Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2007, 05:41:42 AM
Apparently Websters has changed the definition of "maturity" from "of or relating to a condition of full development" to "the state which 13 year old boys just passing puberty wish they existed in."
Not that I have anything against nudity in games, but, well, it's hard to argue games don't try and exploit young adults below their rating cut off when silly stuff like this only appeals to young adults and people with that level of maturity.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 13, 2007, 06:22:32 AM
Also it's a game that's known for its explicit violence, why do you complain about a few boobies in there?
Post by: Shecky on February 13, 2007, 06:45:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
AFAIK they wanted God of War to have all characters walk around nude (because, well, in ancient Greece that was normal, at least for men) but Sony objected to minotaurs with exposed phalusses and such. It's a game about a time when nudity was considered a good thing (hell, the olympic games had all athletes compete completely naked).
Also it's a game that's known for its explicit violence, why do you complain about a few boobies in there?
Since chances are that the scene doesn't really fit and is just there to apeal to the group Artimus is talking about.
Post by: JonLeung on February 13, 2007, 07:03:38 AM
QuoteBecause in modern North American society, watching someone cause bodily harm to others is more acceptable than looking at completely normal body parts.
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Also it's a game that's known for its explicit violence, why do you complain about a few boobies in there?
Sure, there's already extreme violence. But, oh! It's a pair of nipples! Gotta punch the rating up a notch just for that!
Post by: Blue Plant on February 13, 2007, 07:23:54 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 07:27:56 AM
Jaffe explained it somewhere... don't have the link on me at the moment, but the sex minigame allows for players to see that Kratos is an animal OUTSIDE of battle as well.
We don't complain about rough love scenes in movies like History of Violence, why should we complain about them here?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Arbok on February 13, 2007, 07:56:45 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
It's a game about a time when nudity was considered a good thing...
And silicon was the norm?
Post by: ShyGuy on February 13, 2007, 08:43:39 AM
Post by: Deguello on February 13, 2007, 08:50:11 AM
This is the same kind of youth exploitation that PG-13 teen sex comedies exploit all the time.
Quote
AFAIK they wanted God of War to have all characters walk around nude (because, well, in ancient Greece that was normal, at least for men) but Sony objected to minotaurs with exposed phalusses and such. It's a game about a time when nudity was considered a good thing (hell, the olympic games had all athletes compete completely naked).
Ah, KDR, but see the double standard inherent here? Why is history used to explain the naked women lounging about, but then conveniently ignored for the men? Why isn't Mr. Warrior Man here seen with a long dong a-hanging out? Oh wait, that would offend the marketed audience of 13-16 year olds. Stylistic, my ass.
And why does all of this "historical accuracy" seem to neglect the fact that the earliest incidence of that particular statue, the "Manneken Pis," was 1388, a good 1600 years after the traditional end of Ancient Greece. Mistakes like this show true intent. Or that somehow this predates the proliferation of running water in the area by a good 300 years.
BTW: What the heck, 1 minute for 2 girls? "Praise the gods?" Mr. God of War is a flyweight, and those two women have low standards.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 13, 2007, 09:12:16 AM
The reason for no wangs in the game is simple. The physics engine required for realistic floppage is too much for any current console to handle.
In any painting I've seen of ancient Greece the naked chicks are a little "meatier" than the chicks in the game. Plus ancient Greece was in the pre-boobjob era.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 13, 2007, 09:14:56 AM
Which was already in the first God of War, was it not?
Post by: Ceric on February 13, 2007, 09:50:29 AM
Under Federal Law, you must have your privates covered here in the United States of America. For men thats a Penis and for Women its the Vagina. Most States have decency laws stating that a Women has to in fact cover their breast as well, ironically enough though Washington DC did not have such a law till relatively recent.
Notice that even though those girls were lounging "naked" in a tub that there Privates as dictated by Federal Law are covered. It's one thing to make a few parents mad it's a whole other to make the Federal Government mad. If they were uncovered it be considered pornography and all applicable rules may apply.
Now to the point I really wanted to make. I have no idea why this is a PS2 game. Personally if I was Sony this would be a game I would make sure got launched on the PS3. It's relatively niche but has great media attention, couldn't think of a better term. Known for looking quiet pretty. Could use the Six Axis during the little mini-games. The first had good sound direction. Also there are people out there that would buy a PS3 for the game. Its one of those "good" games the PS3 is lacking right now. Also its first party. If Sony ain't making the jump why should anyone else?
