"Erotic" themes too much for Sony in America
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 8th 2006 at 10:28AM }
Rule-of-rose: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Rule. Of. Rose.
Alright, so it's not quite Lolita but Sony's Rule of Rose has its own controversy. The Japanese game is being published by Sony in Japan while they've opted to pass on publishing the title in the States. The reason: the game's erotic undertones involving prepubescent girls. Yeah ... err, but that's just what it appears to be! In an interview with Gamasutra, the game's director Shuji Ishikawa explained his motivations and why they thinks there's nothing inappropriate with the content:
"Right, the erotic aspect you mentioned earlier isn't supposed to be the main theme. There are definitely erotic parts to it, and some things that might make people uncomfortable, but it's not the focus. It shouldn't be a problem. It's about intimate relationships between all people, not just children, not just girls. There will be people who don't understand it, but others will.
"And it won't be toned down for the west."
Publishing rights in the U.S. are being handled by Atlus who, it appears, have no problem with the content. When asked why they wouldn't be publishing the title in the States, Sony producer Yuya Takayama replied, "How shall I say this...well, when Sony looked at the game, they felt it wasn't really in sync with their corporate image. Their personal pride wanted it to be a bit tamer, if it were to have the Sony name in the U.S. I personally appealed to them that it wasn't that kind of game, but it didn't quite work out for me."
Gamers can be relieved that -- unlike many Japanese games whose themes and topics are considered either inappropriate or untranslatable -- Rule of Rose will be coming to the States despite our often puritanical inhibitions. However, you can be sure this isn't the last we've heard of this "controversy."
[Thanks, cringer8]
(Update: embedded trailer after the break for additional context. Great comments!)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Pixelbox @ Jun 8th 2006 10:40AM
"...despite our often puritanical inhibitions."
Christopher, I'd be interested to know, then, what level of content you think is unacceptable. Some of the Japanese underground stuff is simply pure evil. Would objecting to that kind of content make me a "puritan", too?
We all have an inner censor, a standard that we know we shouldn't cross. We just draw the line at different places.
RocketSeason @ Jun 8th 2006 10:49AM
Yeah I have a feeling that game should be just left over there. There are some lines you dont cross and sexual content involving children is one of those lines. No matter the context.
The Politicians would have a field day with this one. And they would most likely be in the right.
Ofcourse, I know nothing of the game and am just going by what I have read.
Michael Anderson @ Jun 8th 2006 10:51AM
I agree - we have an *internal* censor - we can all make decisions. Isn't that what the M and AO ratings are for? Is Sony saying they don't want to be associated with a game that might get an AO rating?
I think they should let gamers decide.
Jake @ Jun 8th 2006 10:52AM
I do believe that this country is extremely puritain. When a slight bit of nudity is exposed on TV, major fines are assesed. Sex is taboo, while violence is encouraged. As for the "evil" in the japanese culture, this opinion is purely attributed to our religious bias. Some of us like to be exposed to other cultures and I think characterizing something we don't agree with as "pure evil" is one of the things wrong with this country.
jaemz @ Jun 8th 2006 10:54AM
Either this game will fall under the radar as an un-interesting incomplete game or it will be instantly picked up by the media as a game that promotes children's sexuality... either way it doesn't look too promising.
Having Ishikawa say that he is only 80% satisfied with his game doesn't lead a whole lot of confidence to the project either.
Quotes like: "we got a request from Sony to make a horror game", "Sony looked at the game, they felt it wasn’t really in sync with their corporate image" [to release the game under their name in US] and "Sony... 100% satisfied" really makes me think Sony want to cash in on the 'controversial angle' while keeping their name safe in case there is a backlash.
T-Man @ Jun 8th 2006 10:57AM
I don't care if its a game about raping puppies with spoons, I should have the choice to buy it if I do so wish.
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 10:57AM
From the interview:
"If we look at it through the eyes of adults, when girls play with each other in this way it may be considered somewhat erotic, but with kids, I…really don’t think they’d see it that way. It’s more genuine, not lustful. It may appear so because these are things kids actually do, but we don’t want to see."
