Sony Sony Changing Standards for Sexual Content in New Playstation Games

[skillzdadirecta]

21 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

This is the thread where we discover who is boring in the sack.

People who get upset about blurred cartoon titties and ass cracks?

[skillzdadirecta]

17 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

It's an interesting discussion. I'm not above hitting up some pornhub every once in a while, but holy shit, like 90% of all porn nowadays is simulated rape. 

 

I miss the old days where the hot chick orders a pizza and can only pay for with hot sex with the delivery boy.

 

Nowadays it's all "show your tits."

"No."

"How about now?" *Flashes money*

"No."

"How about now?" *Flashes more money* 

"No."

"Fuck me!" *Throws wad of cash*

"Okay."

 

I mean, its no wonder teens now have such a fucked up view of women.

Now we get to deal with the over-compensation.

 

I mean, i like porn, but even i can sit there sometimes and think "man this is awful" and not the good kind of awful.

 

Simulated rape or incest fantasies... porn has gotten REAL fucked up.

[Chris-]

22 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I am in full support of censoring you.

"I could say the same thing about you," or some other similar comment 

 

If I were as bad as anime titties, you'd have my full support.

[Bacon]

Just now, Chris- said:

If I were as bad as anime titties, you'd have my full support.

That's actually pretty good. 

[crispy4000]

23 minutes ago, Bacon said:

proceeds to brutally murder people in every other M game

A mode with a premise of a mass-murder or torture simulator should be AO.  As with one designed for molestation and/or groping fantasies.

These distinctions aren't hard.

[crispy4000]

Just now, Man of Culture said:

 

So give virtually every action game an AO rating. 

Premise, as in, 'we're going to make a mass-murder simulator.'  Like Hatred.

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Premise, as in, 'we're going to make a mass-murder simulator.'  Like Hatred.

So, what if instead of humans, it was aliens or monsters, and what if instead of "stop slapping my titties" it was "slap my titties harder"?

[Bacon]

Just now, Man of Culture said:

 

What is the difference from literally just committing mass murder in Red Dead, GTA or Saints Row? This is a stupid argument and you know it.

People will use that against you

[crispy4000]

Just now, Bacon said:

So, what if instead of humans, it was aliens or monsters, and what if instead of "stop slapping my titties" it was "slap my titties harder"?

 

Aliens and monsters are fine.  So would animals, which we already see in hunting games.  (PETA be mad)

"Slap my titties" still falls under groping fantasy.  I'd still say AO.

[Bacon]

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

"Slap my titties" still falls under groping fantasy.

But the Witcher is fine? Or what about getting hookers in GTA?

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

Aliens and monsters are fine. 

You know the aliens in Halo are actually people by Halo 3 right? Like, they have a culture and everything. Yet there is a horde mode that is designed for you to kill as many as possible. 

[crispy4000]

13 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

 

What is the difference from literally just committing mass murder in Red Dead, GTA or Saints Row? This is a stupid argument and you know it.

The objective or premise isn't to kill swaths of innocent people for the sake of it.

You can do it in those games.  It would be irresponsible for the ESRB to not at least consider the possibility of slapping them with an AO. 

But I'd be more inclined to give something like Carmeggedon an AO first.
 

9 minutes ago, Bacon said:

But the Witcher is fine? 

 

Yes.  I think we can safely make the distinction between sex scene and a molestation/groping mini-game.

 

[Bacon]

Just now, crispy4000 said:

Yes.  I think we can safely make the distinction between sex scene and a molestation mini-game.

No, I am saying, that is the girls wanted the player to slap their titties, would you be fine with it. As in the entire thing is consensual? 

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

The objective or premise isn't to kill swaths of innocent people for the sake of it.

So, just like how the shit in Senran is an extra mode and not the point of the main game?

[Bacon]

Also, don't the GTA or SR games have a rampage/armageddon/mayhem mini-game 

[crispy4000]

5 minutes ago, Bacon said:

You know the aliens in Halo are actually people by Halo 3 right? Like, they have a culture and everything. Yet there is a horde mode that is designed for you to kill as many as possible.  

 

Haven't played Halo beyond the first.  I'm assuming they're at war?  And they're also out to kill you?

 

Feels like this is a forced argument regardless.

[Bacon]

4 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I'm assuming they're at war?  And they're also out to kill you?

So, it's only fine to kill someone who is out to get you in a video game? 

 

And do you think video games cause violence?

[crispy4000]

14 minutes ago, Bacon said:

No, I am saying, that is the girls wanted the player to slap their titties, would you be fine with it. As in the entire thing is consensual? 

I'm "fine" with it either way, I just would want the game to be rated appropriately.
 

11 minutes ago, Bacon said:

So, just like how the shit in Senran is an extra mode and not the point of the main game?

If there's any sort of mode that basically amounts to grope simulator, it should be AO.  Same goes for the other topics I brought up.

