Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

violence and sex issues.

This topic is 5236 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I dunno if the game Xenosaga for the PS2 is very popular or not, but I have it, and I like it. This game was originally released in Japan first, and when it made it''s way to the rest of the world it had undergone some changes. It got censored. The part that got sencored was a scene where some bad dude was sticking his hand inside a 12 year old girl''s stomach (she just has an appearence of 12, but she''s an artificial human and is probably way older then you). He then starts moving his hand around inside her stomach looking for "information" while the girl is in a state that''s somewhere between wanting to scream out in pain, but too weak to scream so little moaning like noises come out. Anyway, this scene was totally sencored for the American release version. It was replaced by the dude putting his hand over the girl''s forehead and and his hand just glows and it''s like he''s probing her brain or something. Now the second scene is obviously less violent. You guys think the rest of teh world can''t handle that kind of violence? Japan could! Or is it becuase it''s a little girl and the scene could have looked sexually explicit in some way? Have any of you actually seen the deleted scene anyway? or do any of you have this game and know of the scene that Im talking about? I dunno....what do you guys think?

:::: [ Triple Buffer V2.0 ] ::::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see why that would be censored. Basically the weakest of facades is put over what is obviously intended to be a sexually stimulating scene. An android who just happens to look like a young nubile girl.. Who then starts moaning as an adult male in close proximity somehow finds it necessary to stick his hand into her..

I''m not against sexually explicit content, but obviously stuff like that is going to be viewed harshly by the censor. Also, I suspect the market for games with such content is higher in Japan, whereas in (say) the US the game might do better with a lower rating so they censor some of the questionable bits for the US release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Ehh, that''s a little odd, but you never know what could be deemed "inappropriate" for audiences around here.

I haven''t played through much of the game yet so I don''t know what scene you''re talking about, but I fail to see how a guy sticking his hand inside said android''s stomach (12 != nubile!!) could be seen as sexually explicit. Of course, it depends on what the scene really looked like.

Since you''re probably talking about Momo here, I would say that Argus''s response is rather off-base. She''s an android who looks like a little child !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mindset of Japanese censorship has a certain "Zen"-flair to it and that's why I suspect censorship differes.
The view is that movies, games, entertainment and the like are fiction, therefore it's not unlegal to depicture very sexual situations; for example pedofilism in hentai-movies and so on. It never happened, it's just drawn or animated figures, so it's not a crime since cartoons can't commit crimes.

This is very loose assumptions, since I read it on the Internet (a source of sometimes very doubthful information and can't back it up with a link for you. But I think the overall idea get's though.

Therefore censorship on purely fictional material (games included here of course) isn't as high in Japan as in the states or Europe where the mindset is that the material itself are "contagious" and can ,by influence, lead to crimes. Japan has very high standards on what can and what can not be shown though (pubic hair for instance is banned); it's just a matter of deciding weither the material is viewed as criminal or if crimes where being committed while making it.

As I see it: there are two mindsets here;
1. Although Momo looks like a child, she (or It) is an *android* and therefore has no gender or significance other what the viewer gives her. She's a product, a thing, and so the scene can be seen, if interpreted sexually, as a guy making out with a interactive blown-up sexdoll. (She's not a girl, remember?)

2. Momo is a child and has childish attributes, her appearence hints to that she is a normal girl and the fact that she is a android is of no importance. It's the *apperance* and in the game that matters. And since she acts as a girl, she has all the attributes that girls do and so even sexuality.

I believe it's a matter of the viewers perception. Some percieve it sexually, some don't but I think it's fairly obvious that this is purely fiction and guys poking their hands into stomachs of little girl-androids are what you make it to. It's down to perception and I think that even is it maybe sexual tense, it's not something I think worth being censored. Just my two cents worth... or dollars.

