Adult-wit and cartoony haven't been characterizing GTA for a while.Once again, sorry if double post. GTA is played as sardonic humour, it's cartoon-like with adult wit. Even then, it doesn't play up gore. It's a matter of tone.
You have any doubt?I'm wondering if Sony wants to have this as their image for VR in Japan. It's a slippery slope straight into the sleazy otaku niche
Once again, sorry if double post. GTA is played as sardonic humour, it's cartoon-like with adult wit. Even then, it doesn't play up gore. It's a matter of tone.
The same reasons we don't have games where you can murder 5 year old children.
I'm wondering if Sony wants to have this as their image for VR in Japan. It's a slippery slope straight into the sleazy otaku niche
I don't get it. Every gaming podcast that I listen to that talk about VR has said, jokingly or not, that porn will save VR. Yet when a game like this comes out it's all, FUCK THIS GAME AND FUCK YOU FOR LIKING IT.
I don't know what you watch but I don't think those podcast considered molesting a women to be "porn".
It is a matter of record that one of the favourite recent Western game of the creator of Summer Lesson, Harada, was Payday 2. Paraphrasing him, he enjoys the fact that he gets to play a "Armed Bank Robbery Simulator", and made the point to specifically saying he would never be allowed to make this kind of game in Japan.Summer Lesson is the image for Sony VR in Japan.
Your musings about violence read so blind.That depends on what you think is more important; is it about protecting people from being hurt, or is it about punishing people doing things you don't like in the privacy of their own homes?
Because it is pretty clear to me if you are going to pull out the " bad influence" argument, that had been debunked for multiple pieces of media.
If anything, when VR become advanced enough, it would become superior to reality for everything, even sex and violence. When virtual sex is better than the real thing, why would anyone be a rapist? If violence is more satisfying in VR than actually trying to do the same thing in reality, why would anyone try to commit acts of violence in real life?
Your assumption is that high quality VR would make people try to act things out in the real world. My counter argument is that if the technology got that far, the users wouldn't want to leave the VR world anyway. Real life violence is far less exciting than what a game can achieve with proper CGI pyrotechnics and enhanced audio. And it is easy to imagine sexual encounters in VR that overshadows the partners that are actually available in real life.
Real life is not always going to be the gold standard of desirability, if it ever was to begin with. More likely people who like playing games will keep playing games. Just as COD fans are unlikely to enlist in the US military just because they play the game.
Except for the one handed army that tries to insult people watching porn in threads...no. Porn discussion threads here on NeoGAF (which are rare) are very civilized.
Where is anywhere? It surely is not reddit, neogaf, gamefaqs or anything else as far as I can see.
You sound like a reasonable person. You know when you play GTA, you are not really an alcoholic dirtbag father or coked up junkie killing people high on drugs. When you play missions where you rob banks or kill bikies or run over old people, you are still a normal decent human being playing a game for fun. Playing a game where you have a kill count in the hundreds or thousands does not equate to you being a murderous scum bag in real life, does it?
I don't know what you watch but I don't think those podcast considered molesting a woman to be "porn".
I don't know what you watch but I don't think those podcast considered molesting a women to be "porn".
You implied the fact that the made up woman in question is "polygons" (so essentially, fictional) didn't matter. UrbanRats then, rightfully, ridiculed that notion and asked if you see a difference between the violence in GTA, also polygonal and fictional, and videos of ISIS' executions, of real people. Your response now is that GTA presents its violence in a different tone, as if that was the key criterion differentiating the two examples and what makes GTA not or at least less objectionable. Would it be fair to conclude that, if ISIS directed their execution videos with more wit and sarcasm in them, they would be okay to you as entertainment? Or is there, in fact, a crucial difference between completely fictional violence and real one, regardless of tone? And could that difference maybe be the fact that one is made up?Once again, sorry if double post. GTA is played as sardonic humour, it's cartoon-like with adult wit. Even then, it doesn't play up gore. It's a matter of tone.
I don't know what you watch but I don't think those podcast considered molesting a woman to be "porn".
No woman is being molested.
