Support NeoGAF

[JeremyEtcetera]

Actual footage of said game(starts at 4:52:00):
http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/playstation-vr-launch-day-special/2300-11645/

This link is mainly for the people who are reaching or leaning too far in either direction, whether those of you who think it to be more sexual and offensive than it really is, or those of you who think it will be as entertaining as your DOAX3 playthrough.

Spoiler: It is neither, and it is boring.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You forgot the part where it's not a real person. It's made of polygons and textures, and doesn't have any feelings.

Doesn't make it any better or justifiable.

I mean, I don't agree with you on most of this, but I don't really think it's worth the energy to reply to all of it because this is a subjective issue, and most of my replies would be about the context of the interactions. Of course an older man shouldn't be going to the beach with an underage girl with sexual/voyeuristic intentions...

So you see why people are disgusted with it?

but that's not the only reason an older man in an authoritative position would go with a teenage girl to a beach.

Literally look at what you typed.

I promise, it's possible to not think about otherwise attractive girls sexually.

Absolutely, but the marketing and Japanese reactions, and GAF's reactions in EVERY trailer thread are pretty clear cut.

As I've said to others, I never once said the game was 100% innocent in what it's trying to do. But it's not a horrible grooming-rape sim either.

Just having the implication is bad enough.

 

[ZerOmegaG]

Doesn't make it any better or justifiable.

It does actually. It's fiction, anything should be allowed.

 

[packy34]

So you see why people are disgusted with it?

No, because literally everything I've seen - especially of the "beach scene" - is completely non-sexual. Even the photo she shows to the player of her "at the pool" doesn't even feature herself in it.

I honestly believe at least 95% of the "sexuality" in this game is being projected.

 

[AALLx]

Doesn't make it any better or justifiable.

It does make it perfectly justifiable. You know, just like stabbing people in the neck with a hidden knife, it makes it all justifiable, because none of it is real.

 

[User123456]

"Being a voyeur to a teenage girl is disturbing."

^
There's nothing sexually conservative about that thought.

How about being a voyeur to a virtual teenage girl that doesn't exist in the real world?

You shouldn't be doing either of these things at all with a teenager, regardless of how revealing the outfits are. (Let's seriously NOT ignore why they specifically chose a maid outfit).

How about doing those things with a virtual teenager who doesn't exist in the real world?

Doesn't make it any better or justifiable.

How doesn't it? What exactly makes it "not good" or "not justifiable"?

 

[bomblord1]

Because it's innocent flirting if it happens in real life.

In a video game, you have to ask why the developers chose to make that happen. What is the dynamic they are trying to create between you and the girl, and what purpose does it ultimately serve to the type of game they are creating. The innocence and obliviousness of the virtual character is the root of the problem.

See this is where I get hung up. Once again I don't agree that the character is *actually* oblivious she is pretty blatantly flirting. She plays it off as oblivious though which is part of the character and motivation (I can't let him know I'm interested in him but I want to get him to be interested in me). She seems to be written that way from what I've seen of Summer Lesson. It's a fairly common character archetype in Japanese media.

And once again even assuming she is truly 100% oblivious it still does not come off as "dehumanizing" to me for a women to be attractive but not fully aware of her sexuality. She even seems to react appropriately should you attempt to take a move too far its not like you can freely ogle her and she reacts like she doesn't understand what you are doing.

 

[ZerOmegaG]

I honestly believe at least 95% of the "sexuality" in this game is being projected.

Obviously. When a gif of the girl dropping a pen is seen as sexual then we're already off the deep end.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

Everything about this game I've seen so far seems to be whatever the individual wants it to be. Legitimately innocent tutoring experience, playful flirting hostess simulator or a borderline erotic tease game.

I think of recent GTA games where there are systems in place that respond to players' presence and actions in complete and believable way. You can absolutely play GTA V by following traffic rules/obeying laws/behaving normally (outside of missions, of course) and the game caters to that by having stop signs/traffic lights, ability to walk/drive at normal speeds and myriad slice-of-life features. You can also use it as a legit murder simulator (again, outside of missions), terrorizing, wounding and killing people who respond in equally complete and believable ways. There are police who respond to certain crimes, civilians who'll flee from gunshots/explosions and all NPC bodies react appropriately through the game's physics, and they can be set on fire, crushed, stabbed, etc.The game can more or less be anything in between "normal" and full-on violence.