 

8 minutes ago, Bacon said:

Also, don't the GTA or SR games have a rampage/armageddon/mayhem mini-game 

I'm not super into GTA, so you'd have to find out for me.  But if there was a mode where there was a crowd of innocents and you were tasked to gun them down, it should definitely be AO.  Not counting modes the players have created, of course.  "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB"
 

[Bacon]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

I'm "fine" with it either way, I just would want the game to be rated appropriately.

Then the Witcher should be AO.

[Paperclyp]

I got lost in a few threads of dudes flipping out that they made the boobs of a character smaller in MK11 and they weren’t going to buy it because the game has been censored. 

 

So the more of those dudes we can piss off, the better imo. 

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

 

Why are motives/incentives the only distinguishing reason as to give an otherwise extremely violent game with detestable main protagonists an MA or AO rating? Are you under the belief that people can be negatively impacted by games to the point that they will actually commit similar acts? 

 

I'm not.  But I think ESRB ratings are there as guidelines for parents, retailers, and platform holders that should strive to be informative.  I think a distinction between MA and AO has value, considering there are games that take adult themes much further than others.

Motivations aren't the only factor: they're part of the larger context to be evaluated.  In this scenario, the player being tasked to kill many innocent people in peaceful situations.
 

12 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

So you're a puritan. Thanks for letting us know.

I'm literally describing the game that Hatred is.  Do you not think it should be AO?

[Bacon]

1 minute ago, crispy4000 said:

I'm literally describing the game that Hatred is.  Do you not think it should be AO?

I don't. Also, GTA and other games have had "Hatred" modes yet did not get an AO rating. And in SR you can even sell drugs and deliver ho's to people. Not sure where those fall on your scale. 

[Bacon]

There is also Friday the 13th where you can play as Jason and your goal is to kill everyone. 

[Guest]

I didn’t know it was possible to have a thread in which the only cogent argument made was a joke post by @Chris-.

[Bacon]

You're posting in a censorship thread. I am against it in any form. 

[XxEvil AshxX]

27 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I got lost in a few threads of dudes flipping out that they made the boobs of a character smaller in MK11 and they weren’t going to buy it because the game has been censored. 

 

So the more of those dudes we can piss off, the better imo. 

 

I was originally upset that they toned down Lara's breasts in the Tomb Raider reboot, but then they gave her the ba-donka-donk in Shadow so we're good again. 

[crispy4000]

30 minutes ago, Bacon said:

I don't. Also, GTA and other games have had "Hatred" modes yet did not get an AO rating. And in SR you can even sell drugs and deliver ho's to people. Not sure where those fall on your scale. 

Could you share a link to the modes you're referring to?  I want to see what you're referring to exactly.

Drug deals and prostitution, topically, aren't things I think a game should be bumped up to AO for in themselves.

 

26 minutes ago, Bacon said:

There is also Friday the 13th where you can play as Jason and your goal is to kill everyone. 

It's interesting to bring that up, when the developers themselves were told by the ERSB that they could get an AO-rating. I don't know the details of those discussions, and the subsequent changes, but I'm happy at least they took place.

[Bacon]

10 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It's interesting to bring that up, when the developers themselves were told by the ERSB that they could get an AO-rating. I don't know the details of those discussions, and the subsequent changes, but I'm happy at least they took place.

OK but why shouldn't it be AO still?

like compare it to this

 

[Mercury33]

17 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

The distinction between MA and AO is a time difference of 365 days. What sort of insight into the morality and ethics of violence (in any form) does an 18 year old have over a 17 year old? Why are we considering 18 year old's adults and 17 year old's teenagers when we know that the human brain, the frontal cortex to be more specific, continues developing well into a person's mid-twenties? How have we come to the determination that one person who is 365 days older than another is able to handle more mature content whereas the person who is 365 days younger is not? Are we operating under the assumption that an 18 year old has a better grasp of reality than a 17 year old? Do we believe a 17 year old to be more susceptible to sexual or violent outbursts after playing a particularly violent video game?

 

 

No. I don't think an arbitrary 365 difference in age makes any nominal difference. An MA rating would have perfectly sufficed, especially considering that people are more than familiar with mass shootings by this point and we know that children being exposed to violent video games are not the cause of them.

 

This is a dumb argument. You have to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise you’d be evaluating it on a case by case basis. Are there some 14 year olds mature enough to handle those themes? Of course. There are also 25 year olds still immature. If you wanna make the argument for where that line should be then that’s one thing. But to attack the “what makes me more mature today over yesterday cause it’s my 18th birthday” argument. Then that’s dumb. 

[crispy4000]

43 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

The distinction between MA and AO is a time difference of 365 days. What sort of insight into the morality and ethics of violence (in any form) does an 18 year old have over a 17 year old? Why are we considering 18 year old's adults and 17 year old's teenagers when we know that the human brain, the frontal cortex to be more specific, continues developing well into a person's mid-twenties? How have we come to the determination that one person who is 365 days older than another is able to handle more mature content whereas the person who is 365 days younger is not? Are we operating under the assumption that an 18 year old has a better grasp of reality than a 17 year old? Do we believe a 17 year old to be more susceptible to sexual or violent outbursts after playing a particularly violent video game?