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 09:51:05 AM
God of War 2 is rated M. As in Mature. As in, the rough equivalent of a rated-R movie!
Guess what? History of violence was a rated-R movie! It also had some raunchy sex scenes!
Where's the DIFFERENCE? God of War 2 is rated M and any Gamestop employee who sells M-Rated games now to minors will get INSTANTLY FIRED!!! ... *huff* *puff*
Besides, the creator believes that the quick and dirty and selfish "unsatisfying for women" sex is as much an aspect of Kratos' character as his one-sided violence!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2007, 10:10:01 AM
For some bizarre reason people keep using History of Violence. So I'll run with that. In history of violence when the characters have sex it's a powerful moment. The first time it shows us a part of their relationship, the second time it's a raw, frightened sex. Yadda yadda yadda. If you watch the video you'll see it's nothing but a silly, childish, immature piece of titillation. This thread wasn't created to complain about nudity in games, it was created because things like THIS are why video games are viewed as lesser than films. Titillation. Only horny 13 year olds (and those with like-minded views of sex) would find this makes the game better. It's like Duke Nukem. The breast flashes are so exciting when you've never really seen them.
This is what is passed off as 'mature' in the video game world. Is it any wonder no one takes video games as serious works? Nope.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 13, 2007, 10:11:32 AM
I don't think that's how it works. I've seen HBO shows with full frontal nudity from both sexes and I don't think that was legally classified as pornography. I don't know exactly what IS defined as pornography (probably something to do with touching) but there are R-rated film with privates being public.
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 10:15:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I take it most of you didn't even watch the video?
For some bizarre reason people keep using History of Violence. So I'll run with that. In history of violence when the characters have sex it's a powerful moment. The first time it shows us a part of their relationship, the second time it's a raw, frightened sex. Yadda yadda yadda. If you watch the video you'll see it's nothing but a silly, childish, immature piece of titillation. This thread wasn't created to complain about nudity in games, it was created because things like THIS are why video games are viewed as lesser than films. Titillation. Only horny 13 year olds (and those with like-minded views of sex) would find this makes the game better. It's like Duke Nukem. The breast flashes are so exciting when you've never really seen them.
This is what is passed off as 'mature' in the video game world. Is it any wonder no one takes video games as serious works? Nope.
Okay, better example: Monster's Ball, before the two main characters hook up, the prostitute and either Billy Bob Thornton or Heath Ledger... take your pick. The scene doesn't last long too, just like Kratos.
And I WATCHED the video. God.
And I'm not saying that God of War does it right. But that's what they were going for (David Jaffe said so) and they should NOT be lambasted for the attempt, only the execution!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 10:17:26 AM
Post by: Deguello on February 13, 2007, 10:39:20 AM
Quote
And I'm not saying that God of War does it right. But that's what they were going for (David Jaffe said so) and they should NOT be lambasted for the attempt, only the execution!
Yes, they SHOULD be lambasted for the attempt, because it is quite obvious that they were NOT trying for historical accuracy whatever, due to the numerous blatant historical errors present in just that one clip. Or does David Jaffe's understanding of ancient history stop at the lack of clothing? Remember in the new King Kong, when that one guy in the screening room asks Black Jack's character where the "boobies" are? That's David Jaffe. You are defending that guy because you believe he is interested in "art." He isn't.
In Japan, they call this kind of thing "fanservice" and they are quite open and honest about it. David Jaffe is preemptively trying to hide behnd "art" instead of defending it as art, and this shows he actually doesn't believe it to be art. It isn't, because he isn't interested in art, even though he says he is. (you think its possible that he may not be telling the truth?) It's like holding a press conference to state that you aren't homosexual when nobody asked you in the first place.
In his departing speech from the ESA, former Chairman Doug Lowenstein had some choice words that are apt in this situation. He refers to some companies as "cut and run" companies due to the nature of their releasing controversial content and then bolting when the turd in the punch bowl is found. This is one of those cases.
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 10:48:25 AM
Or are you gonna tell me that the 300 movie is a blatant exploitation of adolescents as well?!?!?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on February 13, 2007, 10:55:23 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on February 13, 2007, 10:59:11 AM
And nudity of that type isn't going to help games get accepted as a legitimate art form. It just gives Jack Thompson types more ammunition. I don't think we should censor that type of content but it would be better for the industry if developers actually did use nudity in a tasteful way for once. Right now "mature" content is mostly used by companies using controversy as a marketing tool.