The problem is that the game is made for adults, not kids. Therefore, the theme is erotic and lustful.
Also, they wanted to show "how scary children can be from an adult’s perspective".
I understand their use of "intimate familiarity", as they put it, to do this but they didn't justify their use of eroticism to me.
Andir @ Jun 8th 2006 11:00AM
I'm all for anti-censorship, but the Japanese do have some weird stuff going on that would raise a stink with the very outspoken religious sectors of the US. Hell, I was watching some christian (it doesn't deserve a capital letter) news channel the other day cause it was on after "Who's Line" and I can honestly say these people will over analyze the smallest detail and try to scare people into believing whatever they want to push. (kind of like how Joystiq and other MS fans are overanalyzing everything Sony says)
The last thing we need to do for the gaming community is get these people all hyped up again over a "thought" in a game. As with other examples, parents never look at the ratings put on games. So that's not even a valid point.
Ibere @ Jun 8th 2006 11:03AM
This game is excellent and I'm glad Atlus has the guts to publish it in the United States. It's funny how Americans have double standards: I bet that if they take out all the erotic subtext of the game and leave only the violence it would be ok. You know, children killing people it's ok, but children being portrayed as sexual humans, that's taboo.
Yes, America IS puritan: you just need to compare what is aceptable in the rest of the world and what is aceptable in the US.
Yuki~Summer Ver.~ @ Jun 8th 2006 11:08AM
I've been interested in this game ever since I saw it released in Japan.
Why is this a line that should not be crossed? Ridiculous ultra-violence is OK, but you can't have children put into any sort of suggestive situations? It makes no sense. I hope that the game does indeed come out here completely untouched. Rub it in the face of the people that censored the "questionable" scene from Xenosaga.
"Puritanical"? No, it's hypocrisy. They just like to think of themselves that way. Judge by the actions of their daily lives, not words.
As for the 80% remark, remember that Japanese culture places importance on being humble. For example, even if you receive a compliment, you're supposed to deny it.
TC @ Jun 8th 2006 11:11AM
Pixelbox:
Some of the western games are "pure evil" too, ripping pedestrians apart in GTA or decapitating someone in Mortal Kombat. Still I have played them.
Objecting to the content of this game being published would make you more of a puritan, yes. Whether that's a bad thing or not is down to the individual. But why should the game be banned/censored? Certainly I feel an age rating of 18+ should be applied to any game involving "realistic" violence or sexual behaviour, but the "inner censor" of many people in the western world certainly seems to be more puritan (ie. ban anything with sex in it, violence is ok if necessary) than rational. I think this is what Chris is trying to refer to.
Fanguad @ Jun 8th 2006 11:15AM
I agree with benjamin. It may be the case that they are just showing "the facts of life" (I don't buy it, but w/e), but when you target it towards adults, you're targeting sickos. Maybe not exclusively sickos, if the game's story is good, but that's not the point.
I've been doing some thinking recently after the post about the interview with Henry Jenkins. One of the topics is "games as art." He points out (my interpretation) that it's not so much about whether games *are* art, as whether they *can* be art, and thus they need to be protected. On the other side of the spectrum, as with all artistic mediums, you'll have people who release offensive crap with little or no artistic value onto the public, and claim protection because it is 'art.'
This is the fear I have about "games as art": some sicko will make a baby-raping game and get away with calling it art. Respectable people will make a big fuss about said game, but eventually they will over-ruled, because a few people are willing to call it art. (The counter-argument -a good one- is that someone releases something that *is* art, but people don't like, and it should be protected)
P.S. It's "Christian" with a capital letter. It's a proper name, whether you like Christians or not.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 8th 2006 11:17AM
This game will probably never see U.S. shores. The U.S. has gotten more and more conservative when it comes to media content over the last few years that this will never be allowed to see the light of day in it's current form. Anything that smacks of child pornography (regardless of whether it is or isn't) will not be allowed in stores.
