I don't think it was J.J. Abrams' fault that this turned out the way it did. The studio just dropped the ball badly, pinning the fact that it's a third person shooter on him is just irresponsible. This could have been an RPG easily, because of all the elements at play in the star trek universe. Going for a third person run and gun game was entirely the developer's fault. And they even had the nerve of actually saying "the most genuine Star Trek experience"... give me a break...

@Suikogaiden @stuckboy Well I have to agree with stuckboy. The ESRB can't really label something as homosexual, because it is classifying it differently and could be labeled as discriminating. There is a warning on both ME3 and DA2 about sexual themes, this includes homosexuality. Like it or not it's there and the ESRB has posters that stores have informing parents of the classification of games. If they decide to ignore these and buy their 10-15 year old son a game rated for mature audiences only, they have no one but themselves to blame.

I worked at blockbuster man, we sold games there, we had the ESRB. I was doing this about the time that GTA4 came out, and there were many times that I saw parents buying that game for their 8 year old. And I would tell them, "Sir/mam, this game is rated M for people over 18 because it has nudity, violence, drug use, sexual themes and strong language. Definitely not for your son" and we were obligated to say this to the parents, and 9 out of 10 would say "Oh it doesn't matter, he's played the others".

Again, parents are to blame for not caring at all.

@NTM23 My take on this is:

Me: Hey, what are you making?

Creators of statue: I'm making this statue for our collector's edition.

Me: Aw, can I see?

Creators: Sure!

Me: Huh. Why is it just a slab of torso with boobs?

Creator: Well it's meant to signify a "grotesque take" on the Roman marble sculptures of the second and third centuries, it's a "conversation piece".

@edjos Look, we don't like it. And like I can't force you to not like it, you can't force me to like it. We all like different things.

I am not defending the statue because I don't like it, BUT I am defending the right to put it out there in the market and I am against artistic censorship regardless of the real motive(entirely left to your own perception) of the marketing.

But I will also defend your right to buy it if you like it. I reiterate, I DO NOT LIKE this statue, I WOULD NOT buy it and put it on display. But some people do, and I will stand by your freedom to do so.

@NTM23 @Jediprince I agree with you entirely. But like I said, you think it was a bad idea, I share your opinion. But clearly given the responses of some of the people here... the minority, think otherwise. One man's treasure is another man's trash. It's a difference of opinion. I'm not saying we can't disagree and that you should like it no matter what. Because I don't even like it, and would make less sense if I was to force you to like something I don't even like.

Now, I'm not defending the statue per say, what I am defending is the right that they have to put out anything, as long as it is within the boundaries of law. That's it.

@jess_effff @Jediprince And that is exactly your problem. You can be offended all you want, the fact of the matter is, even if you find it offensive, tasteless, tacky, or whatever adjetive you want, they are still free to put it out. You may not like it, like I said before I DON'T like it, but they are free to do so and it's their constitutional right to do it. And no one has any right to censor or stop them for X or Y reason. Being offended by it doesn't mean anything, because it is subjective, what offends you may not offend me, heck some women might not even care about this at all. And like the first post said, there are zombie women running around in bikinis in the game, you attack them and you take their arms of, their heads explode and all that's left is exactly that... a torso with no limbs attached. So how this isn't part of the game is completely irrelevant, because it is part of the game.

That it is a part of the game they shouldn't have focused on? Yes, I agree, there are a lot of other things in the game to focus on. Why not offer a statue of one of the main characters holding their preferred weapon? Why not offer a statue of one of the game's most iconic special zombies, wether if they were male or female? Something other than this? Sure, I agree a 100%, my point is and always has been, you can't censor freedom of choice, of speech, or art expression on the grounds of "offensive", because it goes against THAT constitutional right. And yeah, some things are changing.

But our culture has been like this for years. Sex has always been something that sells, and you know what, if the breasts were actually naked, if the torso had no bikini on, I would have lifted you up and support you because THEN it would be completely about sex. David's statue is entirely about sex too. But the thing is, it's not, so it's still in the boundaries if you look at it objectively.

@jess_effff @Jediprince So the whole point is that you get to judge if it's an issue with men or not? That is just laughable. You do realize that what you're talking about can be said about different industries? And that some industries are more focused on their dominant segment of buyers over the minority? Like how companies that make perfume usually advertise with insanely fit, handsome men without shirts and tight pants to appeal to women, because fragrance is mostly a market dominated by female costumers. The sad reality is that the gaming industry is dominated by male costumers still, and what do marketers do? Appeal to men by offering this kind of product.

As men, we have a right to be offended by the cosmetics industry for objectifying men, but we just get laughed at and society tells us to live with it.

Sure, like I said, I wouldn't buy it, I don't see the appeal of showcasing a mutilated human body anywhere. But that's just me, and there are sure people out there that would buy it. Who needs to get their head out of their ass is you and start growing up.