The ideal example of tasteful nudity is when it's presented in a way that isn't sexual at all and isn't focused on. Like in a movie where someone identifies a body and the body is naked and you can see breasts but they appear on the camera for like two seconds. The shot was such that they didn't even care if the nudity made it into the shot. They were just going to film what's there. Nudity like that you hardly even notice if you're not a teenager. Tasteful nudity in a videogame would be "just there". Not focused on and not specifically meant to arouse.
Same with violence. Some films will have a brutally violent scene to demonstrate how horrific violence is. Some films show gore because the audience wants to see it. There's a huge difference.
Post by: Deguello on February 13, 2007, 11:03:25 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2007, 11:28:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The ideal example of tasteful nudity is when it's presented in a way that isn't sexual at all and isn't focused on. Like in a movie where someone identifies a body and the body is naked and you can see breasts but they appear on the camera for like two seconds. The shot was such that they didn't even care if the nudity made it into the shot. They were just going to film what's there. Nudity like that you hardly even notice if you're not a teenager. Tasteful nudity in a videogame would be "just there". Not focused on and not specifically meant to arouse.
I agree with everything you said except this. There are many, many times when sexual nudity makes perfect sense and isn't exploitation. A story about a passionate adult relationship, for example, would likely need to include sex. If you're shooting that then trying to actively hide nudity is silly. Noticing nudity isn't the issue, it's exactly what you said right before.
Games get treated like teenage boy toys because of things like this. Video games immediately default to two things: violence and "maturity" when dealing with themselves. Take GTA. You have this brilliant idea for an open-ended world where you basically build a life. What's the immediate idea for the actual game? Guns and violence. I don't care so much about the 'art' aspect, but regardless of what the rating is, stunts like this are NOT mature.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 13, 2007, 11:38:51 AM
I didn't say sexual nudity is always exploitation, just that non-sexual nudity is an ideal example of tasteful nudity. Exploitive nudity is pretty much always sexual so an easy way to do it in a non-exploitive way is to make it non-sexual. My example would be a good starting point for putting nudity in a videogame and not having it be targetted at 15 year olds.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 13, 2007, 12:29:34 PM
Post by: Kairon on February 13, 2007, 01:18:34 PM
In fact, I wasn't titilated at all from that video. It was downright absurd, what with the short duration and the statue's stream. In fact, it's an almost matter-of-fact tackling of sexual relations. He's a god. They're mortals. They do it in under 20 seconds. Next Scene.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2007, 01:29:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
But can't this exploitive nudity speak directly to the nature of Kratos? Obviously the player is seeing the world through Kratos' eyes, his violent, self-centered, goal-oriented eyes.
In fact, I wasn't titilated at all from that video. It was downright absurd, what with the short duration and the statue's stream. In fact, it's an almost matter-of-fact tackling of sexual relations. He's a god. They're mortals. They do it in under 20 seconds. Next Scene.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
That's stretching it, I think. It's clearly supposed to be HI-LARIOUS. Thus the statue.
Post by: Ceric on February 13, 2007, 02:39:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Notice that even though those girls were lounging 'naked' in a tub that there Privates as dictated by Federal Law are covered. It's one thing to make a few parents mad it's a whole other to make the Federal Government mad. If they were uncovered it be considered pornography and all applicable rules may apply."
I don't think that's how it works. I've seen HBO shows with full frontal nudity from both sexes and I don't think that was legally classified as pornography. I don't know exactly what IS defined as pornography (probably something to do with touching) but there are R-rated film with privates being public.
Thats why I said may apply, at the very least it probably get AO which is like X. It's sort of different for the medium. In person that would be indecent. In a movie it's just an R rating unless its a focus. Games I don't know because of the interact elements. (Even though in this case there is none.) I wonder what the ESRB said in response to that scene. Also since you pay for HBO there is a different set of rules. Ironically enough.
Edit: Finished the rest of the thread.
*shrug*
I don't mind it in this case since I think that it is tastefully be done by strongly suggesting at it.
Post by: Artimus on February 13, 2007, 03:11:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: CericQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Notice that even though those girls were lounging 'naked' in a tub that there Privates as dictated by Federal Law are covered. It's one thing to make a few parents mad it's a whole other to make the Federal Government mad. If they were uncovered it be considered pornography and all applicable rules may apply."
I don't think that's how it works. I've seen HBO shows with full frontal nudity from both sexes and I don't think that was legally classified as pornography. I don't know exactly what IS defined as pornography (probably something to do with touching) but there are R-rated film with privates being public.