Yea it's her "Don't touch me!" reactions that make this bad. Might as well just let you fondle her with no reaction. And talking about reactions I find it funny that she only reacts after you get enough fondles in. Like really? Either you like it or you don't.
Adult-wit and cartoony haven't been characterizing GTA for a while.
The violence is as realistic as it gets (playing up the gore would actually make it more cartoony, not less--see: God of War) and the humor is often aimed at the wrong targets, to not be considered at least questionable.
Again, i play and enjoy GTA, but there's no need to be delusional about it.
When you stab someone on the ground in it, it's really not cartoony at all.
Anyway, i'll bail form this thread, since i don't even give a damn about DOAX3, probably not worth spending more time on it, and yeah i don't like the weird place the discussion went in.
I think i made my point more or less clear anyway.
You sound like a reasonable person. You know when you play GTA, you are not really an alcoholic dirtbag father or coked up junkie killing people high on drugs. When you play missions where you rob banks or kill bikies or run over old people, you are still a normal decent human being playing a game for fun. Playing a game where you have a kill count in the hundreds or thousands does not equate to you being a murderous scum bag in real life, does it?
So why doesn't that courtesy extend to games like DOA3? Is it because you equate the titillation you feel to be more than just playing a game? Do you think the enjoyment others get when they play DOA3 mean that deep down they want to molest girls in real life or think its OK to treat women in real life like sex objects?
Do you see the contradiction in your view at all?
I'm not going to debate that is what this video shows so I'm assuming that you take issue with me not using "fictional woman"?
That was uncomfortable to watch :/
They are not people. There is no crime. Am I a bank robber for playing Payday 2?
GTA is played as a sendup and cynical play of American culture. Guess what, different games in the series feature different timelines. When the climate changes, so does the game. And GOW is as cynical as it gets.
No. It's dishonest.Care to join the discussion?
You implied the fact that the made up woman in question is "polygons" (so essentially, fictional) didn't matter. UrbanRats then, rightfully, ridiculed that notion and asked if you see a difference between the violence in GTA, also polygonal and fictional, and videos of ISIS' executions, of real people. Your response now is that GTA presents its violence in a different tone, as if that was the key criterion differentiating the two examples and what makes GTA not or at least less objectionable. Would it be fair to conclude that, if ISIS directed their execution videos with more wit and sarcasm in them, they would be okay to you as entertainment? Or is there, in fact, a crucial difference between completely fictional violence and real one, regardless of tone? And could that difference maybe be the fact that one is made up?
No Starbreeze are the robbers
Haha what? God of War plays its violence extremely straight
Would they be okay if they were?ISIS executions aren't played for laughs.
They are not people. There is no crime. Am I a bank robber for playing Payday 2?
Would they be okay if they were?
Why are people disregarding tone? The same phrase could be delivered two ways and could be construed in entirely different manners. Facts are facts, ISIS executions aren't played for laughs, and there are defined limits to the ways things are interpreted. You can't play reductionist to the ends of oblivion, there's a matter of right and wrong. There's a difference between dialogue and predation. Moral relativity only goes so far.
I am not a bank robber. I have no intention to rob banks. Will you insist that I am a bank robber because of something that isn't even real?I didn't imply that they were real or that their was a crime taking place here. I'm just describing what happened in this video like you did describing your actions in Payday 2.
It must be a very long slope Let's have a look back at PS2 launch:ChryZ said:I'm wondering if Sony wants to have this as their image for VR in Japan. It's a slippery slope straight into the sleazy otaku niche
If she start to enjoy it the game would almost certainly be banned from Consoles. That's what is happening here, that consensual foreplay is not tolerated because it would classify as on-screen sex.
I'm wondering if Sony wants to have this as their image for VR in Japan. It's a slippery slope straight into the sleazy otaku niche
She doesn't have to appear to be enjoying it. Just have her stand there. I see what you mean though. And likewise just having her stand there with no reaction at all is no fun for the player. They want to satisfy the player by letting him/her get his fondles in but give them selves and out by having her reject you after a little while. Still a slippery slope.
Well I am all for X-rated games to appear on Consoles, but we both know that was never going to happen. No point talking about slippery slope when what we have here is clearly a solid brick wall. The Console market will never allow the studios to cross that line.
