Anyone heard anything about Jewel Knights?

Visual Novel Community Archive, 2000-2009
#41
quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
Well, as I pointed out, 8-10 year old girls in a sexual situation isn't really something that should be applauded.

Yeah my system glitched, that's what I get for trying to do too many things at once.

Openly applauded no, nor is what I am going to say in support of children that young having sexual relations but it does happen. If you can find copies read studies such as The Lost Children of Rockdale County, a county in the state of Georgia, you will find that some children,who for a time were going into the doctors had cases of syphilis and were as young as 10 to 12. Now if you know anything about that you know they did not get that by sharing a swing at recess. So yes perhaps those situations of children that young make many uncomfortable, but I think the larger question is will some children that young still have those 'urges' or that curiosity at that age if we take it out of games for people over 18 years of age? My guess is some still will, we can protect children from others that intend harm to them up to a point but we cannot protect them from themselves. Therefore wether we 'applaud' it or not we cannot just say it is wrong end of story, because that does nothing to change what is going on in the world except to force the views on some that think it is wrong period, on others that say it is wrong in real life but in games acceptable.

Personally I think the more is out there the better things are because we can see the various tastes of many people. No one ever said we have to like their tastes, but as AG3 said, to paraphrase, we should not simply ban something because some few think it is wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
I know, and everyone plays what they want, but I think there are some limits to what we can call entertainment.

As another I think as said this is censorship. To place limits on something that does not harm another, is to me a form censorship, is banning ideas and is forcing the views of some on others which goes against the idea of accepting all viewpoints. For the record I do not think being offended is really the same as being harmed because someone can be offended, try what is offensive to them and suddenly find they like what it is that offended them and find it to no long be offensive.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 03-31-2004).]

#42
quote:
Originally posted by Noirbo:
Hmmm... Almost every scenario in Bishoujo Games if applied to "REAL" life would be considered either immoral or illegal. What makes the above game "sick" as you put it and other games okay?

Many games have rape scenes. Do you think raping a girl is not sick? Many games have incest scenario. Do you think incest is not sick? Some games have teachers/students relationships. Do you think that's okay morally? There are many many other examples I can give out here but you get the point.
Games are designed for people to entertain. Please respect each person's choices of game. If you personally don't like it, that's fine as it is your personal choices. No one is forcing you to play that game.
Calling it sick is a bit extreme in my opinion.

The actions you have listed have all been called "sick" at one point by various people. It is a matter of where the line is drawn, and how, and by whom. Arguing that the line is in the wrong place is fine - arguing that the line itself doesn't make sense isn't.

Let me try to put this a little differently. You are arguing that there is no real difference between murder and genocide - they're both basically the same thing, just one is repeated. I don't think many people would argue with the idea that this is mistaken.

Besides which, how do you know the original poster DOESN'T complain about all the things you listed? I have a big problem with the rape and teacher/student relationship thing, at least.

#43
quote:
Some games have teachers/students relationships. Do you think that's okay morally?

quote:
Originally posted by Benoit:
I don't really see why it wouldn't be okay. If the girl is mature I don't see a problem.

The reason this is generally frowned upon is the same reason you aren't supposed to get into a relationship with your underlings (if you're the boss). It is almost always an inherent conflict of interest. The boss can make ugly demands of the employee, and the employee can demand special treatment.

#44
quote:
Originally posted by ekylo:
(Want some fun, look up "lolicon" on the internet and see ...

Well. Now we know where your mind is.

;D

#45
quote:
Originally posted by AG3:
*Warning: Long rant commencing in 5..4..3..2..1..*

Personally, I don't think there IS a limit to what you can consider entertainment in the digital format, as long as there is no actual living human or animal being harmed either emotionally or physically in the process.
[This message has been edited by AG3 (edited 03-31-2004).]

As a matter of policy, we allow Grand Theft Auto 3 to be distributed to the public. (Never mind the "Kill the Haitains!" remark that was recently pulled due to public pressure. That's another matter.) We allow Silent Hill to be distributed to the public. We allow all kinds of things to be distributed to the public under the guise of entertainment and this is by design.

This means we have established almost no limits - and those limits we HAVE established relate directly to the rare instances where reality and gaming are blurred. White supremacist organizations, for instance, have no games on the market catering to their interests. Zero. And if they have underground games that do, they have to hide them. This is because they would have a real effect of inciting violence and spreading racist holy war propaganda.

Given this, I don't see how we can BAN such material. It is just that not many are going to want to push the boundaries we're talking about.

#46
quote:
Originally posted by AG3:
You're free to disagree, but try to avoid being a hypocrite. And by that, I don't mean that liking fictious violence over fictious rape (or vice versa) is hypocricy, but thinking one of them is "evil" but the other is "good" or even "ok" IS.
[This message has been edited by AG3 (edited 03-31-2004).]

I've wondered about this. I like shows like Berserk, but don't like games full of rape. Berserk is far worse in terms of violent acts than even Virgin Roster, yet I have a high opinion of Berserk and VR is anathema to me.

In that instance, it's easy; Berserk is well written with a rather deep storyline, VR is just a rape fest. But the more general point remains.