Thats why I said may apply, at the very least it probably get AO which is like X. It's sort of different for the medium. In person that would be indecent. In a movie it's just an R rating unless its a focus. Games I don't know because of the interact elements. (Even though in this case there is none.) I wonder what the ESRB said in response to that scene. Also since you pay for HBO there is a different set of rules. Ironically enough.
It is interactive. That's why you're pressing buttons?
Post by: IceCold on February 13, 2007, 07:34:14 PM
QuoteAnd?
ARGH! You Nintendo fanbois and your double-standards!
God of War 2 is rated M. As in Mature. As in, the rough equivalent of a rated-R movie!
Guess what? History of violence was a rated-R movie! It also had some raunchy sex scenes!
The scene in this game is gratuitous. The ones in A History of Violence were anything but.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 14, 2007, 02:02:07 AM
Sex for sex sake is moronic as well.
These are the kind of decisions that make MATURE games look as if we are approaching the lowest common denominator.
So the hard question is how do you design a game that is mature but actually uses the subject material to enhance the game experience instead of just being there for fluff?
Personally, no nudity or on screen sex would ever be in my games, it would all be implied in the story off screen. The violence would also mostly be implied off screen as well, except in special situations where the aftermath of a horrible battle or evil monster needs to explored to truly show the magnitude of the situation.
However, I don't think I would be having you chainsaw somebody in half just to show the blood.
Post by: couchmonkey on February 14, 2007, 02:47:10 AM
Come on, he smashes into some secret room mid-level, and does it with two chicks for a minute. It's a reward for finding a secret, like Yoshi giving you a bunch of lives in Super Mario 64 - only Yoshi is two women with ginormous boobs. Just in case busting into a random room that just happens to have topless women in it isn't juvenile enough, the statue "ejaculates" (can I say that on TV?) during the scene. I actually think it's pretty funny - but there's nothing artistic about it.
Edit: we could get into a discussion about whether or not humour or pornography are art forms...but nobody claimed this scene is artistic because it's funny.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2007, 03:01:34 AM
'cause Sony is teh kidd13 (Sony decided to censor that, not the developer). They at first even refused to release GoW here because it "conflicted with their family-friendly policy". If GoW was on the Gamecube it would have nude minotaur action.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 14, 2007, 03:39:10 AM
If the designers want to say it is for creative expression of the character, they can attempt it...but the reality is they just wanted to put naked women in the game. Probably as a cheap promotional stunt, trying to get media attention when it is finally released. Or perhaps they want to make a political stand about Mature rated games, who knows.
The point is. The women are completely unrealistic in proportion and design. Its just stupid. And 100% exploitative. I hope Sony forces them to take it out when releasing the game.
But what really makes me think it was done to either make a stand for Mature rated games or for media attention is that it is basically the exact same Hot Coffee game that caused so much media stir in Grand Theft Auto in God of War.
It is basically a rhythm game where you repeat the actions requested. While off screen your character is having sex. Huh...sounds real like deju vu to me.
Post by: JonLeung on February 14, 2007, 06:54:16 AM
Is it really practically pornographic? o_0
Post by: WesDawg on February 14, 2007, 07:09:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: CericQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Notice that even though those girls were lounging 'naked' in a tub that there Privates as dictated by Federal Law are covered. It's one thing to make a few parents mad it's a whole other to make the Federal Government mad. If they were uncovered it be considered pornography and all applicable rules may apply."
I don't think that's how it works. I've seen HBO shows with full frontal nudity from both sexes and I don't think that was legally classified as pornography. I don't know exactly what IS defined as pornography (probably something to do with touching) but there are R-rated film with privates being public.
Thats why I said may apply, at the very least it probably get AO which is like X. It's sort of different for the medium. In person that would be indecent. In a movie it's just an R rating unless its a focus. Games I don't know because of the interact elements. (Even though in this case there is none.) I wonder what the ESRB said in response to that scene. Also since you pay for HBO there is a different set of rules. Ironically enough.
It is interactive. That's why you're pressing buttons?
I think that HBO has some sort of rule about not being able to show (male) arousal or actual petetration. Same rules as apply for movies. There's a line between R and X there that's pretty strictly defined. Regardless, I don't really get why people are complaining about this. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's that simple. We can argue all day about whether its demeaning to women or not, but Sony has every right to publish it if they want (I assume the publisher is where the final buck falls in these decisions?)
Post by: Ghisy on February 14, 2007, 07:29:29 AM
Thanks, I needed a good laugh!!