[edited by - Bangladesh on March 27, 2003 5:32:15 AM]

[edited by - Bangladesh on March 27, 2003 5:41:50 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video games and cartoons in the US have not yet lost their "for kids" social stigma, even though the majority consumers of such products are now in the 18-49 age range. That''s partly due to disconnected and thick-headed policymakers touting "family values" as the linchpins of their campaigns to conservative senior citizens (who aren''t with the "digital revolution," but did drugs in the 60s - go figure), while secretly downloading pr0n and abusing their secretaries and interns... but I digress.

The point is that any form of sexually explicit content in those two areas - or even material that may merely be construed as sexually explicit by some - is controversial in the US, as opposed to Japan''s more liberal and often more adult-oriented attitude to interactive media (remember the first time you saw a Manga cartoon rated 18? I''m yet to see a US-produced title rated anything higher than PG-13)

Note that the US audience''s/censors'' problem is with sex and sexually explicit material, not violence (though gore will shave off your brownie points). Many, many cartoons published for kids in the US are extremely violent, though the violence is always stylized (Powerpuff Girls features an amazing amount of physical violence, and almost always depicts the bloodied, beaten villains but in a color-neutralized fashion, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Oluseyi
Video games and cartoons in the US have not yet lost their "for kids" social stigma


and such a sad-sad thing this is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No wonder we are such a violent nation! Maybe everyone should watch porn and then we will be less violent. (It's just a hypothosis, it would have to be tested before proven.)

I just don't understand why they would censor that in a game when End of Evangelion had the same thing happen.

[edited by - smiley4 on March 27, 2003 9:43:36 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happened to the US supreme court ruling that games do not count when it comes to free speech? I lost track of that issue a while back, did anything else happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by smiley4
No wonder we are such a violent nation! Maybe everyone should watch porn and then we will be less violent. (It''s just a hypothosis, it would have to be tested before proven.)



Would other nations being less violent but having very similar censorship rules validate or invalidate the theory? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would seem that a lot of American violence is rooted in "frontierism". Gun advocates claim that the possession of firearms enables every citizen to protect life and property, a claim that was true when America was a rough, uncivilized place. Today, however, the strength of the stance is much more dubious; it is conceivable that the ease with which guns are acquired contributes to the rate of gun violence, though the determined criminal will purchase a gun from a gunrunner, not any legal or semi-legal outlet.

Anyway, frontierism. We Americans (I prefer to stand with America when I criticize it, because I am as guilty of anything I blame her for) love the concept of the "stupendous badass", to use the words of Neal Stephenson, and the most intrinsic badass metric is physical force. America invented the action movie, the rogue cop, the bad boy. American culture eliminated the social norms of deference and (sometimes excessive and false) politeness in favor of "equality" (yes, I know how refined we were when Mrs. Beaver lived down the street). American violence is a function of the structure of our society, not the (sole) product of media influence.

That said, there are many cultures much more violent than we are. Censored, bottled-up cultures with historical predispositions to violence - often catalyzed by despondent socioeconomic conditions.

Ah, I''ll shut up now. I''m rambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand with Oluseyi.

Why does the West censor things ?
*political incorrectness alert*
Its because the West has a Christian heritage, which restricts things sexual to marriage. I do think the West takes it further than the Bible(check out the Old Testament); but I thiknk thats the fundamental reason.
*dons flame-suit*

~V''lion

Bugle4d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow. I didnt even think that this would enter the field of religion. It does make sense though...in a way.

quote:

Video games and cartoons in the US have not yet lost their "for kids" social stigma




I think Oluseyi hit the spot. This although probably implies to more then just the US. In Bahrain (my country, in the middle east) censorship is even worse, I mean some local channels even go as far as cutting out kissing from a movie. Although strangely enough, no one pays attention to games. I mean I bought Leisure Suit Larry (all of em) when I was like 13/14 or something, no problem. That was however a game developed by a US based company, Sierra, so obviously Sierra think that games can be made more mature. In-fact, Sierra even developed the Phantasmagoria series, which had real sex scenes in it. I dunno how well those two games did overall, but they were different (from the sexually explicit point of view).

