"Reproduction" in games

[Web Rider]

And as a person who's reading it, uh, I still see it as a moment of pleasure seeking for the virign. That's what Sex is all about. If Sex wasn't about pleasure, then why in the world would people do it? If it was painful, do you think people would engage in it to procreate the species? Nature made sex pleasurable so that we are encouraged to do it, that's not a lie at all.

Yes, otherwise humanity wouldn't reproduce. And that would be stupid on the part of nature. But no, sex is not ALL about pleasure. I assume you're speaking from experience when you say this?

 

Sex isn't to be honored, deified, and said to be a great thing, it isn't that important at all for some people, and in fact, rather disguisting to some people. And it is for these 'some people', that we sorta start this topic. Have artistic freedom all you want, but we always got the right to not see it at well, or at least request you to allow us not to see it, when reading the rest of your work (I may like your awesome story about nuclear annihlation and fighting against a powerful enemy, but I don't need to see sex in the middle of it, and I personally don't see Sex as so important to your main point: That Good Wins).

 

Yes, and such people make up what, .05% of the population? Obviously, these people are not such a representative group as to have them be considered anything more than a biological abnormality. Nature says we're supposed to LIKE sex because we need to reproduce.

 

Yes, you have the right NOT TO LOOK. Nothing more. You can ask me nicely to put pants on David, but I am under no obligation to do so. I can, in response, tell you not to look. You do not have the right to TELL me to cover up my work, you can cover your eyes much easier.

 

Actually, I hate stories where good wins. I'm so sick of it, it's used, overdone, monotonous. This is partly why I enjoy newer RPGs because you can be evil and have evil win. And yes, I agree that if sex isn't necessary to the story, it doesn't need to be there. But I DO think that some sex scenes are necessary for the story to work right.

 

EX: a woman who's been taken advantage of, having sex with say, "the hero", to overcome her fears of being used and abused. In which we see a nice, loving sex scene and not some twisted bondage. The KIND of sex is important here, we don't need every detail, no, but we need to see that our hero, the guy we've been told is a great guy, isn't going to abuse this girl in her most vulnerable moment.

[Ray Jones]

Explicit display of sexual and violent act are in for but one reason: it sells. And the more discussion there is about it, the more it will eventually help selling the game/movie/media-thingy.

 

It sells because people are curious, people want to see things. Especially when no one else sees it. No one wants to have violence, and no one wants to see sex, oh my god of course not!! -- But in everybody's mind there is this little voice whispering, "Take a look, come on, look at it, you know you want to!!"

 

 

Games and movies give the ultimate chance to anonymously have those things, and more, we even can "control" what's going to happen (up to a certain level).

[SilentScope001]

Yes, otherwise humanity wouldn't reproduce. And that would be stupid on the part of nature. But no, sex is not ALL about pleasure. I assume you're speaking from experience when you say this?

 

...Then what is it? Love can still be seen as pleasure. But we are off-topic here.

 

Yes, and such people make up what, .05% of the population? Obviously, these people are not such a representative group as to have them be considered anything more than a biological abnormality. Nature says we're supposed to LIKE sex because we need to reproduce.

 

I was referring of course to people like me, Jae, Cortih. They aren't opposed to sex per se, just that they don't want to see it. Jae don't want to see it because she got the Real Deal, it bores her, and she's worried about childern seeing it and getting an unhealthy view. I don't because it's just distracting from the plot. Corith hates it due to voyuerism. We are bigger than you claim us to be.

 

Actually, I hate stories where good wins. I'm so sick of it, it's used, overdone, monotonous.

 

So do I. But it was part of the example I made, in which that there are games with a main point, which has nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

 

The KIND of sex is important here, we don't need every detail, no, but we need to see that our hero, the guy we've been told is a great guy, isn't going to abuse this girl in her most vulnerable moment.

 

Actually, that's make a good point, I'll grant you that.

 

Still,

(1) You aren't going to convince anyone who's stubborn in his beliefs. I could still see that 'hero' being abusive and manlipuative, and if we play as the 'hero', we'll KNOW if he is good or evil or whatever.

(2) How can you tell if it is abuse or if she really likes it? I doubt a sex scene is going to prove if she is being abused or if she is not being abused. You can always listen to the afterwards speech instead, and listen to the talk.

