Why does the left wing folk in game industry hate sexy beautiful NPCS now?

Must be leftovers from the Puritans.

The Sakura games feature sex and nudity rather prominently, but focus on story-telling. They aren't necessarily the most complicated stories about sex, but at least they are trying.

Ok. I'll look them up. So we aren't moving this tread further off topic.

I wouldn't say it's off topic, we are talking about large-breasted anime women offering themselves up to the player character. :P

They are mostly visual novels. Sakura Dungeon is one that's kind of moved away from their traditional formula though, as a full blown RPG dungeon crawler.

The right wing has not done this for a long time. I had to make a decision between the left wing that's currently censoring game sexualization or take my risk on the right wing from a president who loves sexy, beautiful women lol.

If the right wing does censor games, I would strongly consider rejoining the left. The problem is the left wing is very anti free speech and they are sympathetic towards Islam, a religion that destroyed my home country.

I would hope video games would NOT be the only consideration in voting.

Agreed. I don't want to go into more detail because it would be considered off topic and I want to respect the thread & the mods!

I also want to say that it's very refreshing to see people in this thread who are Democrats and lean left and come out to say they love sexualized content in games. I hope left wing SJW game devs will see that and realize hot babes in the arts is a great thing no matter what your political affiliation!

Fantastic!

Agreed!! YES!!

@luzarius: can you give an example of censorship against games thats been done by the left?

No you haven't. You're so full of meekrob.

SJW: "Lara Croft is too sexualized!!!"

*Lara Croft loses signature outfit*

Fortunately Trump won so now I get to see left wing SJWs suffer for this heinous crime!

You take from me Lara Croft's signature outfit, so I take from you your hopes, dreams and the environment. Fairs fair!

@luzarius: That's not censorship.

Why don't you make your own game if you don't like how other people are making theirs?

That's just it. Logic and reason don't really enter into the argument here. In literally any instance where a video game shows less female skin for any reason, there will be whining blaming "the left" or "SJWs" or "feminists" or "censorship". It pretty much never matters what the game developer wants to do with their own game, because there will always be people who can't see beyond their own self-interests. They assume that whatever -they- want to see in a game (i.e. more female skin, hyper sexualized female characters with wildly exaggerated physical characteristics, etc) is that everyone else actually wants (or in some cases, what the only people who -matter- want i.e. people like them) and any attempt to make anything outside of that can only possibly be the result of outside pressure on the game developer from "special interest groups".

The reality of the situation is that a while back in the 90s, there was a shift in the industry to market games to teenage boys that was largely initiated by Nintendo and while the industry did pretty well during this time it has grown significantly in the last 20 years and there are all kinds of people who play games, and not all of them are drawn to games by the idea of ogling female flesh and in fact some might be turned off from that. Over sexualization limits the age range that will likely purchase your games. Over sexuazliation of females might draw males within a specific age group, but at the cost of turning other groups away. If that's what you're going for (such as with games like the Sakura series) then fine, but when it was every major game in the industry it displayed a pretty obvious double standard of "male characters are in the game for the player to identify with while female characters are there for window dressing to sell games to male players" and that is something that has been changing.

But there will always be people who's perspective is "but what about ME?! This is what I like so why are bad people trying to change -my- games to something other than what -I- like?"

-Byshop

This is nonsense. Games from the east are censoring themselves for western release out of a fear of backlash, not a desire to realize their true vision. It has nothing to do with the what the developers want to do with their own games, and is no less disturbing then Hollywood pushing homosexuals to the back to satisfy popular views on sexuality in China. The push back against sexual content in games is specifically aimed at developers and publishers. There is no way to claim it is about what the folks who make games really want.

Heck, most of them just want money.

The silliest part of this whole debate is the fact that games have far less extreme sexual content then any other medium. Heck music tends to push more boundaries. If a popular video game depicted something like Daenerys Targaryen's (age 13 in the novel) first sexual encounter with Drogo the media would riot. They most certainly wouldn't clamor to have it turned into an HBO series. Yet here we are, talking about boobs, as if there is something far more controversial about them then barely pubescent girls getting sold to giant barbarian slavers who celebrate forced weddings by killing and raping each other. Oh, and their slaves of course. Why have slaves in a TV show if you are not going to kill and rape them I guess.