Post by: Deguello on February 14, 2007, 08:24:48 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 14, 2007, 10:15:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Funnily enough, co-workers were actually discussing A History Of Violence today, in particular, a rather unexpected sex scene.
Is it really practically pornographic? o_0
I didn't think it was? At all?
Post by: Kairon on February 14, 2007, 10:27:25 AM
These are all things that players need to break down walls for, and then they're rewarded with content. That's all this minigame is: content that places Kratos' sexual dimension in perspective. He's an animal. It's entertaining and shows skin and has sexual situations, but since when does that equate prurient interests?
I mean, how about the scene in the Desert in Tony Scott's Dominoe? He literally described it NOT as a love scene but as a "f---" scene, because that was the nature of the two characters. They weren't making love, they were roughing it out in the middle of a desert, pumped with adrenaline and drugs (I think) after nearly dying in a big car crash. That culminated, and also revealed, the nature of the characters and their relationships. But it also had tons more skin than this scene, lasted longer, and was set to some throbbing rock music(i think). Did Tony through that in there for no reason, or did he decide it fit the story he was trying to tell. Did Jaffe look at this off-camera minigame and quick flesh flash as a way to jack off, or as a way to give the game a way to make it so that Kratos, the animal, is extended beyond violence and into other dimensions of humanity?
What's so special about 3D nipple anyways? It's actually LESS sexy than countless other suggestive ways to tackle the situation.
I just don't see any reason to look at this as something exceptional given all the freedoms we give movies with regards to sex, but also the freedoms we give to violence in games in general.
And then there's cultural ridiculousness too that exposes all this for the subjectivity it is... like I said for Clémence Poésy when it turned out the actress who had played Fleur Delacoeur in the fourth harry potter movie had a pretty almost completely nude scene in some french film... she's not a porn star... she's FRENCH!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 14, 2007, 10:52:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
... she's FRENCH!
You're forgetting one thing though: EVERYONE hates the French.
I'm not going to touch this game but what I will say is that no developer anywhere has even come close to developing a "mature" game. I've seen some story elements that come close but they always fizzle out before they get too far, most likely because they're afraid of alienating their existing market. Until someone can manage to get emotions right I don't think sex should even be entered into the equation. It's already used almost exclusively for pandering in every other form of media. Do games need to be infested with it as well? Beyond that, anyone else remember this old joke:
Q. What's the difference between art and pornography?
A. A government grant.
In the end it's all subjective anyway.
Post by: Deguello on February 14, 2007, 03:08:55 PM
Quote
Did Jaffe look at this off-camera minigame and quick flesh flash as a way to jack off, or as a way to give the game a way to make it so that Kratos, the animal, is extended beyond violence and into other dimensions of humanity?
False choice. There is a third option. He did it as fanservice for his fans. This is obvious as to the gratuitousness and pointlessness of the entire scene, along with the destruction of his "art" defense. If he was just honest about it, there would be no problem.
Another fatal, fatal, FATAL flaw Kairon, is that you are equating Movies and Games, and using a Movie as an defense for a Game. Can't do that, two different beasts. Movies are movies. Games are games. Interactivity changes everything.
Quote
What's so special about 3D nipple anyways? It's actually LESS sexy than countless other suggestive ways to tackle the situation.
"Tackle the situation?" What, was he FORCED to make this scene? Like, the fans would have expected it considering something similar in the first game? Like a "service" to the "fans?" Seriously, drop the "art" angle. It isn't working. This is fanservice, period. Tacky fanserivce at that. This is exactly the same thing as Dead or Alive Volleyball games. Itagaki says they aren't fanservice either. He sees the "art" in having one of the girls slowly lick an ice cream. It speaks to their "character." Do you see how "stupid" this sounds, Kairon? That's because it is. Both Itagaki and David Jaffe use tacky fanservice to excite their core. David Jaffe just makes better games.
Post by: Kairon on February 14, 2007, 03:57:44 PM
...
*closes it*
You got me. There's no defending God of War 2 when it's put in the same category as DOAX2 beach volleyball.
/waves white flag
Surprisingly, the DOA movie was amazingly uber tasteful.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 14, 2007, 05:31:24 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Surprisingly, the DOA movie was amazingly uber tasteful.
And an excellent movie to drink to.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 14, 2007, 07:30:30 PM
Yeah, I bet GoW2, too, is a game for girls that like shopping for clothes (I've seriously read more reports of girls liking the game for its characters and shopping than guys liking the game for its boobies. Guys can get better porn on the internet for free).