(3) An example on how your example would be better done: In the Bard's Tale, you got the player as The Bard who found his fiance. The fiance talked about how her time in bed was her most memorable experience and how she missed the Bard after he was captured by Gypsies. Point is, of course, the Bard was in fact using her, and she was being exploited for sexual favors. You knew this because of the Bard's snide comments, the fact he was lying about being captured by Gypsies, and a monologue to himself about how he'll escape from the fiance's grasp and not get married to her.

 

I learnt all that through dialogue, with the Bard being snarky and the Girl speaking lovingly. There was no need for actual sex to be shown to figure out the truth.

[Achilles]

Explicit display of sexual and violent act are in for but one reason: it sells.

I think that to a certain degree this is true, however I also think that to a certain degree this thinking undermines our maturity.

 

When John Woo makes a violent film, he does it to sell tickets. When the Coen Brothers make a violent film, they do it to tell a story. When Michael Bay directs a sex scene, the odds are pretty good that it's going to be gratuitous. When David Cronenburg directs a sex scene, it's almost certainly crucial to the story.

 

No doubt that low-brow use of violence and sex attracts an audience, but that doesn't automatically mean that artistic use of sex and violence should be lumped into this category.

[Web Rider]

I was referring of course to people like me, Jae, Cortih. They aren't opposed to sex per se, just that they don't want to see it. Jae don't want to see it because she got the Real Deal, it bores her, and she's worried about childern seeing it and getting an unhealthy view. I don't because it's just distracting from the plot. Corith hates it due to voyuerism. We are bigger than you claim us to be.

Perhaps we miscommunicared. I was under the impression you were talking about people who were asexual or had no desire to have/see sex or pleasure themselves physically. Not people who are simply opposed to seeing it on the tube.

 

So do I. But it was part of the example I made, in which that there are games with a main point, which has nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

Perhaps the hero is on a quest to kill rapists? Yes, I'm making this up on the fly, but my point is that sex COULD have some relation to the plot. I simply think people shouldn't dismiss ALL sex right off just because it IS sex.

 

Actually, that's make a good point, I'll grant you that.

 

Still,

(1) You aren't going to convince anyone who's stubborn in his beliefs. I could still see that 'hero' being abusive and manlipuative, and if we play as the 'hero', we'll KNOW if he is good or evil or whatever.

Of course, I don't intend to, only you can change your mind. That creates an entirely different kind of hero. But I disagree about us playing the hero. If we KNOW they're good/bad, it's dumb, what's the point? You know how it'll turn out. The whole idea of modern RPGs is to make a hero who's not just heroic, but human, with all those faults.

 

(2) How can you tell if it is abuse or if she really likes it? I doubt a sex scene is going to prove if she is being abused or if she is not being abused. You can always listen to the afterwards speech instead, and listen to the talk.

Expressions, her mood afterward, her feelings toward the hero. But it gives an interesting dimension to things when you see what happened, and then hear how the characters felt about it. It gives an interesting thought process between how your interpreted what happened, and how the characters did.

 

(3) An example on how your example would be better done: In the Bard's Tale, you got the player as The Bard who found his fiance. The fiance talked about how her time in bed was her most memorable experience and how she missed the Bard after he was captured by Gypsies. Point is, of course, the Bard was in fact using her, and she was being exploited for sexual favors. You knew this because of the Bard's snide comments, the fact he was lying about being captured by Gypsies, and a monologue to himself about how he'll escape from the fiance's grasp and not get married to her.

 

I learnt all that through dialogue, with the Bard being snarky and the Girl speaking lovingly. There was no need for actual sex to be shown to figure out the truth.

True, but I also think that's one of the failings of modern RPGs, too much information is given to you through dialog. In a situation where information must be gleaned through visuals, it is much harder to discern what's right/wrong or really going on.

[Ray Jones]

No doubt that low-brow use of violence and sex attracts an audience, but that doesn't automatically mean that artistic use of sex and violence should be lumped into this category.

Pure artistic work is in no way interested in sales figures, only in expressing itself. Thus it cannot be lumped into the "selling" category. ;

 

However, whenever there is sex and violence in a commercial movie, it is because it sells.