Bangladesh: Since I have really no idea on how Japanese people live, Ill take your word for everything, and it does make more sence that they would allow that specific scene while it would be cut out from the rest of the world. It seems like it''s more of an issue of uncertainty. In Japan you have this kinda stuff all over the place so it''s no big deal. But since it''s not common in the rest of the world, the developers (or maybe the publishers?) figured it''s not worth the risk?


:::: [ Triple Buffer V2.0 ] ::::

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted by Anon Poster (of course) :
quote:
Since you''re probably talking about Momo here, I would say that Argus''s response is rather off-base. She''s an android who looks like a little child !
First, the fact that she''s an android has no bearing. She is just a collection of colors on the screen as well, but that does not change what is depicted. Perhaps they could show graphical, violent sex between androids (rationale : that''s how they repair each other..) and suffer no censorship too? I mean, it''s all in how you interpret it, but obviously some scenes are intended to evoke a certain response. Just put it together man - the young girl, the older guy, the bodily invasion, the moaning... And everyone knows that anime producers have no qualms with depicting young girls in sexually charged scenes. I''m not saying it''s wrong, but one shouldn''t be surprised by the censorship in the US, which I guess is fairly standard for such publications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but Argus, you are missing part of the point of the post you are talking about ...

when the poster listed the 2 different interpretations, he did so, not because there was a right or wrong one, but because they are BOTH valid, and both REALLY EXIST in different audience members minds ... what the poster was saying is that people like you and me who see the obvious sexual conotations, see it because of who WE are, and how WE think ... If you ever sit down and watch movies that you saw when you were a child, you would understand ... there is LOTS of adult content and inuindo in those movies ... but it is presented in such a way that it only triggers a response in those who already think about such things ... so the kids get to watch the fun actiony movie or whatever, and the parents get to notice the sexual connotations, and relationship mishaps ...

What I mean is, if you show this scene (in context) to 100 different people ... not all would think anything sexual at all ... particularly not children, or sheltered / innocent adults ... so it doesn''t corrupt people, it simple appeals to already corrupted people''s corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally do not find a guy sticking his hand in another person''s stomach sexual. I find it more violent than anything. I think the whole issue deals with the rating on the game, and what can be seen. If the game had a more mature rating, I am sure it would not have been censored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds like a similar scene from a game called ONI. Same concept: Friendly young-looking android gets her guts/circuits torn out from the stomach (from what I remember, haven''t played it in a while). Oni wasn''t censored though.... Probably due to the lack of realistic graphics.


I personally find the concept of censoring media dumb. If someone has a message to say to everyone, let them say it. If parents are worried about their children watching some android getting its circuits ripped out of its stomach, then it should be the parents'' job to take care of this.



- Rob Loach
Current Project: Upgrade to .NET and DirectX 9
Percent Complete: X%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by smiley4
So, we just need to get rid of all corruped people so there will be no corruption.


Hmmm, how do you define a "corrupt person".



- Rob Loach
Current Project: Upgrade to .NET and DirectX 9
Percent Complete: X%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xai - My argument was just that one should not be surprised that the scene was censored. What you describe is not how censorship (at least in the US) works AFAIK. So your argument should be directed at the censorship process, which doesn''t consider favourable interpretations by the viewers in making judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you get right down to it I think the entire idea of censoring sexual content most likely stems from religion. I mean those three feet lower parts of your body are lumps of flesh and muscle and, maybe, bone. I mean two guys grunting and straining having an arm ressle for instance, how is that all that much difference from a couple of people having sex.

Okay at this point I''d like to interrupt and say I DO NOT like seeing sexually graphic things, I LIKE sexually graphic things to be censored, just so know one gets the wrong idea

Okay back on topic. If you look at it like that the two guys and just using there bodys on each other same as the guy and girl, at least I sure as hell hopes it''s a guy and girl :S.

For instance in some older cultures it was considered the NORM to be walking around naked, it was ACCEPETED. I mean hell not that long ago, hundered years or something, showing enough of your body to go bathing wasn''t excepted, at least not in Australia anyway.

