Slashdot Mirror
New E3-Shown Games Push Sexual Envelope
Thanks to CNN Money for its article discussing the seamier side of E3's videogame selection, as it notes: "It's one thing to see Lara Croft's hot-shorts clad posterior while you play 'Tomb Raider.' It's another thing entirely to see the sagging, slightly lumpy and entirely unclothed buttocks of Larry Lovage streak across your screen." The article also discusses Singles, the Eidos U.S.-published title "best described as a naughty version of 'The Sims.'...[which] doesn't shy away from male or female full frontal nudity", noting that "the ESRB slapped 'Singles' with an AO rating", which is "essentially, an NC-17 or worse... Most retailers will not sell a game with that rating." Tom Marx of Eidos expresses his distress with this rating, arguing for an M rating instead, and noting as part of his argument: "I don't really think someone is going to get the same feeling of attraction in seeing a full frontal digital game character as they would from seeing that in an actor or actress."
The only reason anyone is upset is that it's going to be a bunch of guys looking at naked girls on the computer.
The real outrage is the free ride that women get. I was showing my wife a copy of Playboy magazine. Her reaction was "that's it"? She was expecting some nasty funky stuff or something, based on how bent out of shape people get when you say "Playboy Magazine".
Then, she showed me her Cosmo. The very same Cosmo that is stocked at the eye-level height of an 8 year old. WOW! She convinced me, and I am not a faithful subscriber.
So, the story of the future is this: moral outrage about Leisure Suit Larry, extending into perpetuity. But nobody is going to notice the racy programs that will be marketed to girls in the future.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
Funny, isn't it.
We've had murder, torture, maiming and genocide in games for ages, but throw in a naked person and suddenly it's a big thing...
What I think is just as stupid is when a marketer practically begs for a less mature rating for a product which obviously deserves a higher one. I agree that patches for 'adult' content are the way to go - hell, I don't want to see mature content all the time; there are times when it's nice to have a fun game without nudity.
"I don't really think someone is going to get the same feeling of attraction in seeing a full frontal digital game character as they would from seeing that in an actor or actress."
It's obvious that this guy has never seen hentai!
Money for nothing, pix for free
Unfortunately, the bottom line is: who the heck wants to see more of men's dirty, hairy ass cracks? Not even many women, really. Face it: naked women are more universally attractive and less potentially offensive to everyone on the planet except gay men, and even most gay men can appreciate naked chicks aesthetically even if they don't find them sexually interesting.
Nudity and sex is all about context, and being an American it seems that too many people get bent out of shape about someone being naked, and it's seriously going to warp the minds of our youth.
It does mold the image of the other sex in the minds of young people though. You think a young girl who is bombarded with the objectification of women doesn't get it into her head that she should be the same way? When kids are exposed to near pornography at young ages by their 'idols' you don't think that makes them all the more eager to act it out?
Leisure Suit Larry is an ADULT-ORIENTED and sexually themed game, thus I hope we get to see some guys nuts and maybe a rediculously-sized breast getting thrown across our screens here and there. That's the appeal of games like that, right? (I don't play them; someone help me out here...)
I haven't played the LSL games since the first 2 or 3 (on my apple like 15 years ago) but the point back then was adult humor. The sex stuff wasn't that graphic. Of course, graphics have come a long way since then.
Personally, I think sex is overused in all aspects of American pop culture. But at the same time, the media portrays it as controversial and extreme, and that's why it sells.
The media is engaging in the same behavior. Stories on sex get viewers, sell newspapers, etc. Even if it's something trivial, if sex is involved people are interested.
People always talk about the sexual revolution, blah blah blah, but all the "progress" made in America that ever seems to happen is just allowing women to be able to show more and more of their bodies, and the twisted fools that read magazines like Maxim to oggle over them and continue objectifying, and I think this article only illustrates what kind of a double standard these "journalists" help to create.
I think the real bottom line is, sex should be allowed in video games/media etc. It's a large part of life (at least for me!). The only problem I have with it, is when the media, business and whoever else sells sex to kids.
I think at some point, as the "Atari/NES generation" ages, and demands better entertainment from their video games, there are going to have to be better guidlines as to what kind of game gets what kind of rating and how they are distributed. I really wonder why retailers won't sell AO games, 7-11 sells porno mags, video stores carry porn, why do we constantly classify video games as a different form of media and as childrens games when such a large chunk of 20-30 males play games still?
So I just started playing the latest (?) Rockstar offering: Manhunt. By far, this is the most violent game I have ever played. It deserves no less than an AO rating, yet it recieves an M because it is just violence and swearing (but no sex). Last night I (virtually) killed someone by ripping out their throat and then punching a hole in thier head - all with a crowbar. Another death involved beating someone with a baseball bat. When they eventually fell to the ground and begged for thier life, I popping thier head with my boot (and hearing brains et al squish across the floor and onto the far wall). Somehow, I think that deserves a stronger rating than an M. Now we have a game with digital (and more than likely, not highly detailed) boobs, butts, and crotches and it's the beginning of the downfall of man. What a sad commentary on our society. Although not surprising in the days of Bush's FCC.
You've got it very wrong there, my friend. Most mammals go to very great lengths to protect their young, humans included. The reason humans do it even more so is that their young are born in a much more vulnerable state than other mammals.
You may be right in that our society protects the adult 'weak', i.e. via social security, charity and such mechanisms, but if we were not to protect our children that would be folly of the highest order as far as evolution was concerned. An 8 year-old Einstein is at as much risk of being run over by a car (day-dreaming of relativity, perhaps?) as an 8 year old moron.