There are people, that are actually upset that this pedo stuff got some mist covering it on the PS4 version?
How dare they cover up a drawing of a nude child!
There are people, that are actually upset that this pedo stuff got some mist covering it on the PS4 version?
glad to hear this. while there are questionable content that passes through the cracks of rating boards, i strongly believe that it shouldn't be the job of 1st party platform holders and any regulation and censorship should come from the rating boards.
Then why did they remove most of the religious references typical of the Xeno-series from Xenoblade 2?
It's funny that when Nintendo was the one censoring, it was "out of touch" and "anti 3rd party". Now that Sony is the one doing the censoring it's cool and Nintendo is a POS for allowing such content, when there are parental controls and content rating agencies available.
So are you suggesting that Sony should not sell these sort of games all together? I wonder how the "fan service" defense force would feel about that.You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
No we very well do get it. Can you give me examples of how Sony went overboard with the censorship? Only games they censored were pedo games.You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
It's kinda hilarious how people are upholding Sony as a bastion of content curation when things like this still happen. It makes it pretty transparent that Sony doesn't really care that much about actually enforcing contextual censorship beyond just saying that they do so that some heat can be taken off of them, given that the context can already be inferred from the barebones depiction of convenient god rays. "Let's just say we have a policy against anime titty and hope devs don't include it". Comes across as really shallow.The problem is that the industry at large seems to be unwilling or woefully incapable of doing anything substantial about the issue.
Nintendo is pointing to the ratings boards who are basically ignoring it, Sony has weird, intransparent guidelines and methods that lead to hilarious shit like this (NSFW image) and Steam/Valve let almost everything on their store.
You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
That is a slippery slope fallacy.You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
There are people, that are actually upset that this pedo stuff got some mist covering it on the PS4 version?
So are you suggesting that Sony should not sell these sort of games all together? I wonder how the "fan service" defense force would feel about that.
You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself.
We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
The "amount of control" to decide that they don't want nude or half naked underage-looking anime characters on their platform? Yeah, I hope they keep that "amount of control".You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
I know right?There are people, that are actually upset that this pedo stuff got some mist covering it on the PS4 version?
If they actually were interested in taking a stance against this content existing in the first place, then yes, they should just outright reject them in the concept approval phase.So are you suggesting that Sony should not sell these sort of games all together? I wonder how the "fan service" defense force would feel about that.
Is it? Look, I'm in no way happy with the proliferation of pedo shit in the media, but I also grew up receiving pre-censored games from an overly righteous American Nintendo division that censored fucking statues in Castlevania IV. I don't trust Sony on not following the same path.
There are rating boards, reach them, ask them to add new labels, to be more severe. Is there a game that includes pedo shit? Let it be rated AO and subsequently get them to change the content, just don't let that responsability to a platform holder (even less if they're American) they'll take the ball, come up with stupid rules and force the other kids play like they want or get the fuck out.
We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
And again, I asked you to give multiple modern examples of this...
I have been always talking about pre-ERSB Nintendo wich, imo, is a good enough example (And a really dangerous precedent)
Quick reminder of the type of 'content' you are supporting if you are happy with this stance:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/su...ed-ps4-version-censored.110987/#post-19751954
they're not doing that. putting some smoke or light ray over that content doesn't change the fact that there's still underage (or underage-looking) characters being sexualized. sony's solution here is a whole lotta nothing. if they actually felt strongly about this they would deny those games from being published on their platform altogether.
No, it's not a good example. If you have to go back 25 years for an example, you don't have one. That doesn't apply today.
is it? i still see the sexualized characters, the creators intent hasn't changed just cuz there's some fog in the scene.
It's literally the ESRB's and such's job to define what is considered appropriate to put in a game.
None of the platform holders allow AO stuff on their stores, so they all censor, just like Walmart and movie theatre chains wont touch those products. It stops artists dead in their tracks.
I wonder if the tone of this thread would be different if it was violence being censored? I still don't get the disconnect between being okay with all manner of depraved and gross violent acts but being freaked out when a dude's Johnson is shown.
is it? i still see the sexualized characters, the creators intent hasn't changed just cuz there's some fog in the scene.
It's literally the ESRB's and such's job to define what is considered appropriate to put in a game.
If it gets the clear by them then it's enough for me. You got an issue with it take it up with them.
I don't play those games but I don't like the idea of companies stepping their foot into developers business.
If it's not braking any laws then let it go.
Neither platform holder currently has an appropriate policy in place for the types of games that should be censored on these systems (sexualizing underage characters). These types of games should be banned outright from the platforms, not lightly censored by the platform holder and not deferred to ratings boards that allow these types of games to slip through the cracks and not receive the AO rating they deserve (effectively banning them from release on any console).
Nice contribution. Clearly you had nothing but best intentions when you quoted me earlier.
Nice contribution. Clearly you had nothing but best intentions when you quoted me earlier.
Putting a bit of mist or light onto the screen so it looks the character in question is naked while they are actually dressed in underwear for example, isn't an improvement.
ok but literally anything is better than nothingthey're not doing that. putting some smoke or light ray over that content doesn't change the fact that there's still underage (or underage-looking) characters being sexualized. sony's solution here is a whole lotta nothing. if they actually felt strongly about this they would deny those games from being published on their platform altogether.
I mean yeah ultimately it is up to them. It's not like I'm boycotting Sony. Just prefer they leave the content be decided by the people who's actual job that is to decide what is appropriate to sell and what it should be rated.There's not much more to say to you.
Just because it's the ESRB's job to rate games doesn't mean that a platform holder can't make their own decisions about underage girls in their video games.
And if you're okay with that being in a game just because the ESRB gives it "the clear," that's weird. It's wrong, period.
We are not talking about dude's Johnsons but about kid's naked. No one give a fuck about naked guys and girls in, say, Wtach Dogs 2, because it's not doing it in a titilating way, and also because it's adults.
I also thing the same about violence btw. I find MK repulsive.
I mean it's not enough yeah, that pic should be out. But it's better than leave it untouched, even if it's not ideal.
I just don't want the risk of something like early 90's Nintendo again. You can call it a slippery slope and I'm just paranoid but that wasn't a period I enjoyed.
None of the platform holders allow AO stuff on their stores, so they all censor, just like Walmart and movie theatre chains wont touch those products. It stops artists dead in their tracks.
I wonder if the tone of this thread would be different if it was violence being censored? I still don't get the disconnect between being okay with all manner of depraved and gross violent acts but being freaked out when a dude's Johnson is shown (Cobra Club).
But creppy weeb shit is literally the only thing Sony has "censored"I dont think thats fair to anyone. Youre taking a specific example and then pretending like thats the only type of thing that gets rejected or censored. Nintendo was the same company that rejected the binding of Isaac for not being family friendly enough. Ultimately what this policy means is that we will presented with the raw games and most people should be intelligent enough to figure out what they are willing to support.
they also censored DMC5. they walked back on it but it shows they're capable and willing to censor other stuff as well.But creppy weeb shit is literally the only thing Sony has "censored"