It's not about age for me.  At all.  It's about categorizing the content by the boundaries pushed and providing the best information to people to make up their minds.  That includes the distribution centers/platforms as well as parents and just people at large.

 

43 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

No. I don't think an arbitrary 365 difference in age makes any nominal difference. An MA rating would have perfectly sufficed, especially considering that people are more than familiar with mass shootings by this point and we know that children being exposed to violent video games are not the cause of them. 

I don't disagree.  But I do think the game itself was a shitty thing to make, and probably shouldn't be sold at places not comfortable earning money off it.  I also think the content was suitably AO, and its good that everyone had that head's up.

 

33 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

LOL, shows you how much GTA 5 I played (mostly played as Michael and Franklin, didn't like Trevor too much). Trevor has a Rampage mode specific to him (it's fitting to be honest, considering he's a literal psychopath.)

 

 

 

Looking at this, I do think it should have been rated AO.  Skirts the line in some of the situations.  On one hand, most everyone fires back.  But being encouraged to go on a killing spree for someone talking funny on their phone is over the edge.

We can disagree, you can call me whatever.  That's what I believe it should be rated if I'm being honest.  I didn't feel that way about GTA5 before seeing that.

[crispy4000]

42 minutes ago, Bacon said:

OK but why shouldn't it be AO still?

 

Visceral violence is already the norm in M-rated games.  Go back to the original Mortal Kombat, which the rating was pretty much created to address.  I'd consider the fatalities in the modern franchise to be a sort of barometer for M-rated violence today.

AO violence would imply that it goes much further.  Either into Manhunt 2-levels of excess, or indiscriminate murder as a principle character's motivation and primary premise.  As I said, it sounds like Friday the 13th had the ESRB debating internally.  Some people there probably would disagree with the final rating.

[TwinIon]

3 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

Drawing arbitrary lines based on a difference of 365 days helps no one and only serves to sate the moral and ethical impetus of naïve parents who were fed amplified horror stories by retards like Jack Thompson through mainstream news outlets. I ask again, what makes an 18 year old better equipped to handle the adult themes present in a game like Hatred? As far as I see it, the rating board only serves two purposes. 1. To prevent censorship by the Federal or State Governments. 2. To prevent entertainment sales outlets from getting sued by angry parents who lack the time or impetus to do homework on each and every entertainment product purchased by little Johnny Two-Cents.

 

Neither of these two reasons have anything to do with whether or not Johnny Two-Cents can or cannot handle a game with mature themes over a span of 365 days. Which is what this whole censorship argument is about anyway. Japanese countries know that Western audiences have puritanical backgrounds and as such, often self-censor in an attempt to appease puritans so that their bottom-line isn't affected. Meanwhile, there is no valid psychological or scientific evidence showing that any of this content that we censor actually negatively impacts the people who play these particular games. So we're being okay with censorship because why? Personal values? That's the only reason I can see anyone willfully being pro-censorship.

The rating system ends at 18 because that's the age in the US that you can't access any kind of content. The ESRB ratings contain categories that cover every few years, and it certainly seems like there's a valid distinction between Teen, Mature, and Adult Only games. It exists entirely to inform parents as to the content of the product they're buying for their kids, not to decide for them. Parents are perfectly allowed to purchase AO games for their kids of any age, and I'd guess that the M rating hasn't prevented many 16 year olds from getting games.

 

Do you not think parents should control the media their children consume at all? It certainly seems like you argue that parents should "do their homework" on every single piece of media their children consume, but that seems like a near impossible ask. Having a shortcut for "I know this is not straight up porn" seems like a useful convention to me.

 

I think there's a very reasonable discussion to be had about how different games get categorized, and how we treat violence versus sex and nudity in general, but I also think the ESRB does a reasonable job and provides a valuable service. 

 

I don't think I could say the same for the MPAA, that gives a movie like Eighth Grade an R for a bit of cursing.

[Moa]

It's almost as if society has different standards for acceptable portrayal of violence and sex.

 

You're not being oppressed because a fortune 500 company doesn't want to associate with molestation minigames.

[crispy4000]

32 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

Thank you for proving my point.

 

You have an odd view of puritanical then.  That was the only thing I've seen in a GTA game, aside from hot coffee, that would make me think it should be AO.

Guess I'm Jack Thompson 2.0 now.

[crispy4000]

12 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

 

There exist games where you can experience or commit vastly worse crimes to virtual humans that have MA ratings. The only reason Hatred got an AO rating was because of the public's sensitivity towards mass shootings and nonsensical mass violence (which is still a fraction of a fraction of all the violence humans commit daily). 

 

I'm not sure what worse crime there is than indiscriminate mass murder.  Please tell me what's a worse crime that a MA game lets you commit. (and why those hypothetical games shouldn't be AO)