@ #3 Michael Anderson. "Isn't that what the M and AO ratings are for?". The themes and undertones alone would not cause an AO rating. This is all open to interpretation, but media that depicts sexuality in children is just plain not allowed, not given a higher rating.
This is a bit of a shame because the game itself is looks very nice with some interesting elements. The Eroticism seems a little bit like it was tacked on for publicity.
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 11:22AM
Andir, you don't honestly feel that "outspoken religious sectors" will be the only entity with an objection to this sort of game, do you?
Morality is influenced by religion, of course. But it's also a function of society, family, and environment in general.
I have an objection to this material being explored in a video game. I don't think it's the right form. In fact, I'd object to children's sexuality being used as any form of entertainment at all. My objection is based on being the parent of a small girl myself. I don't think that makes me an "outspoken religious" person.
scab @ Jun 8th 2006 11:26AM
ok....one question
did there absolutly need to be little girls having sex in this game?
i dont see how that makes the game better
wtf is the point?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Justin @ Jun 8th 2006 11:29AM
"but media that depicts sexuality in children is just plain not allowed..."
Seriously, I don't need a game to show me sexually suggestive situations involving minors - I can just spend 5 minutes on MySpace.
(making a point...)
n8dogg @ Jun 8th 2006 11:30AM
Oh those cuh-razy Japanese!
If this game comes to America, I have a feeling that a certain man (we'll call him T, since his full name isn't worthy enough to write out) will get up in arms and once again spit forth his accusations that video games are an outlet for the violent killers and sexual predators of this world. ...which just so happen to be teenagers between the ages of 14 and 19.
I guess I really don't have a problem with this game being released. I definately won't buy it, but I know that there are gamers who want to have more freaky children in their horror games (just like in every horror film that has been released for some time now).
I just fear that this will simply give more ammo for T to use.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 8th 2006 11:35AM
Ben, my friend, you're right on there. This is subject matter that does not need to be expored in media. There are some pretty sick people that prowl for content that, admittedly, is more graphic than this. However, we should not advocate developers and publishers releasing content of this sort that will attract predators or, worse yet, help de-sensitize the general public to sensualizing of minors. We already have 14 and 15 year-olds walking around dressed up like hookers. Do we really need to take another step down that road with mainstream media entertainment?
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 11:36AM
It is hypocritical to deem sexuality and eroticism "pornographic" and to ban it while allowing any degree of violence to go unchecked. The reason is that violence is unacceptible in society yet it's portrayal is not, while sex is acceptible yet it's portrayal is criticized and banned.
But we're not talking about legal acts among consenting adults. We're talking about the sexual portrayal of young children. That's a whole different topic.
pete @ Jun 8th 2006 11:41AM
Does anyone actually know what the "erotic depictions" are? I mean, is it two girls frolicking in a field in schoolgirl outfits (shouldn't be "suggestive," but the perverted mind can see it soo) or two girls kissing (inherently suggestive, if not explicit). I think we might be jumping the gun here.
Pixelbox @ Jun 8th 2006 11:41AM
To those thinking child-sex themes are okay in a video game, answer one question: Where do you personally draw the line? Imagine a sandbox/GTA-style where you get points for roaming into a child's room at night and raping them bloody? Should such a game be allowed to be published?
And to those above bashing Christians: The moral standards of these "crazy religious" folks are no worse than your bigotry towards an entire belief system. Get a life.
san @ Jun 8th 2006 11:42AM
I think that sexualizing children in what is primarily an entertainment medium, in a game that is intended for adults, is potentially dangerous. We're not talking about people who can sit down with a game, play it, and think critically about complex themes presented in it -- they're safe and will likely always be safe. We're talking about people who have trouble making appropriate decisions within the context of a reasonable and humane society. Intentionally or not, contemporary popular media breaks down enough barriers between childhood and adulthood; there are certainly hazards in characterizing children with behaviors we usually associate with some greater degree of maturity. There are individuals -- quite a few, as it lately seems -- who have difficulty in understanding that the behavior of children in any situation is different and separate from adult behavior and should be left that way. It's a form of respect: Allowing children to grow up without exploiting them, without using their innocence as a weapon against them. Frankly, it's basic morality.
