and point out petite people exist. It's a far better hill to die on than that YouTube video I linked which had, at one point, an octopus fondling a 15 year old. If you're making some "how to adult" drama points in a game, having a petite gal going, "am I really an adult, considering nobody treats me like one based on looks" makes for good conflict.Dreiko said:
If I didn't already hold people into the neptunia for their lack of taste, the sheer pearl clutching the same audience just further makes me think of them in pure contempt
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/12/brave-neptunia-on-ps4-gets-censored-nintendo-switch-version-remains-uncensored/73909/
As part of the efforts by Sony to push out the audience that nearly killed JRPGs. They have removed a panty shot and you can predict the usual reactions.
Fun fact, this was made by a Canadian studio and Canadians get as much love as Swedes by those kind of people for being actual decent human beings.
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/12/brave-neptunia-on-ps4-gets-censored-nintendo-switch-version-remains-uncensored/73909/
As part of the efforts by Sony to push out the audience that nearly killed JRPGs. They have removed a panty shot and you can predict the usual reactions.
Fun fact, this was made by a Canadian studio and Canadians get as much love as Swedes by those kind of people for being actual decent human beings.
I just...I can't imagine dying on this hill.
(Is image posting broken?)
https://imgur.com/a/WHqMqD1
(Is image posting broken?)
https://imgur.com/a/WHqMqD1
I have doubts, but I hope this is a start towards toning down the sexualization of underage characters, and perhaps female characters in general. It's already bad enough to see screen shots of games with this type of stuff, but it's worse when it infects games that I like. Trails of Cold Steel, especially the 2nd one, has it's problems, and adding certain outfits to characters who are underage is a problem. A war is going on but lets have a 15 year old showing her midriff and a 13 year old wearing no pants. With the 13 year old let's make a joke how the MC maybe did something lewd with her.
Super Cyborg said:
Rean is also a year 1 student (so he's 15-16 too) so it's not that out there actually. If anything, the practically underage incest in Trails in the Sky is quite a bit iffier than anything in cold steel haha.
If anything it's the opposite, with Steam now being the flagbearer which allows uncensored games that were even censored in Japan to be brought over(and surprisingly the Switch keeping up like one would have expected the ps4 would). We can't post images any more it seems so link will have to do;
*meanwhile on steam*: https://i.imgtc.com/2VsIMTi.png
sounds fair enough, to me. Kinda like every other time this exact thing comes up. Artists are allowed to create what they want, and if they want to sell that art through a third party, the third party has the right to stipulate what it will and won't carry.
If Sony were arranging to have developers fined or imprisoned for impugning the rights of fictional characters,then I could see myself agreeing with the enraged, but as it is? If you're a publisher, you have the right to accept or reject whatever project you please, for whatever reason you please.
if you're a japanese game dev and you want your child groping minigame to remain intact, then just find a different publisher. Ditto if you're a consumer who desires the same. Morality aside, if there's a strong enough demand for something, there'll be someone willing to supply it.
Sony making this a global policy is certainly a new spin on this tired, tired internet argument, though. I have no opinion on it one way or the other, but it's rare to see such a sweeping reform enacted.
If Sony were arranging to have developers fined or imprisoned for impugning the rights of fictional characters,then I could see myself agreeing with the enraged, but as it is? If you're a publisher, you have the right to accept or reject whatever project you please, for whatever reason you please.
if you're a japanese game dev and you want your child groping minigame to remain intact, then just find a different publisher. Ditto if you're a consumer who desires the same. Morality aside, if there's a strong enough demand for something, there'll be someone willing to supply it.
Sony making this a global policy is certainly a new spin on this tired, tired internet argument, though. I have no opinion on it one way or the other, but it's rare to see such a sweeping reform enacted.