I view Summer Lesson a similar way in that it's meant to mimic an interaction with a person – an interaction that is nuanced enough to either allow degrees of creepiness on the player's part (I recall hearing that the student will react to the player being right in their face) or, at the very least, provide interaction with enough nuance to be interpreted to the player's preference. It's a sim, and it's designed to be "all of the above," and have wide appeal (especially since it's one of the flagship titles for new hardware). It's meant to be a complete experience.

The problem is that some people won't be comfortable with what you can do in (or with how you can interpret/react to) the game, even if they themselves don't want to play/react to the game in that way.

I'd object to the game allowing the player to grope the student in the game, but if it were marketed as allowing that, I really couldn't knock the game or its creators for that. I'd actually prefer character interaction VR games to be more believable when it comes to player action as it would be a good learning experience with how to interact with different types of people. If the player could actually make the student uncomfortable, the then there could be a game over for doing creepy stuff (inappropriate touching, being too close).

 

[Crossing Eden]

It does actually. It's fiction, anything should be allowed.

Fiction, (especially this sort of fiction), is not something that should be glorified, creators are free to make whatever they want, but by god devs are absolutely not free from harsh criticism for the type of fiction they decide to make. The only way a game like this would be justifiable, would be if it had some hard candy type of twist instead of normalizing this sort of shit.

No, because literally everything I've seen - especially of the "beach scene" - is completely non-sexual. Even the photo she shows to the player of her "at the pool" doesn't even feature herself in it.

Again, the implication. An authoritative figure shouldn't be getting fed or going to the beach or being served in a maid outfit dude. Fuck this you know EXACTLY what the issues and implications are.

I honestly believe at least 95% of the "sexuality" in this game is being projected.

I honestly believe that you know exactly what the purpose of this game is and are too ashamed to actually be honest about it. Unlike the devs, the marketing team, and the fucking audience in the one country, (thank god), it's gonna be released to.

It does make it perfectly justifiable. You know, just like stabbing people in the neck with a hidden knife, it makes it all justifiable, because none of it is real.

Ok that's it, i'm PS "but game violence" into that bingo card.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

No, because literally everything I've seen - especially of the "beach scene" - is completely non-sexual. Even the photo she shows to the player of her "at the pool" doesn't even feature herself in it.

I honestly believe at least 95% of the "sexuality" in this game is being projected.

Everyone please read this post and also look at the footage above. Take a step back from arguing and realize what you're looking at.

Edit: It is not a dating sim nor erotic. This is mutual interview: the game, with light teaching sessions.

 

[ZerOmegaG]

Ok that's it, i'm PS "but game violence" into that bingo card.

You're just making it a "things I can't argue against" card.

 

[Ezekiel]

You said it best: People should be free to seek out whatever experiences they want so long as nobody is negatively affected.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You're just making it a "things I can't argue against" card.

No it's not, all of those arguments have been well argued against already by myself and others in WAY too many threads to count. Not so coincidentally when it's at the defense of similar things like this game. So I'll say to you, what I said to others, if you wanna have a legitimate conversation about game violence, either, bump this thread. OR, since you're new here, type an OP and PM a member to start it. Meanwhile, this thread will stay on topic. Thank you. I look forward to your OP since you guys are SUPER eager to discuss the implications and effects of game violence, as am I.

 

[Metrotab]

Fiction, (especially this sort of fiction), is not something that should be glorified, creators are free to make whatever they want, but by god devs are absolutely not free from harsh criticism for the type of fiction they decide to make.

As long as people are also free to laugh at and mock your "harsh criticism". Not everybody is mentally infantilized to the point that all art in the world needs to conform to one's moral tastes.

 

[elyetis]

18 year olds aren't kids by definition in most countries and besides that pedophilia isn't even defined by strickly age (although that defines legal definitions for pedophilic actions), a pedophile is secually attracted to children. Not necessary underage persons, but people who are clearly children by all aspects including mental and physical appearances.