Despite a strong background in literature, I read Nabokov's infamous novel very late. I had not seen any of the film versions. I knew of it only vaguely, through smutty innuendo, and was not even aware that the book's controversy is related to children. When I finally read it, I was a little surprised to discover that rather than being grossly sensational it is ultimately about the poison of obsession; it is a cautionary tale. Is Rule of Rose a cautionary tale? Is there any mitigating social value that justifies the perhaps perilous subject matter? We often get so bound up in the defense of free speech and free press that we don't consider what is good and reasonable to say, to publish. I certainly would not ban or censor the publication of this game, but I think I can reasonably question whether or not it is the right thing to publish it.
Ibere @ Jun 8th 2006 11:42AM
Fanguad, I think you should play the game before judge if it is just an excuse to child porn or not: if you judge it only based on what is described in the media, you are acting exactly like Jack Thompson and all those jesus freaks who wants to ban games.
The game is really well done (excellent story, good graphics, solid gameplay) and will be perceived as "child porn" only in the puritan United States.
The eroticism really makes sense in the context of the story and, contrary to crappy excuses for violent games like Postal or even game that are well done (like GTA) but that has it's main focus into violence, here the eroticism is only used as a character builder... it's not like you have a mini game where you rape a 10 years old girl or something.
It doesn't matter if games are art or not: if we analyze Rule of Rose for it's own merits as a game, you'll see it deserves to be release in its entirety and it's not fair to have it censored only because some people with dirty mind can get a boner watching a girl raising her skirt (even if all erotic content is only suggested).
copa @ Jun 8th 2006 11:44AM
If Sony or anyone else wants to release a game with full frontal nudity, drug-fueled orgies, or midget-on-chimpanzee action, I say more power to them. (Appropriately rated and distributed, of course)
But I am not cool with the sexualization of children, and I felt that way before I was a dad. I do not feel that pop culture representations of shoplifting, murder, or nuclear terrorism drive people to commit those acts, but I do think there is a segment of sick individuals that are emboldened by the representation of horny kids as entertainment.
I can respect that other people may disagree with me, but I don't think its fair to paint my objections as part of a puritannical, anti-sexuality mindset.
Iwata Miyamoto @ Jun 8th 2006 11:45AM
" but media that depicts sexuality in children is just plain not allowed, not given a higher rating. "
Really? Law and Order, CSI anyone? Some of the themes, deal with pedophilia.
msdarnell @ Jun 8th 2006 11:48AM
I'm not sure what sexual content in supposedly in the game, but why would the Japanese company make the game based on American/European children? Makes you wonder what they think about the Western society.
Also interesting to note that the direct creators do not have kids.
"I'm all for freedom of speech but seriously, **** you. You have sex...with children."
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 11:49AM
As far as the question of art is concerned, this wasn't made as art. From the interview:
"Well basically we wanted to make a new type of horror game, one which wasn’t the usual zombie, ghost and slasher type."
The game was made to be a diffent addition to the horror genre, not to be considered art. He goes on to say that the children were used because he thought their behaviour could be scary or unsettling from an adult's perspective. Not because he wanted to say something about sexuality in children- he just thought that would be creepy.
Charles @ Jun 8th 2006 11:50AM
This is my impression of some of you.
“I’m a strong proponent of free speech unless I disagree with what is being said in which case the content should be censored.”
You guy’s remind me of Jack Thompson albeit a lot less crazy.
Ibere @ Jun 8th 2006 11:52AM
Really people, you should play the game (or at least read a little bit more about it, watch some footage... there's plenty available on the internet) before start to judge it.
msdarnell @ Jun 8th 2006 11:52AM
I'm not sure what sexual content in supposedly in the game, but why would the Japanese company make the game based on American/European children? Makes you wonder what they think about the Western society.
Also interesting to note that the direct creators do not have kids.
"I'm all for freedom of speech but seriously, **** you. You have sex...with children."