[Web Rider]

However, whenever there is sex and violence in a commercial movie, it is because it sells.

because we live in the Star Wars universe where all good is Jedi and all evil is Sith?

 

You can't simply divide works into "commercial" and "art". Some are both.

 

The movie Mr. Brooks is both sexual, and violent. But it's done to tell the story, the violence is mostly low save for one scene. There is blatant sex, but it's only shown for a few moments. It's artistic, because it tells a good story, it's a psychological thriller, which is a work of art in and of itsself. It's violent because Mr Brooks is a murderer, and it's sexual because he kills people while they're having sex and then poses their bodies in a sexual fashion.

 

This movie has both sex and violence, and neither were done to "sell" the movie, the selling point of the movie was the fact that it's a psychological thriller with some interesting statements about sociopaths and genetics.

[Ray Jones]

because we live in the Star Wars universe where all good is Jedi and all evil is Sith?[/Quote]Do we?

 

You can't simply divide works into "commercial" and "art".

Yes I can.

 

Some are both.

Correct. Hence the phrase "pure artistic work".

 

This movie has both sex and violence, and neither were done to "sell" the movie, the selling point of the movie was the fact that it's a psychological thriller with some interesting statements about sociopaths and genetics.

There were several forms of art used to support the telling of the story. To make it more entertaining, to distract from flaws, in general to make the movie more appealing to the audience -- clearly with the intention to sell it better.

[Web Rider]

Yes I can.

Then draw the line. If you can draw a perfect line between "art" and "commercialism", then there must be two individual items you can place side by side that each will perfectly sit on either side of the line, with absolutely none of anything similar to them falling ON the line.

 

Correct. Hence the phrase "pure artistic work".

There were never pure artistic works, even children with crayons want to "sell" their work to their parents. And they don't even understand economics yet.

 

There were several forms of art used to support the telling of the story. To make it more entertaining, to distract from flaws, in general to make the movie more appealing to the audience -- clearly with the intention to sell it better.

And that IS the point of a movie. However, you assertiona was that ALL violence, and ALL sex in ANY movie was ONLY for the purpose of making it "sell". Because it is a movie, by default, everything in a movie is to make it sell better, to better round out the plot, to enhance the story, to give the viewer a certain perspective on things, or to simply appeal to our lust for violence and sex.

 

However, the latter is not the ONLY reason sex and violence are added to movies. So, unless you would like to provide a counter?

[Darth InSidious]

I would still be against saying “Tasteless Sex = Ban, Ban.” As if the market place wants that type of game then the companies would be fools not to produce that type of games.

 

What about banning bad taste generally? Imagine it - a world devoid of plaster ducks and Crimbo Muzack...

[mimartin]

What about banning bad taste generally?

I’m all for it, the question then would be who decides what is in bad taste? If I’m the one deciding then I’m sorry to say KOTOR is a thing of the past as is Hanna Montana’s father. The mullet is what I consider the ultimate in bad taste. Do you think there is room at Guantanamo for these other bad taste offenders Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Britney Spears, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Clinton…

[jonathan7]

I’m all for it, the question then would be who decides what is in bad taste? If I’m the one deciding then I’m sorry to say KOTOR is a thing of the past as is Hanna Montana’s father. The mullet is what I consider the ultimate in bad taste. Do you think there is room at Guantanamo for these other bad taste offenders Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Britney Spears, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Clinton…

 

Hows Bill Clinton in that list?

[Darth InSidious]

I’m all for it, the question then would be who decides what is in bad taste? If I’m the one deciding then I’m sorry to say KOTOR is a thing of the past as is Hanna Montana’s father. The mullet is what I consider the ultimate in bad taste. Do you think there is room at Guantanamo for these other bad taste offenders Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, Britney Spears, Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Clinton…

Me, naturally. My idea, so I get to be Lord High Executioner and jury on it.

[mimartin]

Hows Bill Clinton in that list?

I like him and would vote for him again, but when it comes to bad taste all I can say is "intern."

Me, naturally. My idea, so I get to be Lord High Executioner and jury on it.

Well I just hope you allow some small suggestions.

[jonathan7]

I like him and would vote for him again, but when it comes to bad taste all I can say is "intern."