What about horror movies that portray murder and torture with a straight tone? Tone is not the reason why violence is accepted in movies, it's accepted because it's not real (I can't believe that even needs to be spelled out)Why are people disregarding tone? The same phrase could be delivered two ways and could be construed in entirely different manners. Facts are facts, ISIS executions aren't played for laughs, and there are defined limits to the ways things are interpreted. You can't play reductionist to the ends of oblivion, there's a matter of right and wrong. There's a difference between dialogue and predation. Moral relativity only goes so far.
What moral relativity? We have one where real people get hurt or killed, vs the other where no real people were anywhere NEAR being hurt or killed. Isn't that the problem, the harm that was done to people?
I can say personality that morality only applies, IMO, when people are harmed. And fictitious people are not people, or we are in big trouble and many blockbuster action film directors would need to be in jail.
The backlash will come, make no mistake.
Then why bother even having this?.
Get real. You didn't elaborate at all. You ignored my post and didn't answer my question: If ISIS framed their execution videos like GTA does its violence, would they be morally okay? That's the question I asked you in my initial post, where I was very verbose about how your insistence on tone being the factor differentiating fictional violence in GTA, from real violence in ISIS' execution videos, implies those videos are morally alright if they were presented in the same tone GTA frames its violence in. If you agree that those videos, and the actions behind them, would be wrong, even when presented in the same tone you consider fictional violence to be "okay" in, then you acknowledge there to be a difference. Instead, you've continued to completely ignore that fact and reiterated presentation to be the key distinction, dodging the actual issue of real people being killed, that this is wrong regardless of tone, and that therefore there is a massive distinction between fictional ("polygons") and real violence. If you really, sincerely, can't see this, then I'm sorry for having tried to engage you in discussion.I did elaborate. Quote my entire passage if you want real dialogue.
What about horror movies that portray murder and torture with a straight tone? Tone is not the reason why violence is accepted in movies, it's accepted because it's not real (I can't believe that even needs to be spelled out)
But do you laugh when you see it? Ever get a hard on watching someone die? Sometimes there is a wrong. The game displays a woman clearly distressed by forced fondling. For a game that people purport as being marketed as cheesecake, this is not healthy.
what the fuck dudeEver get a hard on watching someone die?
Would you consider Three Stooges comedy to be harmful. If we're willing to drop tone from the subject, would the Jet Li movies The Legend and Fist of Legend really be that different? Is Buck from the opening of Kill Bill just trying to get laid? Morality lies at the core of a person. Every emotional response is tied to a person's inherent ideas about the governing mechanics of the world. Ever flinch watching someone get kicked in the balls? Ever make it past a whole cringe video compilation? Ever laugh at good joke? Your mind isn't binary, it doesn't work like a lightbulb.
I'm wondering if Sony wants to have this as their image for VR in Japan. It's a slippery slope straight into the sleazy otaku niche
Get real. You didn't elaborate at all. You ignored my post and didn't answer my question: If ISIS framed their execution videos like GTA does its violence, would they be morally okay? That's the question I asked you in my initial post, where I was very verbose about how your insistence on tone being the factor differentiating fictional violence in GTA, from real violence in ISIS' execution videos, implies those videos are morally alright if they were presented in the same tone GTA frames its violence in. If you agree that those videos, and the actions behind them, would be wrong, even when presented in the same tone you consider fictional violence to be "okay" in, then you acknowledge there to be a difference. Instead, you've continued to completely ignore that fact and reiterated presentation to be the key distinction, dodging the actual issue of real people being killed, that this is wrong regardless of tone, and that therefore there is a massive distinction between fictional ("polygons") and real violence. If you really, sincerely, can't see this, then I'm sorry for having tried to engage you in discussion.
You cannot be the judge of morality, we all have our own interpretations. If you insist on forcing your version of morality on the rest of the human race, you will lose the war.
Yes, morality lie at the core of the person. But that is exactly why it is different for everyone. If you think there is only one REAL morality, you are very naive.
The fact is we all have different views of morality, and the only way we can live as a society is by not caring about it. That you focus on making sure no one gets hurt. Trying to force your morality on others is why we have religious wars.