More than the semantics, I think his point was really only that whatever the fantasy/fetish, what is it to judge when the only things "suffering" from it are thoughts, words, drawings or .. polygons. What matter is if that person moral prevent him or her from acting upon it, when it would make someone suffer from it.

 

[AALLx]

Ok that's it, i'm PS "but game violence" into that bingo card.

You bring up this bingo card nonsense as though I didn't bring up a legitimate response. What, now you're telling me peeking up a skirt is actually worse than murder?

You're being hypocritical about all this if sex and erotica is wrong but murder and violence is A-OK.


Edit: P.S. I don't mind virtual murder either. Again, none of that is real.

 

[ZerOmegaG]

No it's not, all of those arguments have been well argued against already by myself and others in WAY too many threads to count. Not so coincidentally when it's at the defense of similar things like this game.

Your argument here is the complete joke that is applying real life morals to video games (and then only singling out sexual content). You might as well just come out and say "it's bad because I don't like it".

 

[Crossing Eden]

As long as people are also free to laugh at and mock your "harsh criticism". Not everybody is mentally infantilized to the point that all art in the world needs to conform to one's moral tastes.

I mean you guys can laugh but there's a reason you guys are trying so hard to defend it. I imagine the Japanese audience would laugh at western gamers coming to the defense of it as "It's just a game where you teach!!! There's no implications here at all. Game violence gais." I imagine even the devs would get a chuckle at that.

You bring up this bingo card nonsense as though I didn't bring up a legitimate response. What, now you're telling me peeking up a skirt is actually worse than murder?

if you wanna have a legitimate conversation about game violence, either, bump this thread. OR, since you're new here, type an OP and PM a member to start it. Meanwhile, this thread will stay on topic. Thank you. I look forward to your OP since you guys are SUPER eager to discuss the implications and effects of game violence, as am I. Hell, even make it about sexualization vs game violence. Just stop trying to deflect from the thread. Thanks.

.

Your argument here is the complete joke that is applying real life morals to video games (and then only singling out sexual content). You might as well just come out and say "it's bad because I don't like it".

Thanks for acknowledging the bolded as the implication.

 

[packy34]

I honestly believe that you know exactly what the purpose of this game is and are too ashamed to actually be honest about it. Unlike the devs, the marketing team, and the fucking audience in the one country, (thank god), it's gonna be released to.

Ashamed? Dude, I'm about as far away from being ashamed about sex as a person can be. I personally just don't see any reason to get my jimmies rustled about this game. There's no dating, romantic comments, sex, or anything other than being a platonic tutor to be found in this game. The player has to bring the dirty thoughts with them into the game - the game doesn't provide them. THAT'S the point. As most people who've actually played the game have said - it's mostly tame and boring. I just... don't get the outrage.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

You disgust me OP

Its already here man. You see the usb onahole attachments? SIGN. ME. UP.

I mean, I understand you don't want to be judged for wanting to play a voyeuristic Japanese School Girl game. No one likes to be judged. But just as a friendly suggestion, perhaps a better strategy would involve not immediately bragging about the hentai game fleshlight accessory you want to SIGN UP for in the very same thread where you try to establish how harmless and innocent this game is?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

"Being a voyeur to a teenage girl is disturbing."

^
There's nothing sexually conservative about that thought.

As long as the girls are depicted as legal age, and there's no criminal acts being depicted, I'm not going to get into a witch hunt over how other people get their virtual rocks off. Glass houses and all that.

And this isn't even pornography. Just titillation, aping the likes of DoA. There are going to be many avenues for the empowerment of women in gaming going forward, Baby's First Virtual Waifu Sim isn't going to be it.

 

[AALLx]

I mean you guys can laugh but there's a reason you guys are trying so hard to defend it. I imagine the Japanese audience would laugh at western gamers coming to the defense of it as "It's just a game where you teach!!! There's no implications here at all. Game violence gais." I imagine even the devs would get a chuckle at that.



.