What I''m trying to say is the distinction we make between sex and anything else can only by grounded in religion, in Australia, America and Britains case this is Christianity.

*whimpers in the corner at the thought of all the flames he''s gonna get hit with :''(*


P.S. Some of you might be curious as to the symbol I chose for the heading.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Rob Loach
Original post by smiley4
So, we just need to get rid of all corruped people so there will be no corruption.

Hmmm, how do you define a "corrupt person".




Someone who double posts

I remember this one game (from Japan) which was a cross between Street Fighter and sexual assault. If your male character KO-d a female character, you got to "rape" her. I haven't played the game, but I did read the reviews and could have downloaded it if I had a PS to play it on.

It's not a crime to depict stuff like this, but I wouldn't like seeing the idea communicated. There are some things we would be better off without... Bush and nuclear weapons included.

[edited by - TSwitch on March 28, 2003 2:31:44 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that there are some THINGS we are better off without (I'm also considering actions a thing) ... but as long as some THINGS exist or go on - I never feel that knowledge of them should be censored.

I mean really ... no one here wants to cause more rapes or more assults to happen (well maybe someone here does, because the people who commit these crimes obviously exist somewhere), but does that mean you want tell your daughter about rape, or teach your children how to defend themselves from assult? I sure as hell don't like the image of George W. controlling what happens with the "defense" weapons of my country ... but I damn well hope that everyone out there understands just exactly what the real situation is (which is, right or wrong, that this man is waging a war using real weapons, costing real lives, against the majority will of our nation, and without any official declaration of war - enough of that though, cause there are some valid problems he's up against as well) ...

No I also admit that knowing the uncensored TRUTH, is not quite the same as having access to uncensored FICTION and entertainment ...

So for the entertainment side, I mainly have to say that I plain and simple believe in freedom, and also don't believe in preemptive strikes and morality legislation, and any fictional act is not (in and of itself) causing real harm to anyone. And also, the fact is, these stories or depictions of sex and violence ARE human and animal nature ... we fight, we fuck, we make friends, raise families, create ship and sail to new lands, love, hate, and hold grudges ... this is what we are and always have been ... and lying to people or trying to determine what combinations of associations are "natural" just doesn't make any sense ...

P.S. would you censor the holocaust?

[edited by - Xai on March 28, 2003 4:13:50 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IFooBar:
I totally agree with you. If I where a publisher and market a world-wide release of a game; I would go though a lot of trouble to get the largest target-audience interested and root out scenes in the material or changing it for the sake of getting rid of potential "bad publicity" or getting the game pulled off the shelves (Didn''t Norway or Austraila discuss that with GTA3?)

So different versions is all good and that, BUT I belive the consumer should have a right to choose what to watch and not to watch. Also for the sake of watching material as it was originally intended by the makers. Today, some don''t have that option. Which leads to another question:

Due to regional restrictions some imported games don''t play (unless you fix that) meaning that some games that doesn''t come to Europe can''t be imported. If there was no restrictions you could effectively choose to watch the uncut Japanese version if you wanted to. But now you can''t. Unless you buy a chip. It''s getting hard to decide what to watch and not to watch.

rjnagle said:
”The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated.

This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material.

On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There''s an interesting philosophical question in here that has only been touched on. My apologies for the digression. How is ethics/morality affected when simulation is involved? Imagine a scenario where technology can provide you with very convincing replicas of other humans, whether through VR or robotics. Say there''s a group of people who really hates some ethnic group, people from Atlantis. If they aquire a bunch of simulated atlantians, then do horrible things to them, what do the laws of ethics & morality have to say? Legally, the simulations are not humans, therefore no law has been broken. But if the simulations reach the point where at some level they *really* seem human, and the perpetrators do the act thinking of the simulations as actual atlantans (though not decieved), I think at some level the perpetrators have still committed a condemnable act. To relate it to the original post, does the fact that the character was actually an android really excuse the criminality of the act? (To simplify the argument further, assume that the simulated atlantians aren''t actually intelligent, or concious, so we don''t have to argue whether they have rights of their own)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites