-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Dead or Alive Xtreme 3: Scarlet Switch version not censored, PS4 version on the other hand...
- Thread starter ggx2ac
- Start date
- Status
Not like i'm defending the game or anything (Couldn't care less) but, what kind of punishment? This game's bread and butter in particular is ogling the girls and nothing else, really.
The game shouldn't exist in this form in the first place.
I'm pretty surprised with all of the Era talk of strong female characters that aren't just sex objects, you've got perverts bitching that they can't look up skirts with a magic fan or apply jiggly titty gel on young girls.
"Presumably violence is dealt with through age ratings". lol, those games you are calling creepy shit are passing age rating too.
If the violence is banned on the future on games, people like you will complain. I can't wait to see someday it to laugh of hypocrite people despite I like violent games too.
For last, I don't buy those games, I don't like, I prefer violent and storytelling games, but people trying to fight against censorship for centuries, and we have the current double standard society who want censor all they don't like. Well. call me when we return to the caves again.
Depends on the content. Not necessary if the game still have minors and stuff close to harassment.
Still, that's besides the point because we know that would never happen.
This industry has a big sexism problem towards women and it seems like it keeps going up, so I have no problem with Sont trying to do something about. I do agree though, that they need to release a statement about it. Nothing better than a clear message...
Yeah their system is a mess.
It doesn't help that although Sony is cracking down on new/not yet released games, they've done nothing to address what's already available on PSN, such as games that can't be discussed in this forum..
Last edited:
Don't really agree with that when looking at the games that came out in recent years. And if you're talking about issues unrelated to content, those aren't going to be solved by censoring content.
I just don't think the use of 'but what about violence' rather than focusing on the particular issue is helpful. I very much doubt that in a thread about violence, we would have it's defenders going 'but what about endemic sexism towards women and girls!' with any serious chance of success at deflecting the issue at hand. They are two different issues that deserve their own focus rather than one being used to shut down discussion of the other.
That happens with Apple on AppStore, you can have your app approved on your first release and your next update be rejected because the guy who reviewed the update is not the same guy who approved your first upload.
Too, I think, the norms must be so generic, that some games would be over censoring themself
An item that blows skirts (presumably without the characters knowledge or consent) is outright harassment of a character encouraged by the player through game design. It seems like a misunderstanding of the issues for anyone to suggest that these actions could lead to problems for Catherine simply because of its sexual themes.
Its less to shut down discussion and more to bring up how its hypocritical that Sony America gets to force its values on Japanese devs even for Japanese releases.
Imagine if Sony Japan started forcing God of War or TLoU Devs to cut its violent content even for western releases.
It would cause a huge shitstorm and I doubt you would see so many "Good Im glad." type comments or calling people against it creepy.
I respect Sony for purging the disgusting practice of marketing moe-blobbed loli's as "18" to bypass the fact that they are sexualizing adolescents. Fuck outta here with the "but teh cenzorship!!!11 i want muh freedumz!!!" Bullshit. Glad TN doesn't get a pass for it.
Wtf is this shit, no shit Sony is censoring this game as well, Team Ninja should stick to proper games and not trash like this for horny teenagers.
I just hope NiOh 2 won't include shit like this
User Banned (1 month): Rationalizing sexualziation of underage characters, inflammatory false equivalencies, previous severe infractions; Junior phase account
Games are not real, they are virtual. I can't understand why people think that gamers who plays games like those are perverts or even pedophiles, when we have millions gamers killing and stealing on games, are we killers?
Even thinking those gamers are pedophiles, its better the guys can suppress their fantasies on the game? or real life?
If you defend violence on games at the same time you think this is sexism towards the woman, you have the same thought that people who want ban all games because violence (example Trump, who blame to games on massacres with guns). It´s not different, and that is because I said people have double standard here.
I am against all censorship on games, they have a system rating on all countries.
Last edited:
Your argument doesn't work because violent video games don't cause people to go on killing rampages but video games & fiction altogether can shape people's worldviews in other ways, like how they view women. The kind of normalization of the objectification of women that bombard men in all mediums is something that actually has an effect on how men treat and think about women in real life. Since women are so often in everything in an objectified, overly sexualized and otherwise misogynistic manner, that leads to a lot of men thinking that's at least somewhat ok thing to do in real life too. People who criticize these things don't have an issue with all nudity/sexual content, we just think that a game solely focused on the molestation/creepy sexual treatment of young girls (some of whom are deliberately designed to look underage) is a bit iffy.
Like, there are too many men whose views on sex/sexuality/sexual interactions with their preferred gender come exclusively from porn, which is generally pretty misogynistic and not representative of how most normal people have sex (that is mutually pleasurable) or in which kind of situations it's ok to approach women in that way.
I'm talking more about the japanese side.
About if it's going to solve anything or not, maybe, maybe not. But atleast they're trying. I don't agree that content isn't unrelated to the sexism in this industry. When you have games depicting women as objects and normalizing pervying and even harassment towards them you are creating a problem. Mind you this happens in other media too (before someone wants to whataboutism me). It's a problem that spreads everywhere, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take measures in our own media.
Some people would say no matter what you do you're not going to resolve the problem, but that just promote the status quo, so if Sony does something then fine for me. As I said though, they need to explain it, policies should always have to be explained.
Dude... just no.
That comment is biased because you like your games. All years we hear people complaining for violent games. Trump blamed to games several times on last years because the massacres.
For last, if a growth guy view the women the other way because a game, its because that guy didn't have a good social education. People is influenced on the growth, are you suggesting minors are playing those games?
But then why not just ban this whole game altogether?
The gameplay is shallow, basically you buy costumes, mostly bikinis of different designs, dress up your chosen character and have her participate in different activities like volleyball or float jumping. During those said activities, boobs jiggle, butts jiggle, tshirts can get wet and become slightly translucent. And you can even ''peep" while your character is changing.
And if you have the VR headset, one can pretty much ogle at the characters close up with quite a big allowance on angles.
So apparently Sony is ok with these...
But then comes the items which allow one to blow skirts or increase the boob jiggle and then they go like 'No we can't have these'.
Really...? If its creepiness that is the problem, then this whole game as creepy, not just the part that is being removed.
Last edited:
If presumed scenarios in which sexual assault could be construed were all that was being censored that would be one thing, but that's not the only thing censored in the game, and hasnt been the actual barometer for which things have been censored recently, which is one of the problems.
Sorry, what? How am I defending violence in games? I don't play or even enjoy violent games, and I've argued against the polarised mainstream approach of both games and films marketing to and identifying an 'adult market' of 18+ extreme violence and a 'child' market of toys and rainbows while offering little inbetween in the past. I just don't think whataboutery helps or that the comparison is particularly relevant when it's never used the other way around to defend violence in games as it would just sound ridiculous.
Wait, people on ERA are up in arms becauss Sony didnt allow fucked-up over the top objectification of female characters in a game that already has way too much objectification any way?
What is wrong with you folks? I thought ERA was progressive. This almost looks like a reddit thread.
Sex in games is fine. Sexual objectification is not. This game is one of the worst culprits of that with its golden fan and softening gel shit.
What is wrong with you folks? I thought ERA was progressive. This almost looks like a reddit thread.
Sex in games is fine. Sexual objectification is not. This game is one of the worst culprits of that with its golden fan and softening gel shit.
There are studies about these things. I do not give a single iota of a fuck if Trump thinks violent video games cause people to go out and kill people. That's simply not supported by any research. Killing someone is such a huge no-no that a large majority of people aren't going to go over that threshold. There can be issues with violent entertainment (I.e. terrorists so often being muslims), but they aren't turning people violent. Sexual commentary & harassment has a much lower threshold, partly because men often think that the harassment isn't harassment. It's acceptable behaviour they have learned is acceptable from the fiction they've consumed their whole lives.
It is supported by science that the entertainment we consume can shape our values and such, which includes stuff like how we treat other human beings in our everyday lives. It's not a coincidence that Japan has a lot of this kind of content and has had it for decades and nowadays they have massive problems with men molesting school girls in public.
What was the arguement that this policy wouldnt affect/apply to all publishers?
Last edited:
Terming them both under 'values' might allow you to invoke 'hypocrisy' and 'double standards', but doesn't make them the same or give them both the same weight. I get the comparison, I just don't think it's that simple.
The values of 'violent fantasy content made by adults about adult players hurting adult characters in-game' and 'sexualised fantasy content made by adults about adult players creeping on adolescents in-game' aren't directly comparable, and that one finds more mainstream success and the other extreme side-eye by some companies, customers etc while being an extreme niche even in it's own country of origin is neither coincidence or evidence of hypocrisy.
Last edited:
You don't have to imagine. Search for the Rainbow Siege thread where Ubi is (was?) changing the game worldwide because of China and look at the responses.
It's absolutely used to shut down discussion, as seen by this thread, and it's absolutely hypocritical for you guys to only complain about violence in games to dismiss sexualization of children as a problem.
Absolutely nothing is stopping you from making threads about violence in games, and detailing why these are problems.
I'd even agree. :> Not fond of overly violent games. Now what?
"Could be construed".
You know that the skirt flip/upskirt thing is a legit problem in Japan that this developer happily encourages and fetishizes with this, right?
If the US had a problem with guys randomly getting kicked in the nuts all the time, and a game dev would add a "kick every male character in the nuts" item to a game, you'd be the first screaming for blood.
The most important issue by far is sony's lack of consistency in regards to their new policy, and lack of actual clarification or official statement on what their actual intent is. If they want to ban or censor games with sexual content, that's one thing, but the censorship they have been applying is not consistent from game to game at all and has no rhyme or reason in concert with ratings agency guidelines
I don't think the effects are as clear as you make them out to be as there's also evidence that suggests that something like the availability of porn decreases sexual assaults
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
First of all, i would recommend you look at the post in question for what i am actually saying and not cherry pick parts of statements to take out of context. I am not defending the scenarios of presumed sexual harassment in this game.