You're missing my point. I'm not arguing against video game violence. If you see my edit, I'm all for it. I'm using it to point the hypocrisy in your stance.

edit:

No it's not, all of those arguments have been well argued against already by myself and others in WAY too many threads to count. Not so coincidentally when it's at the defense of similar things like this game. So I'll say to you, what I said to others, if you wanna have a legitimate conversation about game violence, either, bump this thread. OR, since you're new here, type an OP and PM a member to start it. Meanwhile, this thread will stay on topic. Thank you. I look forward to your OP since you guys are SUPER eager to discuss the implications and effects of game violence, as am I.

And no, bringing up video game violence is on-topic, because the question is about the moral "questionability" of games to some people, and how they like to draw lines on the sand.

 

[Kinyou]

So you're upset that not more people are upset about it? Maybe people just don't take this game as serious as you do. It looks like a fun experience to me.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Obviously. When a gif of the girl dropping a pen is seen as sexual then we're already off the deep end.

I use to have an teacher who'd knock the pens off of girls desks and then make them pick them up. It's clearly an action that exists in the game to get the character to bend over for the viewer.

I don't mind products like Summer Lesson existing, but I'm in no way comfortable with people defending them as being totally innocent.

 

[snoopeasystreet]

I think the game's subject matter is inherently creepy and doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. That said, it's not the only representation of people living their creepo fantasies out there on the internet and by that standard, this stuff is relatively tame.

There's more weird fandom's than VR Anime Shy Dirty Boy Simulators that we should be worried about.

 

[TheGraykid]

You forgot the part where it's not a real person. It's made of polygons and textures, and doesn't have any feelings.

That doesn't make it not creepy/disturbing.

I haven't played the game so ultimately I don't know completely what experience it portrays. But it's entire setup is putting you in a position of power over a teenage girl and then having you groom (admittedly not sexually) and lightly flirt with her. And add to this the fact that the game "rewards" you as you continue through it by letting you see her in different outfits and in different scenarios.

It's a reproduction of a relationship that in most common society we don't approve of. That's what it portrays. The thing that really distinguishes it, the difference between it and something like for instance Lolita is the way these actions are framed. That's it's all okay and cool and that this relationship is okay. There's a really interesting version this game somewhere in the ether which contains its levity, but still examines the relationship displayed here and all it's participants (including us, the player).

This is not that game.

Therefore all we're left with is this really positive portrayal of what is often an abusive relationship. Hence the creepiness.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Ashamed? Dude, I'm about as far away from being ashamed about sex as a person can be.

This game isn't about sex whatsoever but about the implication and grooming, so you're not actively having sex but it's absolutely inappropriate for as you stated, "a man in an authoritative position" to be interacting with a student in this way. The fact that it's becoming even more normalized in a country which already has a MASSIVE issue with this sort of thing. The normalization of this is not ok in anyway shape or form. It's wrong. "It's a game, it's a fantasy." Doesn't justify it. Media like this isn't just harmless fun. The thing about game violence, is that it's WAY more of a fantasy, similar to hollywood, than media like this. No one is a hooded assassin who knows parkour, no one is a crime member who's lived to a cynical middle age who's also rich and goes outside to kill people with John Wick like accuracy, no one is a rich white dude rescuing natives from other natives with magical tattoos, those have NO real life equivalents whatsoever.

I personally just don't see any reason to get my jimmies rustled about this game. There's no dating, romantic comments, sex, or anything other than being a platonic tutor to be found in this game. The player has to bring the dirty thoughts with them into the game - the game doesn't provide them. THAT'S the point. As most people who've actually played the game have said - it's mostly tame and boring. I just... don't get the outrage.

The OP outlined really well what the issues are, as did I above. And so does this post

That doesn't make it not creepy/disturbing.

I haven't played the game so ultimately I don't know completely what experience it portrays. But it's entire setup is putting you in a position of power over a teenage girl and then having you groom (admittedly not sexually) and lightly flirt with her. And add to this the fact that the game "rewards" you as you continue through it by letting you see her in different outfits and in different scenarios.

It's a reproduction of a relationship that in most common society we don't approve of. That's what it portrays. The thing that really distinguishes it, the difference between it and something like for instance Lolita is the way these actions are framed. That's it's all okay and cool and that this relationship is okay. There's a really interesting version this game somewhere in the ether which contains its levity, but still examines the relationship displayed here and all it's participants (including us, the player).