John Scalzo @ Jun 8th 2006 11:53AM
Ibere, you didn't seem to describe anything about the game. You just kind of talked in circles about art and intent. Do you have any details about this so-called "eroticism"?
But Rule of Rose was featured in Play a few months and they said the main character's age is 19, so I'm not sure where the "Child Porn!" label comes from.
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 11:54AM
Pete: I don't know what the content is but if this statement by Shuji Ishikawa from the interview is any indication, I don't see how it could be anything appropriate at all:
"when girls play with each other in this way it may be considered somewhat erotic..."
Play among girls that may be considered erotic. And the girls are underage. Need I say more?
Yshaana @ Jun 8th 2006 11:56AM
Hum... Digitally created children in a fantasy/dark setting that have, at some small point in a game, an erotic interaction with the player.
I can honestly say that I am less shocked by this than some things you can see in violent games or movies. Sure, if it were real people, it would be banned and deemed illegal, but this is a videogame, which implies that everything is pretty much fictional.
The internet can be more shocking than this (I actually laugh out at "puritanism" regarding games or TV, when a kid can sooooo easily access Zoophilia and other much more disturbing porn in a few clicks), and adult movies are pretty much accessible to anyone. But the thought of an underage digital girl having a "kinda erotic" scene worries people...
Now although this does not worry me, it is the implication it has for the future.
Imagine 10-15 years go by. Games such as this (or GTA or whatever moral testing content) become more and more mainstream, devs become more and more daring and at the same time games get allthemore realistic. What are we going to get then ? What are we going to feel ?
How is humanity not going to go crazy, when you will have surround screens with surround sound, immersive controllers, making you feel like your actually the heroe of the game.
How are people going to go out and steal, destroy, murder or rape in real life environments without losing touch with reality?
This game doesn't scare me.
What it implies for the future does.
Fanguad @ Jun 8th 2006 12:00PM
Ibere, I came off a little more critical of the game than I meant to. I haven't played it, so I can't judge the exact content of this game. What I meant by my first paragraph was more along the lines of "*if* the game has significant erotic undertones." I also added the disclaimer that the game may also be a good game and appeal to people on that level, independent of any erotic content.
However, I think that it would be extremely difficult to use themes of prepubescent sexuality in a game in an appropriate manner. So difficult that I am willing to make the assumption that they did not. Under this assumption (this is why the ESRB is important, so I don't have to make assumptions), no amount of "it's a good game/story/etc" makes the sexual themes acceptable.
As a final disclaimer: I don't know the exact content of this game. I'm talking theoreticals based on the limited information I have. If I was a parent and my children wanted to play this game, I *would* play it through first to determine if it was appropriate.
jabbertrack @ Jun 8th 2006 12:03PM
Yet we have no problems showing music videos on the Disney channel of 'girls' wearing less clothes than my wife does to bed.
Ibere @ Jun 8th 2006 12:11PM
John Scalzo, in the game you are trapped into an abandoned house that is controlled by these girls that call themselves the Red Crayon Family. They live in this house and built this little society where they are the masters. The erotic content of the game is only in the depiction of the interaction of the girls in the group... I would say it is more sensual than erotic.
Red Viking @ Jun 8th 2006 12:14PM
Gamers can complain all they want about the sex vs. violent debate but it doesn't change the fact that, in America, it's sex that gets you into trouble, not violence. In England, it's the opposite and I can bet that there are some gamers over there that complain that boobies are ok but as soon as you shoot a cop, the censors go nuts.
It would be very bad if this game got released uncensored in the United States REGARDLESS of the rating it has. Slap an AO rating on it and release it over here and there will be uproar about how it promotes pedophilia since it targets adults. (AO rating, remember?) Americans have no tolerance for pedophilia and this will only give people like Jack Thompson further proof that games are Satan's tools to corrupt the youth.
Regardless of intention, all it will take is ONE pedophile to blame this game...
Charles @ Jun 8th 2006 12:14PM
nothing makes sexual themes with children acceptable?