Post by: Ceric on February 15, 2007, 04:24:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
You got me. There's no defending God of War 2 when it's put in the same category as DOAX2 beach volleyball.
Yeah, I bet GoW2, too, is a game for girls that like shopping for clothes (I've seriously read more reports of girls liking the game for its characters and shopping than guys liking the game for its boobies. Guys can get better porn on the internet for free).
You know that would be hilarious if it was true about GoW2.
Post by: Kairon on February 15, 2007, 04:59:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
You got me. There's no defending God of War 2 when it's put in the same category as DOAX2 beach volleyball.
Yeah, I bet GoW2, too, is a game for girls that like shopping for clothes (I've seriously read more reports of girls liking the game for its characters and shopping than guys liking the game for its boobies. Guys can get better porn on the internet for free).
The 21st Century, politically correct, San Francisco feminist inside of me weeps for todays women.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on February 15, 2007, 05:02:46 AM
Post by: Kairon on February 15, 2007, 05:26:46 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: IceCold on February 15, 2007, 04:15:14 PM
QuoteNot really.. it's just the verisimilitude of the scene which made it so powerful.
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Funnily enough, co-workers were actually discussing A History Of Violence today, in particular, a rather unexpected sex scene.
Is it really practically pornographic? o_0
Post by: segagamer12 on February 15, 2007, 07:48:23 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on February 16, 2007, 01:36:15 AM
From the 2 times I went to Europe the number one thing I noticed is a lack of fear over the human body. In Paris billboards featured topless women, there were TV shows in London that contained full frontal nudity of men and women, and you know what, nobody there even batted an eye, it was commonplace.
In America we get way to tense over sex, the human body is something natural, and there is nothing wrong with displaying it. Maybe we should be more concerned about the insane amounts of violence in the game rather than the fact that you see some boobs and Kratos blows his load.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 05:47:34 AM
Its not just America the entire world is depraved right now and some peopel just like to see stupid things, tasteful or not there are a lot of things in ALL societies that are inapropriate and different peoipel have different views. Something as trivial as a boob shot in a video game shoudln't spark this kind of debate going back and forth on historical contect, regardless of what anyone says, the purpose of a video GAME is to entertain and be interactive, never were they *meant* to be an art form, weather or not they now are is debatable I wont argue *either way* but they were not *meant* to be art they were *meant* to be intereactive TOYS.
I have;t played the game in question nor have I seen the videos being debated and I don't have much interest because it is playstation, all I care to know is what does it do to affect the game? does it hurt the game? does it helpt he game? will you enjoy it more or less because of it? If the answer is NO then why all the debate in the first place? If the game offend you in that area forget about it and play adifferent game. If it doesnt bother you then let it go. Peopel have differnt views on right and wrong, tasetful and dirty, good and evil. There is no way to sway one over to the other view. If the game isnt for you dont play it, but thats not a reason to say someone who *isnt* offend cant play it either.
I apologise if I didnt follow the thread to well and am not getting the argument all I read is debates on whast tasetful and whats not but nothign on if the game is hurt or helped by the scene in question. I am not attacking anyone I am just trying to get the point of the debate.
If its justa matter of getting the game an AO or M rating then I wont sweat it cuz I dont care it snot a game I will ever play. I just don't get what all the fuss is.
Post by: JonLeung on February 16, 2007, 06:58:52 AM
QuoteI haven't played God Of War, but I've seen video reviews, and scenes like the Hydra fight, so I had this bizarre thought stuck in my head for a while of Kratos using his...well, whatever those fiery whip chain weapon things are...to grab onto a giant minotaur's dangling dingdong and then skewering it on something (like the Hydra's head on that ship mast, I think it was). Ow. "Massive damage", indeed! o_0
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Sony objected to minotaurs with exposed phalusses and such.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 07:59:01 AM
... I feel pwned.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on February 16, 2007, 08:07:53 AM
Aww, isn't that sweet? And look at the amount of foresight this kid has! He is somehow able to have knowledge of the bosses of a game he obviously was not allowed to play, and suggested an alternate costume to a game he'll dream of playing when he turns 17!
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:23:13 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Deguello on February 16, 2007, 08:28:40 AM
And besides, this goes back to Artimus's original point of youth exploitation.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:50:26 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 09:11:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
And where's the typical videogame player's rallying cry of "it's the parent's responsibility!" That was such a good 'ol chummy stand by, sad to see it thrown off to the side of the road like that you know...