This is not that game.

Therefore all we're left with is this really positive portrayal of what is often an abusive relationship. Hence the creepiness.

^ Thank you.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

As long as the girls are depicted as legal age, and there's no criminal acts being depicted, I'm not going to get into a witch hunt over how other people get their virtual rocks off. Glass houses and all that.

And this isn't even pornography. Just titillation, aping the likes of DoA. There are going to be many avenues for the empowerment of women in gaming going forward, Baby's First Virtual Waifu Sim isn't going to be it.

It's not even this.

 

[ar4757]

I really don't understand, why put so much thought into a game that you are not interested in? A simple "it's not my type of game" would do.

Yup I'm not interested either but I'm not disgusted or whatever. There's much "worse" and even then, just like with shooters, better it be a game than real life!

 

[Kinyou]

That doesn't make it not creepy/disturbing.

I haven't played the game so ultimately I don't know completely what experience it portrays. But it's entire setup is putting you in a position of power over a teenage girl and then having you groom (admittedly not sexually) and lightly flirt with her. And add to this the fact that the game "rewards" you as you continue through it by letting you see her in different outfits and in different scenarios.

It's a reproduction of a relationship that in most common society we don't approve of. That's what it portrays. The thing that really distinguishes it, the difference between it and something like for instance Lolita is the way these actions are framed. That's it's all okay and cool and that this relationship is okay. There's a really interesting version this game somewhere in the ether which contains its levity, but still examines the relationship displayed here and all it's participants (including us, the player).

This is not that game.

Therefore all we're left with is this really positive portrayal of what is often an abusive relationship. Hence the creepiness.

Aren't you just playing as her tutor? The tutors I knew were often in a similar age range, they also don't have that much of a position of power.

 

[Dylan]

I mean, I understand you don't want to be judged for wanting to play a voyeuristic Japanese School Girl game. No one likes to be judged. But just as a friendly suggestion, perhaps a better strategy would involve not immediately bragging about the hentai game fleshlight accessory you want to SIGN UP for in the very same thread where you try to establish how harmless and innocent this game is?

Legitimate LOL. Thank you.

I needed that after 10 pages.

 

[_Ryo_]

Doesn't make it any better or justifiable.

What? Yes it does. If that weren't the case every piece of fiction in existence that featured horrible scenes would not be justifiable which is just an ignorant and absurd thought.

Furthermore the characters in Summer Lesson and every game ever created are not sentient beings. They're just programmed code/AI robots, etc.

If per chance these characters developed sentience then I would agree, it would definitely be wrong because even if they're visual/robotic in nature they have the real ability to consent and to make their own choices, as of now they do not, they say and do what their creators and players make them. They don't have thoughts or opinions or options or choices. They're characters. Not life forms.

There is an interesting show you should watch btw, it's called Westworld and it is very similar and relevant to this conversation. I think the characters on WestWorld have an actual claim to object to the way they're treated and that the humans treating them that way are actually doing a very unethical thing.

Summer Lesson characters? Not so much.

 

[glaurung]

This game is the VR equivalent of this:

 

[AALLx]

That doesn't make it not creepy/disturbing.

I haven't played the game so ultimately I don't know completely what experience it portrays. But it's entire setup is putting you in a position of power over a teenage girl and then having you groom (admittedly not sexually) and lightly flirt with her. And add to this the fact that the game "rewards" you as you continue through it by letting you see her in different outfits and in different scenarios.

It's a reproduction of a relationship that in most common society we don't approve of. That's what it portrays. The thing that really distinguishes it, the difference between it and something like for instance Lolita is the way these actions are framed. That's it's all okay and cool and that this relationship is okay. There's a really interesting version this game somewhere in the ether which contains its levity, but still examines the relationship displayed here and all it's participants (including us, the player).

This is not that game.

Therefore all we're left with is this really positive portrayal of what is often an abusive relationship. Hence the creepiness.

Reality =/= Fiction. Some people are perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I don't care what the game is all about. It could be straight up sex for all I care. My point is, no one gets to tell people what they should and should not like as long as no REAL person is being affected.