What if the kid is possessed by a demonic entity?
pete @ Jun 8th 2006 12:19PM
benjamin: Right - I just think that this debate is really much too abstract without some actual facts. Ishikawa's conception of "somewhat erotic" and what he defines as "when girls play" may be tame by our standards (though this isn't likely, one way or the other). My point is, it's too early to be having this debate, esp. given how murky the details are.
Most people would agree that overt sexuality being displayed by young girls in a video game (i.e., something obscene) is wrong. Suggestive eroticism is, perhaps, less wrong, but still wrong and is precisely the kind of content that pedophiles and their ilk salivate over - no need to put it in a highly interactive GAME to sate their twisted needs. Very slightly suggestive eroticism (i.e., nothing even close to overt) takes us into a different realm, a more intellectual one which, I think is fine. It's definitely a very fine balance...
32_Footsteps @ Jun 8th 2006 12:22PM
"Play among girls that may be considered erotic. And the girls are underage. Need I say more?"
Um... yes, yes, a thousand times yes. While I have my doubts about the artistic merit of this game, I'm refusing to judge this until I've actually seen the scenes in question. I mean, are we talking about teens messing around with each other? Oh no, that never happens in the real world. We all know that teens never think about anything sexual and everyone is a virgin when they graduate high school.
So long as the scenes aren't too explicit and the subjects in question are around the same age, I don't think it will be all that bad - I believe that a similar scene involving characters who were teens (though the actors in question were obviously adults) happened in the original Friday the 13th. It's the same thing, really. Two fictional people we're told are a couple years from the age of majority are having sexual experiences. Maybe you don't want younger kids exposed to it, but it's not inherently evil (though it is morally questionable).
Moreover, the description seems pretty vague as is. Let's say there's a scene with one 16-year old girl holding another at a sleepover, with the held girl crying. The other girl is comforting her, brushing aside tears, speaking softly to bild up the other's confidence, lightly touching the crying girl's face, hair, and shoulders to help her feel better.
Now, there's an inherent level of eroticism involved in that, but it is a scene that's probably happened countless times and is suggestive at most. I don't think that scene would be all that problematic.
Unless, of course, you have strong objections to the idea of two females having an erotic moment (either blatant or subtle) with each other. Given what little I know about the scene (and the implication that there are no adults involved in the scene), I'm wondering if the controversy is related to underage sex or lesbianism.
pete @ Jun 8th 2006 12:22PM
and some screen caps for you all:
http://playstation2.gaming-universe.de/screens/ruleofrosescan1.jpg http://playstation2.gaming-universe.de/screens/ruleofrosescan2.jpg
Sk8rCai @ Jun 8th 2006 12:41PM
Far be it for me to wade in with my tuppence but, as mentioned before, shouldnt everyone wait until they've played the actualy game.
This is sure to be a touchy subject, but it appears that people are debating on subject matter they havent fully seen aside from an interpretation from a Gamasutra article.
I would actually wait until the game is released to pass judgement on anything that may be included in the final product. I dont think I'll be way out of line for suggesting that there wont be this huge gammut of child based erotic content and that the sensationalist hype machine has gone way overboard, and I'd certainly put money on this all ending in a somewhat anti climatic fizzle, rather than the huge sensationalist bang that a few people seem to be predicting/favouring.
From what little I've seen the game has more in common with the book Lets Go Play At The Adams' by Mendal W. Johnson. A novel written in 1974 featuring a group of children at the center of a kidnapping and torture plot while their parents are away on vacation. The subject matter definetly more intense in the novel than anything I've seen in the Rule of Rose trailer. If they can deal with it in 1974, shouldnt we be able to deal with a similar topic in 2006?
Either way, shouldnt we pass judgement after we have all of the facts present?
Wonder Cheese @ Jun 8th 2006 12:51PM
Fantastic. Maybe Joystiq can even put out a press release. I'll even write it for you. Ahem...
"Today, Joystiq, NAMBLA, The ACLU and moral relatavists across America celebrate the freedom demonstrated against American Imperialist Puratanical values which attempt to keep us from sexualizing pre-teens. Every step we can take to break down the sexual wall built between adults and children is one step closer to defeating these fascists."
