Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 5 Sep 2012.
Never heard of it but now it's come to light the masses (Babylon) deem it unfit then I will certainly give it some air
"Greenlight will does not intend to change that."
I find it very disturbing indeed that violence and gore, which is something I personally consider to be offensive by its very nature, is tollerable whereby eroticism and sensual-physical love, something essential to continuance and evolution, is considered offensive!
Society is truly in a bitter and mentally depleted state if this is the case.
That said,however, there is still a lot that such a game can do wrong such as promoting degradation / humiliation or worse. I sencerely hope, however, that this particular product is aiming for a higher standard, more classy so to speak and therefore deserves a fair chance.
If it is shallow or badly made the market will rule judgement anyway...
We have 18 rated games but they still are uncomfortable with depicting adult subjects like sex or rape that you might see in an 18 film.
That's pretty much America for you. All sorts of violence on TV is fine, but god help you if you swear or accidently show a nipple...
'The gaming establishement is fine with violence and gore, but is uncomfortable with sexual themes,'
No, not uncomfortable at all. Most people are fine with sexual themes - but it seems this game is purely about bonking rich young socialite sloots. Thus I imagine the target audience is the slimy sex-game player and not the typical gaming market per se. Besides, blowing peoples heads off or stealing cars is something I'd rather not enjoy in real life so I'll save that for gameplay. And if I want to play seduce the upper class sloot, well.. that's just another night out in Newcastle.
In any case, sex in games is rarely done well* without feeling cheap or patronising (though the Mass Effect "love scenes" tied in nicely to the stories).
*I'm thinking immediately of GTA:SA Hot Coffee, Leisure Suit Larry, and a handful of awkward moments playing Fear Effect 2 on the family TV.
Fixed, thank you!
Are we sure it was banned because of content or because it sounds inane and vacuous?
It's setting and content does not appeal to me either and if it turns out to be inane and vacuous it won't succeed anyway. No reason, however, to not give it a chance at all.
I know, lived there for a year and have family there as well. I have been able to enjoy the Irish/British humor for the past year now and find it increasingly hard to go back to american sitcoms... It is just so blunt most of the times...
Good grief is the games industry still that prudish? Why does the phrase 'Adult Entertainment' still carry such a huge stigma? Any game with an 18 sticker is adult entertainment, and many of them are available on steam. Why is this different?
It's all about where we draw the line, and as usual those in charge seem so out of touch it seems laughable when you compare what is acceptable to what isn't acceptable. Opinions: everyone has one!
You know what? I kind of agree with you... but not as much as I disagree with you.
Children's play often has a large element of 'violence' to it. Bang bang your dead. Groooaaaann I'm a zombie. Tickle mummy she's dead, bring her back to life with a magic kiss. Look mum, I have a gun which shoots bombs!
It is impossible to prevent children from having an exposure to this. It's normal and it's healthy.
But 'sexy stuff'? 'Games' where you have to seduce a group of pool lounging sugar-daddy hunting air-heads? CGI rendered intercourse? Pornographic literature? (Seduce me has all of these!).
We're talking about tales of sensual-physical love we're talking about content specifically designed for young men to masterbate to. Adding relationships / dating / seduction into games is fine if the story deserves it but this is just cheap porn.
I cannot support the argument that titles such as 'Seduce me' should be as widely available to the young as games based around violent content such as the average FPS.
It's the same reason I have no problems with my 5yo kids seeing naked bodies (museums, changing rooms etc) but I wouldn't want them to watch a porn movie.
I would not attempt to ban seduce me from sale but I would not carry it in any store I owned or had control over, and clearly Valve feel the same way.
It's cheap, tacky and dirty.
Got the feeling this game will be a best seller just because of removing this....
Children integrate life at a level that they can cope with. So playground fights and cops and robbers (or zombies) is as harmless as seeing some statutes of naked human bodies, learning where babies come from or trying a kiss (yuk!). But we do not like to expose children to graphic adult violence like we do not expose them to graphic adult sexual activity because they are not able to integrate it yet.
I don't see a significant difference between the two. If children are not ready to deal with adult sexual content then they are also not ready to deal with adult violence. Yet I've seen ten-year olds playing Saints Row (with realistically screaming and bleeding people as you shoot them and drive over their burning bodies) in a household where parents would not allow them to see a pair of breasts. I know which I would worry about psychologically affecting them more.
We have a different attitude to violence and sex. Films like "The Expendables" depicting violence in a somewhat puerile manner are seen as harmless fun. Films depicting sexual activity with a similar level of cheesy immaturity is seen as filthy and degrading. Perhaps it is because sex is essentially an intimate act; something we know should be special and precious and valued, not degraded or cheapened or trivialised. But similarly, real violence is nasty and abhorrent, not something to be trivialised and made to look easy and fun. We should treat it as we treat sex, if for opposite but equal reasons.
I'm not going to play games like this one... and I think you are right that Valve should be able to say "no, I don't want this in my store."
But I would continue to say that there is a place for it if Valve wanted to. Games are already bound by age restrictions and I think, if Vlave are sensible enough to prevent underage sales, they would have every right do do the opposite of what they have done now.
And yes, I doubt this is going to be a decent game... maybe if it wasn't just about seducing someone, it would be better. I do wonder if there will be any decent cinematic games that take on just relationships though. Perhaps in a similar vain to Quantic Dream games - in which case, if your character was able to make the decision to be nice or nasty, I don't think a bit of "the good stuff" should be out of the question - where the only objective is to make a character happy without harming those around them.
The actual reason for kicking the game off of steam green light is not given. Only an inference that it may have something to do with the content from the valve quote. Ultimately the full facts aren't known.
As much as I frown on games like this, I can't help but think that publishers/bookstores/Amazon should have done the same with '50 Shades of Grey'...
You say no, then fall into the same trap of distatefully pigeon-holing the people who might buy it, whilst saying it's ok to play violent games!?
Good point - which probably parallels with the Hollywood and adult film industries.
The thing with Mass Effect, you still had to actively pursue those relationships so, by your rationale, doing so makes us all slimy gamer types.
Kidding aside, Mass Effect walked the line quite well, and managed to make it largely socially acceptable.
Separate names with a comma.