 

[sensui-tomo]

Aren't you just playing as her tutor? The tutors I knew were often in a similar age range, they also don't have that much of a position of power.

thats what i thought too, like hell i had a band tutor who was only 4 years older than i was at the time. Isnt the tutor's age dependent on the player's age so to speak aka its not revealed and up to the player to decide?

 

[casiopao]

18 year olds aren't kids by definition in most countries and besides that pedophilia isn't even defined by strickly age (although that defines legal definitions for pedophilic actions), a pedophile is secually attracted to children. Not necessary underage persons, but people who are clearly children by all aspects including mental and physical appearances.

ummmm..... u lost me here. Really here. I am totally lost on what u wanted to said.

Not defined strictly by age.
Not underage person.
But more on physical appearances..... so if i like a mature woman which had petite build so....i am a pedo?O_O

 

[Joeku]

This game is the VR equivalent of this:

Nobody. Irons. A Jean skirt.

 

[Burbeting]

Reality =/= Fiction. Some people are perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I don't care what the game is all about. It could be straight up sex for all I care. My point is, no one gets to tell people what they should and should not like as long as no REAL person is being affected.

Some games are banned from discussion in GAF, you know. Not all forms of fiction are "perfectly fine" even if nobody real is affected.

 

[besada]

Reality =/= Fiction. Some people are perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I don't care what the game is all about. It could be straight up sex for all I care. My point is, no one gets to tell people what they should and should not like as long as no REAL person is being affected.

So you're saying you're fine with games that feature sex with underage characters?

 

[Burbeting]

ummmm..... u lost me here. Really here. I am totally lost on what u wanted to said.

Not defined strictly by age.
Not underage person.
But more on physical appearances..... so if i like a mature woman which had petite build so....i am a pedo?O_O

To me it's related to some pieces of media cheating in showing a character that looks definitely under-aged, but is suddenly made fine due to the characters age being inflated to 18, no matter how dishonest it is. The 1000-year old dragon is a real thing that happens.

 

[packy34]

The OP outlined really well what the issues are, as did I above. And so does this post


^ Thank you.

I haven't brought this up yet - I know others have, though - but we should also keep in mind that this isn't reality. Games are fantasy escapisms. I know I'm personally not interested in trying most of the things I do in games. Even IF this game was as bad as you say it is, I still don't see much harm in it. I would much rather someone fantasize about this than actually try it with a real person. The only negative to this would be the argument that this could be a gateway to real sexual abuse, but there's no evidence that games affect people in this way.

I still think it's silly to be having THIS discussion about THIS game, but yeah.

 

[Crossing Eden]

This game is the VR equivalent of this:

At least that dude isn't underage.

Reality =/= Fiction. Some people are perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I don't care what the game is all about. It could be straight up sex for all I care. My point is, no one gets to tell people what they should and should not like as long as no REAL person is being affected.

That post PERFECTLY outlined how grounded the situation in this game is relative to something like a GTA game, (which is literally a perpetual satire of life). Media can normalize certain behaviors, including media like this, in a country where already WAY too much of their media normalizes it. So it absolutely affects real people. GG would've never existed had we not had decades of women in games being constantly objectified, that objectification was normalized and considered to be just the way things were and now we not only have an active movement dedicated to harassing women who speak out against objectification, but also just general harassment of women in general. So don't you imply that media has no effect or that it's just fantasy. Birth of A Nation was a fantasy too, and look what it led to.

I haven't brought this up yet - I know others have, though - but we should also keep in mind that this isn't reality. Games are fantasy escapisms. I know I'm personally not interested in trying most of the things I do in games. Even IF this game was as bad as you say it is, I still don't see much harm in it. I would much rather someone fantasize about this than actually try it with a real person. The only negative to this would be the argument that this could be a gateway to real sexual abuse, but there's no evidence that games affect people in this way.

I still think it's silly to be having THIS discussion about THIS game, but yeah.

Read the above and also this one, especially the bolded.

That doesn't make it not creepy/disturbing.

I haven't played the game so ultimately I don't know completely what experience it portrays. But it's entire setup is putting you in a position of power over a teenage girl and then having you groom (admittedly not sexually) and lightly flirt with her. And add to this the fact that the game "rewards" you as you continue through it by letting you see her in different outfits and in different scenarios.