"It's about intimate relationships between all people, not just children"
Thanks for that clarification, Ishikawa.
Finally, I was having trouble only playing that puritanical Rumble Roses XX, because the fascists made the developer keep the clothes on the female wrestlers. Once we have naked children wrestling, we can incorporate violence, children and sex together and finally feel the walls or opression breaking down. Sheesh.
RocketSeason @ Jun 8th 2006 12:53PM
Listen, I am an artist, which makes me a HUGE supporter of free speech. I am also a Christian.
But neither of those two traits have anything to do with the issue at hand. The issue is Should someone have the RIGHT to create erotic material involving children and distrubite that legally through our economic system? The answer is no.
You can use the argument: "Let the consumers decide" and that works well for some stuff. But not here. Because there is a distinction in this case.
People who enjoy media showing erotic encounters between children opperate on a different frequency than those who enjoy media showing graphic violence. Violence and child pornography not the same thing.
Whether you want to admit it or not, there is a line here. And just because some like to cross that line doesn't mean that the rest of us should allow that to happen here. There are rules for a reason. Morality exists for a reson. People can get hurt without it.
benjamin @ Jun 8th 2006 12:56PM
"I mean, are we talking about teens messing around with each other? Oh no, that never happens in the real world. We all know that teens never think about anything sexual and everyone is a virgin when they graduate high school."
So reality defines appropriateness? I have a 12 year old friend who has a one year old son. She was impregnated at 11. That's the real world. Does that mean that it's ok to portray her in a suggestive, erotic, or sexual context in any form of media?
Just because 16 year olds are having sex in the real world doesn't mean that it's ok to show them in a suggestive situation. We're not talking about media that addresses the issue as news, instruction, or warning. We're talking about underage sexuality, whether it's blatant or subtle, explicit or not, being exploited for entertainment.
Gonzo @ Jun 8th 2006 1:04PM
Before I get into my usual anti-censorship rant let me first assure you that I have no soft spot for pedophiles. In fact I feel that they should all be chemically neutered; especially the priests.
However let me say that I'm glad one brave company stepped up to release this game. First if this game will only appeal to pedophiles, it'll be a good way to pick them out and keep the children away from them. I don't think that's the case though. Ishikawa said that it's one part of the game that's supposed to make you uncomfortable and if there's one thing that makes every sane person uncomfortable, it's children being sexually assaulted.
Even if it makes many people uncomfortable, I'm glad this game will be released. At best it'll give Jack Thompson a heart attack and we won't have to hear him whine anymore.
Ibere @ Jun 8th 2006 1:07PM
RocketSeason, you said "violence and child pornography not the same thing." Yes, they are not the same thing, but both are crimes and both should be condemned by the society, but we have a lot of violent games and it is completely normal, while a game that shows a bunch of girls playing with a subtle sensual tone on it should be banned.
I'll say it again: please play the game before you start to judge, the level of ignorance and prejudice in this thread is incredible.
pete @ Jun 8th 2006 1:09PM
You folks are talking from a perspective of moral absolutism that just isn't viable in the long run. The American view of sexuality isn't necessarily the right one; the state "age of consent" varies considerably within the U.S. and abroad - is it wrong if we're talking about 16 year-old girls? how about 17? 18? There's really no magic line that suddenly makes it proper or acceptable. Which is why 1) we need to know the content before we make judgments; and 2) this is an incredibly ambiguous & murky area - you must concede as much if you wish to be taken seriously in this debate.
Night Elve @ Jun 8th 2006 1:09PM
"Yes, America IS puritan: you just need to compare what is aceptable in the rest of the world and what is aceptable in the US."
It is not puritan, it is something called hypocritical. Let the gamer choice if they want to buy it or not.
Charles @ Jun 8th 2006 1:10PM
It's fiction.......
No one is getting hurt or exploited.
What if it's a robot that looks like a little girl?
Should we start banning books with inappropriate content?