And holy carp, you are lucky to even find an English translation of games that feature the kind of content you will find in novels written by women for women. (side question for the person who likes sex games: Is this still true? It used to be true, but I have become very complacent when it comes to the politics of kink) I like to think of myself as open minded, but Laurell K Hamilton is just out there. Merry Gentry is all about the harem fantasies of the Queen of Monsters. We are still about a decade away from seeing such things on Steam.

@kittennose: How is it censorship to not release a game in all countries?

The reason those games you mentioned didn't get an English translation isn't because of some leftist conspiracy pressuring them to not release it, but because the publishers don't think there is a large enough audience in the west to justify the time and money it would take to release it over here.

Its not just anime games about busty girls. There are a few Ace Attorney games that weren't released outside of Japan, Valkyria Chronicles 3 was never released outside of Japan, Sony refused to release Demon Souls outside of Japan. So were all those due to censorship or just money? Then theres also a very large amount of German adventure games that are.only sold in Germany.

Again all your doing is refusing to see past your own self interests.

First, this has nothing to do with my self interest. My personal sexuality would make Victorians call me a prude. I was just raised by extremely kinky people shunned by society (lesbian/trans) and so I don't take kindly to kink shaming. I do not find it progressive or respectful. I refuse to concede claims that such things are good for society, or about protecting women. They are about control, and looking down on people. Politically speaking I am extremely pro-kink. Personally speaking, sex is kinda icky. That is sort of why I had to abandon my book club when they discovered Laurell K Hamilton. I most certainly did not try to push them into selecting something else that better reflected my own personal taste. I acted like an adult, and bowed out.

Second, it wouldn't be hard at all to find a list of a hundreds of eastern games censored for western releases. Heck I bet there is some website out there that catalogs the history of western localization. Maybe even one that just does the naughty bits. One of the few absolutely true statements that can be uttered in this entire conversation is that those developers do not alter their games for the sake of their own creative vision. I am also quite sure they wouldn't mind having the Japanese version released on Steam, with perhaps an English translation in the workshop. You know, 'cause money. That however wouldn't be allowed, because of the expected backlash by the media.

People who are interested in allowing content creators to explore their own visions don't deal in shame, insults, or backlashes. They simply avoid what doesn't suit them. So I will happily call BS on any claims that those with puritan inclinations are just looking out for creative types.

It's a distraction for someone like me, it panders to mostly straight males, and it may show to women that this is still a boys only industry and girls need not apply. At least, for the most part, the western industry is making somewhat better strides with making female characters. Like Aloy from Horizon, Female Morgan Yu from Prey, and Ellie from the Last of Us.

Luckily Sony changed their mind about Demon Souls.

@horgen: They didnt. They sold the publishing rights for America to Atlas and the European rights to Namco Bandai

@kittennose: and how is it censorship?

All your describing is a company changing their product so it would sell more or abstaining from selling it because they think it would make a loss.

Aha. Well at least it was released in Europe and America as well.

@horgen - I'm curious. What political affiliation is the person who came up with the idea for the political gamer sub forum? I'm so impressed that you guys are allowing this kind of conversation. Which political side gets the credit for this wonderful idea?

I don't know where to begin... Political discussions used to be Off-Topic. Then some decided that Trump should be president. A consequence of that was political topics drowning most other topics in OT. After some discussions, PG was created. At least that is the more official story. :P

This, like the claim that it is all about helping developers make the game they want to make, is nonsense. It is as baseless as claiming comic artists complied with the Comics Code in pursuit of more money. Or that Hollywood alters their content for China or the Middle East out of fear of consumers will refuse to buy it.

Worst of all, this entire debate always pointless. Every generation has it. In America the next generation always looks back upon the standards of the last and wonders how old people could be so selfish and hypersensitive. Then we just shrug and thank gosh they all died or faded into irrelevance. I mean seriously. look back at how art has evolved in the past twenty years. Do you honestly believe that content is going to be less extreme in 2037?