 

Aye, I like Clinton, although his taste in woman leaves somethig to be desired... he did marry Satan!

[Darth InSidious]

Well I just hope you allow some small suggestions.

Provided they aren't clichéd.

[Corinthian]

I would think the perjury thing would be in worse taste than sampling the staff.

[Web Rider]

Aye, I like Clinton, although his taste in woman leaves somethig to be desired... he did marry Satan!

 

and his choice in Hummers weren't exactly stellar either. I guess that's why Bush appointed Condi right? No chance of temptation there.

[SilentScope001]

Perhaps the hero is on a quest to kill rapists? Yes, I'm making this up on the fly, but my point is that sex COULD have some relation to the plot. I simply think people shouldn't dismiss ALL sex right off just because it IS sex.

 

You could have the girl scream as the rapist, you know, rapes?

 

You don't need to show the actual scene of sex to convey the message. The question being: Why bother then?

 

Of course, I don't intend to, only you can change your mind. That creates an entirely different kind of hero. But I disagree about us playing the hero. If we KNOW they're good/bad, it's dumb, what's the point? You know how it'll turn out. The whole idea of modern RPGs is to make a hero who's not just heroic, but human, with all those faults.

 

The point of a modern RPG is to figure out the ending. Always have been. You know the DSM Exile is evil, you don't need to go in an expose. What you really need to know is what happens after the DSM Exile kills the Jedi Masters in a rather evil manner. Once you find that out, game ends.

 

I never played an RPG for the characters, only for the plot. Prehaps games might come in the future with more developed 'human' choices, but you can never isolate that metagame element which decides if people say: "Should I play good or bad today?"

 

Expressions, her mood afterward, her feelings toward the hero. But it gives an interesting dimension to things when you see what happened, and then hear how the characters felt about it. It gives an interesting thought process between how your interpreted what happened, and how the characters did.

 

Er. Nah, I don't see the point. Can be conveyed via other methods.

 

(We hear the screams of pain, then we see the laughing girl talking to her mate stating, "Man, that was good! The way you swung that whip at me was so awesome! Do it again next time, will ya?")

 

True, but I also think that's one of the failings of modern RPGs, too much information is given to you through dialog. In a situation where information must be gleaned through visuals, it is much harder to discern what's right/wrong or really going on.

 

I wouldn't be so certain. People may be lying while they speak, meaning that it is harder to tell if they are telling the truth or lying. But mostly, you usually want to make it clear what both people are feeling right off the bat because otherwise, too much time be spent figuring that out, and they may come to different conclusions.

 

What about banning bad taste generally? Imagine it - a world devoid of plaster ducks and Crimbo Muzack...

 

NOOOOO! I might make good money off making lame stuff!

[Jae Onasi]

What about banning bad taste generally? Imagine it - a world devoid of plaster ducks and Crimbo Muzack...

 

What? And miss the opportunity to send my mother a Clapper to turn on the fluorescent light that makes her Chia-Scooby Doo grow some useless greenery? I don't think so.

 

[MJ-W4]

What? And miss the opportunity to send my mother a Clapper to turn on the fluorescent light that makes her Chia-Scooby Doo grow some useless greenery? I don't think so.

 

Now that earns you about 300 DS points. Should 'be nice to your old ones' be made a law? At least over Christmas?

[PoiuyWired]

Well, always be nice to the old ones... you REALLY don't want to piss off those guys sleeping under Antartica...

 

 

But a bit on topic (or off topic as it seems) It is always interesting to see that why sexy things would be a taboo on so many levels that it is almost to the point of stupidity, and while, really, it does minimal harm to the grand scheme of things. Well, is it THAT bad really?

 

Well, I am not going to talk about the general acceptance of violance and war, since it is just too obvious as it is THE popular heroic theme to anything major in our civilizations from art to literature to sport to roleplay to childplay to cultured games to religion to national anthems...and that it is impossable to convince kids that it is something wrong effectively when they open up some supposedly good book and see how heros run around killing random people and rip off their forskins just to get his ticket to marry a cute girl... something that makes GTA look like a friendly teaparty.

 

Granted, I am still going to enjoy virtual slaughtering of everykind lots more than virtual sexy stuff, pr0nz not withstanding.