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Current society and culture do not value the family. They value the individual. To be honest, it isn't the parents responsibility to raise their children any longer. That responsibility has been passed to technology. But people will always fall back on the old mainstay that parents are responsible because it's an easy scapegoat so that they don't have to acknowledge the real culprit.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 09:38:29 AM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 09:49:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So Doom really DID cause Columbine?
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Considering I doubt the parents actually trained their son in how to blow their classmates away they had to have gotten the idea from somewhere. That's not to say that the kids weren't screwed up before hand but I wouldn't doubt that Doom did play a part, however small it may be, in what happened. All of your experiences make up who you are. Doom may not have been the most important factor but it was a factor.
The problem is, no one is watching these technologies that are now raising their children. And when they are forced to look at them they overreact and look for any scapegoat. Nobody has time for anything any more. Technology is supposed to make your life easier, not harder. In order to maintain that "easier" aspect, people are willing to overlook a lot.
Post by: Deguello on February 16, 2007, 10:11:51 AM
Quote
And where's the typical videogame player's rallying cry of "it's the parent's responsibility!"
I'm not your typical videogame player. I am also a psychology major. While I do not believe videogames CAUSE violence and rape and stuff, I am also not saying that they have no effect on a developing child. The delegation of mature content to children should definitely have more scrutiny added to it. Simply saying it is the parent's responsibility is not enough. That is a simple catch-all answer, and I hate simple, catch-all answers.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 16, 2007, 10:13:56 AM
IF THERE'S PEOPLE TO KILL, THEY'D BETTER BE BAD!
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 10:21:58 AM
EVERYONE IS GUILTY! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Blue Plant on February 16, 2007, 11:05:17 AM
Post by: Artimus on February 16, 2007, 11:24:08 AM
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 12:00:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
I imagine there are some kids who are made more violent by playing violent games. I also imagine there are plenty of violent kids who are made less violent because they act out their aggression digitally.
The point is it's all very complex and individualized. It's a combination of each persons life experiences as well as their perceptions. Everyone sees things differently. Everyone experiences things differently. In the end, it's everyone's fault and no ones. Everyone's because we're so self-absorbed with ourselves that we tend not to see others. And no ones because the only thing that we can ever truly understand is ourselves. We can try to put ourselves in someone else's shoes but in the end it's still ourselves that we are using to gage our understanding. It's simply impossible to be able to completely understand another persons feelings, reasoning, motives.
We can try though, and I think that's where most of the problem lies. We don't try to understand each other anymore. We would rather place blame and move on then actually examine the situation. It's easier than having to dig into yourself for real answers.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 16, 2007, 12:01:12 PM
So society has become self-centered and selfish and thus parents are allowed to do a sh!tty job raising their kids? I would say that because our society has become so "me" centric parents have even more responsibility to raise their children to buck the trend and actually care about someone other than themselves. To me that's like excusing someone being lazy because everyone around them is lazy.
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 02:23:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Current society and culture do not value the family. They value the individual. To be honest, it isn't the parents responsibility to raise their children any longer."
So society has become self-centered and selfish and thus parents are allowed to do a sh!tty job raising their kids? I would say that because our society has become so "me" centric parents have even more responsibility to raise their children to buck the trend and actually care about someone other than themselves. To me that's like excusing someone being lazy because everyone around them is lazy.
Society has actually made it extremely difficult to do more than focus on the self. How many people have jobs now that follow them 24/7? It didn't used to be that way. Before, work was work. You did it and went home. Now we have the internet, cellphones, wireless computers. A lot of families now a days only have one parent which means there's no one at home to raise the kids. Even in families where there are two parents it is becoming common place to see both parents working.
Is that an excuse for bad parenting? No. Is it an explanation? Yes. You can have a great family life, two parents who love you and care for you all your life, and still turn out to be a serial killer. On the other hand, you can be a latch-key kid all your life and still turn out to be a valuable and contributing member of society. To try and minimize the situation to any one aspect is short sighted.
In the end though a great deal of the issue is that society does not place value on the family any longer. The situation is simply getting completely out of hand. Yes parents need to step up to the plate now more than ever but how can you expect them to when most of their lives are now spent just trying to maintain a lifestyle that would be conducive to raising happy and healthy children in?
None of this is really an excuse but it is symptomatic of the greater problem.