If not, what is the point of all this pearl clutching?

@kittennose: publishers and distributers are very different.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

But even with your misjudged comparison that is true. With the comic code you were still free to write what ever you wanted, it would just be a lot harder to sell it if you broke the code. And the changes made to films are often done to appeal to different audiences, such as with Pirates of the Caribbean where the chinese character had a lot less screen time in the chinese version as they thought he would put audiences off watching it as he was a racial stereotype. Like wise King Kong vs Godzilla was heavily edited in the west to put great emphasis on Kong and removed a lot of the Japanese comedy which they thought Americans wouldn't get.

You have no idea what you are talking about. This isn't a matter of speculation.

Link

The first line is: "The Comics Code Authority (CCA) was formed in 1954 by the Comics Magazine Association of America as an alternative to government regulation" It had nothing in the world to do with making more money, and is the antithesis of letting artists make they art they want to make. They, quite literally, censored themselves to avoid the wrath of a heavy handed government. In addition, I doubt you honestly believe the bulk of Hollywood censorship for Chinese or Middle Eastern release is about how consumers will react, rather then the government. Particularly in light of recent events.

@kittennose: do you seriously not understand what the word "alternative" means?

Yes. It means the comic industry changed their behavior to avoid government regulation, because they feared that regulation would be even more restrictive. They chose to make a compromise to preserve the little scrap of artistic integrate they were allowed to keep. Well, most did. Others had to go underground for a few decades while they waited for pearl clutches to die.

@kittennose: You realise you just destroyed your entire argument? So they could do what they want, but they would have to remain with a niche audience where financial success was unlikely. So it was about money, it's always about money.

Eh? when did you come to that conclusion?

Marvel is changing their comics because they are a struggling business and they are looking to expand their market. Not because their fear government regulation.

@Jacanuk: No idea what you are talking about. I am talking about This. I didn't even know they were struggling. Thought they were bought by Disney for billions or something.

You have that backwards. Several comics enjoyed a great deal of sucsess, being sold on the open market. If they wished to continue to exist had to either change or they had to be sold in businesses that were only technically legal. Assuming they didn't just give up like Tales from the Crypt.

"In 1954, Gaines and Feldstein intended to add a fourth book to their horror publications by reactivating an earlier title, The Crypt of Terror. They were stopped dead in their tracks, however. Following the publication of Fredric Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent , horror and other violent comics had come under scrutiny by parents, schoolteachers, clergymen, psychologists, and others who viewed the material as dangerous to the well-being of children and a significant contributor to the juvenile delinquency crisis in America. Matters came to a head in April and June 1954 with a highly publicized Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency. Hearings targeted violent comic books—which fared poorly in the proceedings. While the committee stopped short of blaming the comics industry for juvenile delinquency, they did suggest it tone down the product. Publishers were left reeling.

The industry deftly avoided outside censorship by creating the self-regulatory Comics Magazine Association of America (CMAA) and a Comics Code Authority (CCA) that placed severe restrictions on violent comic book genres. Publishers were forbidden from using the words "terror" and "horror" in titles, for example, and forbidden from depicting zombies, werewolves, and other gruesome characters and outré horror fiction trappings. Gaines was fed up; he believed his titles were being specifically targeted and realized they were doomed to future failure. He threw in the towel, canceling Tales from the Crypt and its companion titles in September 1954. Since an issue of The Crypt of Terror had already been produced, it was published as the final issue of Tales from the Crypt, February/March 1955."

You will notice the extreme lack of "helping artists make the art they want" and "The pursuit of profit" in stories that contain words like forbidden and doomed. Being forced to sell your work in barely legal establishments like headshops isn't great for profits. The senate hearings were not about fostering artistic vision or profits either. They were about suppressing both, because some folks didn't like the fact that artists with that kind of artistic vision were able to turn such a profit.

@kittennose: yes when attitudes change businesses change as well. Why are you describing this as if its something sinister?