I've thought about this, and it seems to me that the real problem I have with rape scenes as present in these games is like this: I'm supposed to find the rape sequences erotic because they're presented as something to titillate me.

#47
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
This means we have established almost no limits - and those limits we HAVE established relate directly to the rare instances where reality and gaming are blurred. White supremacist organizations, for instance, have no games on the market catering to their interests. Zero. And if they have underground games that do, they have to hide them. This is because they would have a real effect of inciting violence and spreading racist holy war propaganda.

Yes but propaganda then exists from only one side, the other 'acceptable' side, in this case games showing a Marine shooting and blowing up 'evil doers' in the world. Anyway, how do you know not many would want to push the boundaries?

Publically not many might want to admit to liking say the example of a student teacher relationship, but I for one say so long as they are both mature enough to know what they are doing and they actually love each other none of us have a right to say stop beyond telling them to keep it off school grounds. Conflict of interest might be a problem, but it can be overcome and stopping love is something that is far worse in my opinion. I see no problem having that in a game and with the aforementioned maturity in real life. With the other as I said, so long as it is within the realm of a computer game each to their own, but they have the right to experience it by forcing the boundary change if need arises and that proves the only way to allow them that right.

Though to me it is not so much pushing the boundaries as it is bringing something across those boundaries and more will support such changes I think then many realize, especially if you do bring something across and show them it is already on the same side as them rather then needing to move the line in the dirt a few feet further.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 03-31-2004).]

#48
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
As a matter of policy, we allow Grand Theft Auto 3 to be distributed to the public. (Never mind the "Kill the Haitains!" remark that was recently pulled due to public pressure. That's another matter.) We allow Silent Hill to be distributed to the public. We allow all kinds of things to be distributed to the public under the guise of entertainment and this is by design.

This means we have established almost no limits - and those limits we HAVE established relate directly to the rare instances where reality and gaming are blurred. White supremacist organizations, for instance, have no games on the market catering to their interests. Zero. And if they have underground games that do, they have to hide them. This is because they would have a real effect of inciting violence and spreading racist holy war propaganda.

First of all you have to love how the media sensationalizes and distorts things for their own gain. The "kill all haitians" quote from GTA:VC is taken WAY WAY WAY out of context, and second, if game companies thought they could make money off White supremacist games they would do it in a heartbeat. The only reason they don't is because they would alienate a large majority of potential buyers by doing so. Remeber the great Capitalist rule, Money > All


#49

The danger of alienating potential customers aside, the lack of white supremacist games could also be attributed to the fact that a lot of countries don’t allow public display of racist propaganda. At least Norway doesn’t. Well, Norway doesn’t allow uncensored porn either, unless it’s very artistic, so we do have a certain censorship even up here in the “civilized” north.

There is one thing to consider: does the game ENCOURAGE the acts it displays? Releasing a white supremacist game wouldn’t bother me much as long as it didn’t encourage racism and violence against colored people in REAL life. If it did, it would become a whole different subject. The same goes for games like Shukketsubo and GTA: VC. If both games actively encouraged such acts, they would no longer have a role as merely entertainment, and thus shouldn’t be allowed.

As I said above, it’s ok as long as no one is hurt physically or mentally (finding it offensive doesn’t really count), but were the makers to openly encourage acts like killing, persecution, rape etc, it would be the same as motivating people to injure others, thus it would no longer deserve the protection all forms of media/art should have.

[This message has been edited by AG3 (edited 04-01-2004).]

#50

How do you define openly encourage? In GTA:VC you build a drug empire and kill hundreds of people with no repercussion. In fact, you are rewarded for doing so. WOuldn’t that be openly encouraging it?

#51
quote:
Originally posted by Laslow:
How do you define openly encourage? In GTA:VC you build a drug empire and kill hundreds of people with no repercussion. In fact, you are rewarded for doing so. WOuldn't that be openly encouraging it?

Good question.

Now, despite the game ending up in the hands of minors all over the world, GTA:VC IS a game for adult/mature people. Stamping the box with "Don't try this at home, kids", which I'm sure most adults would consider an insult to their intelligence, can hardly be considered the only way to show you're not encouraging trying the depicted actions out in real life.

Let's face it, if all games had a 100% realistic portrayal of the consequences of your actions, what you could do in a game (without becoming game over, at least) would be extremely limited.

[This message has been edited by AG3 (edited 04-01-2004).]

#52
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
Well. Now we know where your mind is.

;D

All this time and you didn't know where my mind is? For shame, Nandemonai-san. I thought you were more observant than that...

Just kidding. Hmm, I think we're getting on even more tangents. Not quite sure which one I should follow though...

#53
quote:
Originally posted by AG3:
(...)There is one thing to consider: does the game ENCOURAGE the acts it displays? Releasing a white supremacist game wouldn't bother me much as long as it didn't encourage racism and violence against colored people in REAL life. If it did, it would become a whole different subject. The same goes for games like Shukketsubo and GTA: VC. If both games actively encouraged such acts, they would no longer have a role as merely entertainment, and thus shouldn't be allowed. (...)