Post by: segagamer12 on February 16, 2007, 02:42:44 PM
That is part of why I am the way I am here because I try and forget by getting in on all the petty discussions that don’t matter because I would rather think about that stuff than face all my problems 24/7. When I want to discuss the impact of violence and sex in video game son our society I do it at church or with close friends in a setting that can encourage open discussion. I would prefer not to discuss these types of topics on a video game forum during the time of my day I am online to *forget* about all the worlds problems and think about all that.
As a person who does adhere to a religious belief and try and weigh all decisions I make against what I feel would be beneficial for my spiritual growth against what would be entertaining and cause me to forget all the crap I have to face daily. In a way video games *are* like a religion because they offer a way to forget about things and they allow you to think of a better life or image they way it could be. Not that I think it is healthy to make playing video games your religion but I have learned to accept other peoples beliefs even if they conflict with my own and even though I disagree there are points I would rather not try and force upon someone and only way I would persuade anyone is through a two way conversation where I could present my view and counter it with the opposing view.
Take the subject at hand, a part of me recognizes that our society is totally depraved and has utterly rejected the words of God and prefers to live in sin rather than live in righteousness. however I do not judge those who chose immorality over morality because each person has a different view on such issues and as strongly as I feel about certain issues I will *not* impose my beliefs on anyone. I think it is partly parents responsibility to raise their kids, at the same time I believe society is also to be held responsible.
There are cultures from the past, as well as today, where it was the belief that the entire village/country/tribe, to raise the children and mold them into respectable adults. I think that a lot of our society’s problems are issues of personal responsibility, nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions and therefore tries to pass the buck onto others. This is a human trait that is unmistakable and unavoidable and it is up to the parents as well as peers of the parents and the society in which they live to all train those children how to take responsibility for said actions.
Now I may or may not have overstepped my boundaries here so I am going to revert back to my original stance of neutrality and stay out of the debate form here on forth.
Post by: Mikintosh on February 16, 2007, 07:49:31 PM
But ;ooking back at page 1, I'd forgotten that this thread wasn't about Manhunt 2 for the Wii, but some topless Greek women in God of War 2. Even though I'm not a big fan of sexual content in games (it really doesn't fit after a certain point), if it's for the purpose for historical accuracy, and the game's rated M, what's the big deal? Kids are less likely to be scarred by a few breasts than they are by chainsaws or whatever the hell's in Manhunt.
Post by: Kairon on February 16, 2007, 08:02:54 PM
After all, the same mom who let me buy Conker's Bad Fur Day is the mom who refused to buy me anything other than Lemmings on the SNES when I was younger no matter how much I cried and tantrumed about how it didn't look any fun. Boy was I wrong... mother know's best.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
KaironW@aol.com
Post by: denjet78 on February 16, 2007, 08:24:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: segagamer12
Take the subject at hand, a part of me recognizes that our society is totally depraved and has utterly rejected the words of God and prefers to live in sin rather than live in righteousness. however I do not judge those who chose immorality over morality because each person has a different view on such issues and as strongly as I feel about certain issues I will *not* impose my beliefs on anyone. I think it is partly parents responsibility to raise their kids, at the same time I believe society is also to be held responsible.
Wow. I'm impressed. You have a very healthy outlook. There's not many people around like you.
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
After all, the same mom who let me buy Conker's Bad Fur Day is the mom who refused to buy me anything other than Lemmings on the SNES when I was younger no matter how much I cried and tantrumed about how it didn't look any fun. Boy was I wrong... mother know's best.
When I was in college (college here people) my mother assured me that I wanted to get Wave Race for the N64. I was certain it would blow since I'm really not a fan of racing games but eventually I relented. It's one of my favorite games of all time. I still play it to this day. It's really strange how they can be so right sometimes.
Post by: Kairon on February 17, 2007, 03:33:12 PM
Quote
“Scrotum sounded to Lucky like something green that comes up when you have the flu and cough too much,” the book continues. “It sounded medical and secret, but also important.”
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Artimus on February 17, 2007, 05:28:55 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on February 17, 2007, 05:58:02 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on February 19, 2007, 04:13:12 AM
I pretty much agree with the comments here that video games cannot be absolved of responsibility for making people think or act violently. Of course to claim a video game is the main influence that causes a young person to do something violent is ridiculous, but it's equally wrong to claim that people can play hours of violent games with absolutely no effect on their mental or emotional state. Heck, any video game will have an effect on your brain, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has visions of falling blocks after playing a lot of Tetris, or cursed a blue streak after getting my butt beaten in Battletoads or Rogue Leader.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 19, 2007, 05:10:51 AM