LOL that code is not a government way of controlling "free speech" its a voluntary "code" that some use. Both marvel and DC has a different system to rate their comics.

But yes the comic industry is struggling. fewer and fewer "nerds" are reading actual comics. And Disney bought Marvel to secure the rights to the movies which earns them billions not because of the few comics being sold. If you look at Marvel comics its down 25% this month in sales compared to same month last year

Because I think using the threat of legislation to beat artists into submitting to standards both they and their audience openly rejects is a bad thing. I mean holy crap, it wasn't until 1989 that comics were even allowed to feature homosexuals. No idea why anyone would defend it, particularly in retrospect. At the end of the day however, that is kind of a side issue. The claims I am rejecting is that such movements are in the interest of helping Artists make the art they want to make, or the pursuit of profit. Again, the senate hearing that promoted the adoption of the Comics Code had nothing to do with either. Artists with that kind of vision could not be allowed to continue making money off their vision, so the people who disliked them lobbied the government to stop them. Same goes for the political rabbling that resulted in the adoption of the PAA and ESRB.

Conversations about art and profit are best left to companies and their customers, assuming there is no unconsensual exploitation going on. Those that have a problem with other people's art should, I donno, make their own or something. Shame there are so many people who choose to scream "What about me!?" instead.

@kittennose: im not defending it, I'm just not blatantly lying about it like you are.

Quote the lie, assuming you actually have something to say.

@kittennose: that the code was something forced and not voluntary.

Like I said before if you don't like the industry, why don't you make something yourself rather than complaining about how other people do it? That's ultimately what killed the comic code, people gradually stopped bothering to listen to it and did there own thing.

@toast_burner:

Perhaps you could quote were I said it was anything but an effort to avoid legislation? If you manage to find it you do have my apology for the slip, but I am sure I typed "to avoid legislation" and the like several times. So claiming some sort of misunderstanding seems disingenuous. Almost as disingenuous as your "make something yourself" argument.

@kittennose: which you provided no evidence for. There was an attempt to use legislation against comics but it was found unconstitutional.

The comic code was voluntary and was made to appease the public I.e their consumers. Earlier you mentioned parents were the ones pushing it, well who the hell do you think was paying for all the comics kids read?

You are grasping at straws and are clearly very ignorant.

@toast_burner: Are you going going to quote where I claimed it was forced? Perhaps you should be more careful with the word lie.

As for evidence of the threat of legislation, that has already been provided. Again: Link. Very first line: "The Comics Code Authority (CCA) was formed in 1954 by the Comics Magazine Association of America as an alternative to government regulation." If you want alternate sources: Here. It says stuff like:

Again, a shocking lack of "Helping artists make the art they want", "Pursuing profits" and "If you don't like it, make something yourself." If you disagree, and somehow think it was about helping artist makes the art they wanted, pursuing profits, or even making the content you value perhaps you can provide some evidence. Particularly since you are the one who has provided none.

As for the "What about the parent's" argument, that is an argument that defends using the threat of legislation to club artists into submitting to a standard they reject. It has nothing to do with art, profits, or making your own content. Has a lot to do with racism and homophobia, but not art, profits, or personal responsibility.

@kittennose: again so what? Yes people back then were more racist and homophobic, but what's your alternative? Force them to buy comics that go against their fucked up morals?

Comic books were disliked by a large portion of the public, so they changed to be more appealing. Its shitty but that's what you have to put up with in a capitalist society.

Stop grasping at straws and get to the point. You are yet to even tie any of this drivel into the original discussion about Japanese media not being as popular in the west and vice versa somehow being an injustice.

@toast_burner:

So I will take that as an inability to quote the lie. You should perhaps examine your own honesty. I would like to know how you got it in your head that I support forcing anyone to buy anything. I explicitly argued in favor of letting artists and patrons hash that out between themselves. I only object to third parties using threats of legislation to disrupt that discussion. Perhaps you can quote the part of my posts that gave you some other impression?

Or, you know, maybe stop relying on lies and insults? Maybe offer a position without moving the goalpost, and perhaps even supplement it with some evidence?