I said, and i quote "its strange that the assumption is that the stuff that could be construed as sexual abuse(the skirt flipping) is the problematic content, yet the jiggle boobs which are also in the numbered games and have already been seen in DOA6 trailers are also getting censored".
That is, it makes sense that if the criteria behind the new guidelines at Sony had to do with the skirt flipping and it looking like sexual harassment, it would be censored. But other content that they censored does not line up with that.
Secondly, its a good idea to not actually generalize what people take issue with and strawman that. It doesn't help the conversation or the point of the matter at hand.
So from what we can gather across the different censorships, it seems like those guidelines at Sony does not of course prevent from some scantily clad images or attitude (for what we know the outfits are the same on Switch and PS4) but they have a problem with features that can be related with the sexual objectification of the women body. Looking a the features erased here on the PS4 version, it's similar to the censorship for the Senran Kagura dressing room mode where you can't interact with the character body (breast/butt touching) anymore on the PS4 version. You can look, but not touch.
What could be very interesting here, is if any big outlet like GameSpot, IGN ou Game Informer tackles the subject in future interviews with Reggie Fils-Aime for example. Something like "so, by the way, it looks like Sony made some policies about some sensible content, including sexual objectification and erotic content, especially with underage characters, how do you feel about that ?" Admit it, it would be really interesting to see Nintendo's answer to this.
To be clear I don't even think Sony is having the right attitude here, I think they are actually shooting themselves in the foot with no particular PR or commercial reward at the end. They are only making some people angry on social medias and forums, while the other people does not care at all that such policies are even a thing.
What could be very interesting here, is if any big outlet like GameSpot, IGN ou Game Informer tackles the subject in future interviews with Reggie Fils-Aime for example. Something like "so, by the way, it looks like Sony made some policies about some sensible content, including sexual objectification and erotic content, especially with underage characters, how do you feel about that ?" Admit it, it would be really interesting to see Nintendo's answer to this.
To be clear I don't even think Sony is having the right attitude here, I think they are actually shooting themselves in the foot with no particular PR or commercial reward at the end. They are only making some people angry on social medias and forums, while the other people does not care at all that such policies are even a thing.
The problem is that Sony only thinks some parts of the game is bad. What they should do it ban it outright if they dont like it, since you can still do other disgusting stuff in the game.
The VN game that they censored was of girl in a bathing suit. But bathing suits in general being not censored in DOAX for example is strange https://twitter.com/uitachibana/status/1055308002520117253
In addition to that, the "gel" of this DOA game which makes the boobs more jiggly, its basically the same as the DOA5 boob slider, yet is also censored despite not having to do with sexual harassment.
If it was limited to the senran kagura modes and the skirt flipping of this game, that would be actually reasonable criteria and consistent policy based on the refusal of blatant sexual harrasment, but they seem to be censoring whatever without a real pattern and that's the issue.
Are there games with dedicated sexual assault modes, sometimes involving underage girls, that Sony has ignored?
OP
OP
There hasn't been an argument...
Just common sentiment among the people that posted about Sony's policies where they think that Sony wouldn't tread on the toes of bigger publishers whose game sales matter more for PS4.
I think there are some games on Vita that vaguely fit that description.
Not as far as i know(although there may be some vita examples), and on its own,would represent a consistent and clear policy. But they have targeted content that is not sexual harassment on a very spotty basis, while letting other things go even if it is technically the same content across games.
The fucked up thing is that those pads have nothing to do with DOAX and are bonuses for the special edition of DOA6. A far cry from the initial announcement at E3 where they falsely claimed that they were toning down the sex appeal but in typical TN fashion they quickly backpedaled on that blatant lie.
No, but the comparison is that since those nude scenes are censored by CERO in Japan currently, and PEGI/ESRB are fine with it in the west, it'd be the same if Sony decided that it should be the same everywhdre for example.
Sony is acting like their own version of a rating board, after the actual rating boards do their job, and so far, only for japanese games regardless of similar content in other regions.
It'll be really interesting to see if in the long run, this actually turns out beneficial to Sony and detrimental to Nintendo.
With the change in Western sensitivities towards sexualization in games, there may eventually be a backlash against Nintendo for allowing this type of content. Which would be supremely ironic, considering where the company comes from and the heavy censorship they adopted for decades (and which has been fiercely criticized for almost as long in the West, until recent times).
With the change in Western sensitivities towards sexualization in games, there may eventually be a backlash against Nintendo for allowing this type of content. Which would be supremely ironic, considering where the company comes from and the heavy censorship they adopted for decades (and which has been fiercely criticized for almost as long in the West, until recent times).
Considering such games like sexy mahjong and even trivia games with gravure cosplayers are on the western eShop with minimal fuss, and we already have a creepy massage Senran Kagura game that no one really discusses, I think the whole "Sony is making developers go through additional screening to further alter games" will be a bigger story here.
Like essentially there was never a fuss about what came onto the Sony platform and no one cared about these games, a lot of them that don't set a foot outside of Asia, until Sony started pulling additional requirements among developers.
- Status