It's a reproduction of a relationship that in most common society we don't approve of. That's what it portrays. The thing that really distinguishes it, the difference between it and something like for instance Lolita is the way these actions are framed. That's it's all okay and cool and that this relationship is okay. There's a really interesting version this game somewhere in the ether which contains its levity, but still examines the relationship displayed here and all it's participants (including us, the player).

This is not that game.

Therefore all we're left with is this really positive portrayal of what is often an abusive relationship. Hence the creepiness.

 

[Dragonslayer_023]

So you're saying you're fine with games that feature sex with underage characters?

People are way too concerned with the age of fictional characters and I couldn't care less. All that matters is how they look.

 

[messiaen]

Reality =/= Fiction. Some people are perfectly capable of making that distinction. And I don't care what the game is all about. It could be straight up sex for all I care. My point is, no one gets to tell people what they should and should not like as long as no REAL person is being affected.

So games featuring torture, rape, children and any combination of the three are okay? Since it's a game and it's a work of fiction, that's totally okay?

 

[Hexa]

So you're saying you're fine with games that feature sex with underage characters?

What is even this thread?

 

[AALLx]

Some games are banned from discussion in GAF, you know. Not all forms of fiction are "perfectly fine" even if nobody real is affected.

GAF is a forum board with moderators with moral lines themselves who happens to have the power to ban people who go past that moral line. That does not make GAF the absolute authority in moral relativity in this world.

 

[stump sock]

So games featuring torture, rape, children and any combination of the three are okay? Since it's a game and it's a work of fiction, that's totally okay?

But that's also not that removed from saying you couldn't have those themes in movies. Obviously there are some applications that are morally reprehensible (and potentially illegal), but to say that you can't have those things in fiction is a really weird argument.

 

[besada]

People are way too concerned with the age of fictional characters and I couldn't care less. All that matters is how they look.

So are you fine with games where you have sex with characters that appear to be underage?

 

[duckroll]

This game isn't about sex whatsoever but about the implication and grooming, so you're not actively having sex but it's absolutely inappropriate for as you stated, "a man in an authoritative position" to be interacting with a student in this way. The fact that it's becoming even more normalized in a country which already has a MASSIVE issue with this sort of thing. The normalization of this is not ok in anyway shape or form. It's wrong.

Okay, you seem very passionate about pointing out how wrong and bad this is for society, but I'm wondering how consistent this perspective is across cultural lines. Do you specifically see this as a problem for Japan where there should be more attention and focus on it because of how backward you feel their social standards are, or is it something you are interested in discussing for all entertainment?

For example, do you not find it a little creepy that Bioshock Infinite puts the player in the role of a father figure of a young teenage girl, and spends much of the narrative making the girl increasingly sexy as she becomes more confident of who she is and becoming a woman? Is it necessary to evolve her design into one where she wears a low cut dress, especially when the game is in first person and you spend much of the game watching her run forward before turning around and looking at you with inquisitive eyes? As an adult playing such a game, that has to be at least a little weird right?

On the subject of improper relationships in positions of authority, how do you feel about the relationship aspects of Mass Effect and Dragon Age? In these games you are a commander with a team under your command. These include men and women who can be courted, and in some cases pressured, into having a sexual relationship with you. In the case of Mass Effect 2, the character of Jack in particular can be seen as troubling, because it introduces a character who is shown as a victim of child abuse and trafficking, and even after being "saved" by the hero, she exists as a potential conquest for a player who likes "that type of girl".

I think this sort of thing exists everywhere in entertainment in varying degrees, and it is the responsibility of the player to assess how okay they are with it. But to have an honest discussion about such things, it'll require people to actually want to talk about what is problematic and why it is. Things aren't made in a vacuum. For example, I don't think violent games make people do violent things, but they are very clearly an indication that people enjoy violent fantasies at the very least. This is something we can talk about without going scorched earth about, and we can recognize that simulating violent acts can be a form of stress release. But somehow when it comes to talking about sexual stuff, all form of communication seems to break down. It's either right or wrong. You're either on one side or the other. It becomes about labeling people who take a stance instead of actually talking about it. Why do you think that's so?