And like I said, you can whine all you want, a crime was not commited by them for excersizing their constitutional rights, so grow up and deal with it.

You want to live in a democracy and never be offended again? Well then you're an idiot.

@NTM23 Make no mistake, we do see how women might be offended by it. But this "offense" is something subjective, and for the sake of freedom of choice, of speech, of artistic expression, being offended is not reason for censorship. Not now, not ever. And maybe it's how I'm understanding it, but for what you're saying what would the definition of a regular zombie be for you? A male zombie?

You do realize that it's completely against the concept of equality of gender that the feminists advocate so much for? True equality can't be selective, you can't be equal in some grounds and superior or inferior in some others. So if it makes it alright that the zombie be male, why should it not be if it's female? Why the double standard? Double standards have no place in the fight for equality.

The arguement is that it objectifies women? That it somehow promotes violence towards women? So then under these accusations, if it's violence against women, then it's offensive and sexist, but if it's against males, then it's completely socially acceptable. Again, double standard. The statue of David, which isn't something new, objectifies men in the eyes of women and homosexual men, but it's art and it's completely socially acceptable. Again, double standard.

Why? Why the double standard? You want equality? Then this piece should be as offensive if it was of either gender or completely acceptable as well.

And the fact remains, that even if the torso is a marketing ploy, even if it's a tasteless, disgusting, tacky and offensive piece of art, it remains what it is. Art. It was made by a sculpturer, an artist who was finding a way to express something to the gamers that were going to buy this game in it's collector's edition. You could critisize it, you could say "this piece was the wrong choice to add into a collector's edition" and I would say to you, yeah, I share your opinion. I wouldn't buy it. But there are still people who would. And what's underlying here is the fact that Deep Silver was censored on grounds of "being offensive" towards a group of people, for doing something that is in no way ilegal. You have a right to be offended, but there's also the other side of it, there are those who have the right to not care if you're offended.

You are free to say, do or choose whatever you want as long as it remains in the boundaries of law. No law was broken here, except the fact that these people were attacked and forced to apologize for excersizing their right to choose what they wanted to do, even if we disagree with them and think that their choice was the wrong one.

@jess_effff Rather than just copy-pasting your comment over and over, let's try to take advantage of the fact that we have a rich vocabulary in the english language and just elaborate a response fitting to each individual that you reply to.

That being said, keep it civil. I can tell how enraged you are and how "offended" you might be. Well, the fact of the matter is, feminists scream about equality but if it was as you suggest, a male torso or a male's bottom half in a speedo, no one would give it a second thought. Women and men alike. THAT is the truth, because we live in a society that constantly protects women in such a way that anything involving violence, death, gore, is only socially acceptable or manageable if it's directed towards men. Where is the equality in that? Like I said before, you want real equality, then this should be as offensive as it is if it was male. But since it's "acceptable" if it's male, then why should it be offensive and sexist if it was female? Why the double standard? Double standards have no room in real equality. And nowhere does it say that making this kind of "art" is ilegal. Because wether you like it or not, this piece was made by a sculpturer, an artist, and in and by itself, it's a piece of art. You have the right to critisize it, you have the right to not like it, but you ABSOLUTELY do not have the right to censor it on the grounds that you're "offended" by it.

Being offended is subjective, it's different for every individual. Hence, due to it's subjective nature, there can't be a law for it. The right you have for freedom of speech, of choice, of art expression is something no one can take away from you nor censor you if you remain within the boundaries of the law. So yeah, you don't like it, well, that's just something you're gonna have to deal with.

@Timstuff I'm sorry man, but by what you're stating, it violates completely the concept of equality. Part of the whole scandal is the fact that they are screaming about equality and how this is sexist and tacky and whatnot. The bottomline of this is that there are only two things that can result from this: Either it's ok that the torso be male or female, or offensive regardless of what gender it is. The fact of the matter is that if it was a male torso, everyone would be fine with it, but all of a sudden if it's female, then it's offensive and tasteless. Do you see how this qualifies as a double standard? For equality to happen, there can't be double standards, and if we are ok with it being a male torso, we should be ok about it being a female torso.

And also, Deep Silver didn't do anything ilegal. Sure you may scream whatever you want about it being a marketing ploy or being whatever you want but the fact remains, that this "bust" was made by an artist, a sculturer, and remains a work of art. You can criticize it for being tasteless, tacky and what not but that's the other side of it, you may find if offensive. Being offended is subjective, it may offend us, but not everyone. You have a right to be offended, sure. And the other person has his right to not give a damn that you're offended. Why? Because there is no law against it. As long as it remains your freedom to choose, to speak, to do, to express yourself artistically and within the boundaries of law, nobody has a right to stop or censor you in anyway.

There are no laws against it, you don't like it? Deal with it. Because according to the constitution, you are able to do what makes you happy within the boundaries of the law. And there are also a few dodgy things that aren't exactly ilegal, but as they remain technically legal, you are free to do them. The choice is yours and nobody can tell you otherwise.