Yes but this gets into or borders on the whole unanswerable debate of does violence on television create a significant increase of violent acts in real life or do violent acts in real life lead to an significant increase in violence that appears on television. It is impossible to say because people that love violence or such views on life will likely be seen both places and a line can be drawn linking the two when in fact an outside third or fourth cause leads to that link. If these games are released will you see some people that play them committing acts similar to those in the game, most likely, but would those same people have done those acts without the game or do they play the game because they already like those acts and have done them in the past, harder to answer and why I agree you have to consider that point, but it is hard to prove one way or the other and thus only a stumbling block a lot of times to both the true cause and releasing such games to people that might play them just to play them and not want to follow the games plot.

There is little question these things do desensitize people to such acts but desensitizing and causing are two different things, one might lead to the other, but once again other factors could lead a desensitized person to commit such acts. That is why I don't think we can use that as a criteria for not releasing games, because it might cause something to happen also means it might not cause it to happen thus until it is proven too cause such means to stop the release of games is just an easy way to get support behind an unknown cause and effect relationship which might not be linked directly at all to each other.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 04-01-2004).]

#54

For another point point look at murder rates / violence commited by children. The US is WAY WAY WAY above other countries. Is this because the US has the most violent TV shows/videogames? Look at Japan. Bloody/violent/sexualy suggestive shows/video games are just as prevalent, if not moreso, yet Japan has an extremely low number of violent crimes commited by children. I have a number of theories about this (coughgangster/ghetto/rapmusicmentalitycough) but i don’t want to get into that.

[This message has been edited by Laslow (edited 04-01-2004).]

#55

There is another interesting thing, no one is sitting here saying that all of us that play Bishoujo games must be sex-craving and starved maniacs that will see scenes from these games and at once are trying to re-enact scenes from these games with the first person we pass on the street in real life, but at the same time point the finger to other types of games and other genres within these games and say see look, this is why we cannot have this it could lead to this behavior. Just something I find funny and ironic that even within the genre itself that can have outsiders thinking such things we who know better find ways to think the same way about aspects of the genre.

#56
quote:
Originally posted by Laslow:
The "kill all haitians" quote from GTA:VC is taken WAY WAY WAY out of context,

I know, which is why I said "never mind it" because it is a discussion unto itself.

#57
quote:
Originally posted by Laslow:
...and second, if game companies thought they could make money off White supremacist games they would do it in a heartbeat. The only reason they don't is because they would alienate a large majority of potential buyers by doing so. Remeber the great Capitalist rule, Money > All

Not quite true. Any such white supremacist game would probably run afoul of state antihate crime laws in most states - and if it didn't, after the game's release the laws would change. Controversy magnets like Mortal Kombat tend to cause legislative action.

Besides which, there are plenty of white supremacist organizations that would like to see such things - I'm sure at least some of them have tried to self-fund development projects and gotten nowhere.

#58

The point that playing a game/watching a show on TV doesn’t necessarily make the player/viewer want to act out the events of that game/show. I think that we all have heard of someone jumping out of their window because they pretened to be super man. But super man was never banned. I also agree that is it hypocritical to say that it’s okay to play a game where you shoot people but not a game that involves sex with minors. Both are crimes, but games aren’t real. No real people are involved in either case. But here’s something to think about. Bishoujo games and games like GTA are different by design. Clearly, most bishoujo games are made to be very erotic and they are supposed to arouse the player. That’s okay, though. These games are for “adults only” after all. That doesn’t mean that anyone will try to carry out any actions from the game. GTA isn’t supposed to make people feel angry or violent. Some people get mad when the lose, though! Anyway, the intended effect is different. You guys all see what I mean, right. BUT, if it’s not okay to release a game with under age girls then why can a rape game be released? This is supposed to be erotic and yet it is very wrong to do in real life. I’m not trying to say that any game is “right” or “wrong.” I’m just trying to point out something that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

#59
quote:
Originally posted by bishounen_blue:
The point that playing a game/watching a show on TV doesn't necessarily make the player/viewer want to act out the events of that game/show. I think that we all have heard of someone jumping out of their window because they pretened to be super man. But super man was never banned.

Yes but you know why we hear about these cases? They are the expection rather then the rule. As sad as it might be if 400 people a day were leaping out their window thinking they were Superman, it would never make the news as a banner headline after the first day or two and only be mentioned at the end if they at all mention it. People would be concerned but it would not be newsworthy because it would be old, commonplace and no longer sensational.

Likewise it is something the news can jump on to say "Oh look he raped a woman and oh look he played the game (blank) before doing that so the game must be the cause!" The public eats that stuff up, it is an easy explaination without having to see the person is one out of maybe 2 million to play the game and the only one to do that and he has done it before when he was 16 or something. It might not make sense to some, but is that a reason to prevent those that might be curious about it from experiencing it through a game rather then real life? Personally rape games are nothing I would enjoy but there are others out there that would like to play those games. True too I do not understand why one is okay the other not expect one involves minors (by legal terms) and the other does not, yet both should be allowed in my opinion simply for the sake of giving people the right to play what they want to play within the confines of a game.

#60