• 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

You've probably heard about this issue before:

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/on-the-ban-wagon-dead-or-alive-dimensions-no-go-in-sweden/496958/

DOAD was banned in certain European countries because the ability to snap photos of some of the underage (under 18) girls in skimpy outfits could be considered child porn by local laws. See, the law doesn't differentiate real girls from cartoon images - as long as the cartoon images depict children. And in some countries, "children" are defined as someone under 18. Doesn't matter if the "child" has big boobs and a jiggly butt, if she's under 18 she's defined as a child by law. Period.

Second game that got banned was Project Zero 2: Wii Edition:

http://gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=180489

This game was only released in Japan and Europe. I think the series is called Fatal Frame in the US. Anyway, this game allowed you, just like DOAD, to take snapshots of underage girls in skimpy clothing. That could be considered child porn. I know what you're thinking now. "Sweden has just fucked up laws, why should I care?"

Well, if you think the rest of Europe got everything, think again.

NoE completely removed the bikini outfits for the two girls in the game, Mio and Mayu. These bikinis were present in the Japanese version of the game, but NoE removed them. They're not in the EU version. However, Spanish hackers have found a way:

http://www.projectsae.es/noticia-101.html

As you can see from the images, the bikinis are really skimpy (visible parts of the butt cheeks are hanging out) and the girls are 15 years old. I don't know the laws for every country, but I think many of them don't make a difference between real girls and cartoons.

Now, have you heard about a 3DS game called Senran Kagura? It's an action title filled with boobs and young girls. The game's producer has expressed his wish to release it as an eShop title in the west, but with a character like this, is it even possible without violating child porn laws:

http://andriasang.com/con1xi/senran_kagura_burst_art/243iw.jpg

That character is named Mirai, and her profile states she's 15. A child. Neither the game nor its producer tries to hide that the game is very sexualized, including Mirai.

There are people who really want the game in the west though:

https://www.facebook.com/OperationBazongas

What do you think about all this? Are the local laws to blame, or is it good that these kind of games gets the ban hammer? Games that actually sexualize children... or are they children just because they're under 18? Or are they just cartoons?

Discuss.

#2 Posted by theguy (796 posts) -

All this, whether intentional or not, is probably a good thing.

#3 Posted by Cincaid (2956 posts) -

@SL68 said:

And in some countries, "children" are defined as someone under 18. Doesn't matter if the "child" has big boobs and a jiggly butt, if she's under 18 she's defined as a child by law. Period.

Would it be better if we defined age based on breast size and amount of butt jiggling?

#4 Posted by Brendan (7777 posts) -

Taking pictures of underage girls underwear in games is not a big loss.

#5 Posted by Baillie (4081 posts) -

So, you're basically telling everyone you're a paedophile and are annoyed than seeing underage girls in revealing clothing is getting harder in any sort of media ?

#6 Edited by BlackLagoon (1411 posts) -

Eh, DoA: Dimensions was withdrawn because Nintendo was freaking out over the 3DS getting linked to child porn in the press. It was all just one guy saying it was illegal to prove a point, when journalists actually contacted the police they saw no issue with the game.

#7 Posted by Mister_V (1269 posts) -

I'm not sure I would want to play a game that breached these laws, so they are probably a good thing.

#8 Posted by AlexW00d (6240 posts) -

Taking pictures of children (cartoon or otherwise) in little to no clothing is fucked up regardless of whether or not it's illegal in 1 country or all countries.

#9 Posted by Galiant (2193 posts) -

It's fucking creepy. Who's going to defend that shit and what possible good reason could they have? Banning it is a good thing.

#10 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@AlexW00d said:

Taking pictures of children (cartoon or otherwise) in little to no clothing is fucked up regardless of whether or not it's illegal in 1 country or all countries.

Tell that to everyone on twitter, facebook, forums for new parents and every other place where you can upload photos. 
"Look at my little baby, he/she's lying there all naked" yeah, good job, Parent-of-the-fucking-year. Post that picture online
#11 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@BlackLagoon said:

Eh, DoA: Dimensions was withdrawn because Nintendo was freaking out over the 3DS getting linked to child porn in the press. It was all just one guy saying it was illegal to prove a point, when journalists actually contacted the police they saw no issue with the game.

Then why did they ban Project Zero 2, too? And why did they remove the bikinis?

#12 Posted by Baillie (4081 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

@AlexW00d said:

Taking pictures of children (cartoon or otherwise) in little to no clothing is fucked up regardless of whether or not it's illegal in 1 country or all countries.

Tell that to everyone on twitter, facebook, forums for new parents and every other place where you can upload photos.
"Look at my little baby, he/she's lying there all naked" yeah, good job, Parent-of-the-fucking-year. Post that picture online

Stop being ignorant. You know you're just being stupid.

#13 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@Cincaid said:

@SL68 said:

And in some countries, "children" are defined as someone under 18. Doesn't matter if the "child" has big boobs and a jiggly butt, if she's under 18 she's defined as a child by law. Period.

Would it be better if we defined age based on breast size and amount of butt jiggling?

Thing is, if the age isn't given, the law says that the person depicted must have completed puberty. That effectively means that the girl needs boobs.

So yes, as a matter of fact, the courts DO look at boob size when deciding if the cartoon is a woman or a child.

#14 Posted by SomeJerk (3217 posts) -

Australia is the most messed up country when it comes to this. 
 
Unless something's recently changed.

#15 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@Baillie said:

@ZeForgotten said:

@AlexW00d said:

Taking pictures of children (cartoon or otherwise) in little to no clothing is fucked up regardless of whether or not it's illegal in 1 country or all countries.

Tell that to everyone on twitter, facebook, forums for new parents and every other place where you can upload photos.
"Look at my little baby, he/she's lying there all naked" yeah, good job, Parent-of-the-fucking-year. Post that picture online

Stop being ignorant. You know you're just being stupid.

Oh hi, Random stranger on the internet who doesn't know me at all. Feel free to personally insult me for no reason. Hope you're proud of yourself, have a cookie. 
 
Now who am I gonna listen to. The cop who showed up to a class back in the day and explained how pictures like that being posted everywhere makes them easily obtainable by pedophiles online or the guy on the forum who does fuck-all with his life aside from insulting people he doesn't know. Tricky tricky ;) 
#16 Posted by Hunter5024 (5639 posts) -

Normally I'd be right there shouting for a game's right to have whatever content it wants, but when that content involves sexualized children it's kind of hard to get behind it. At the same time though I certainly wouldn't consider girls in bikinis pornographic content, and I certainly wouldn't consider the Dead or Alive girls children either, and saying a fictional character's age is a couple years shy of the age of consent, and using this as the reason to censor, remove, or ban content, seems like some arbitrary bullshit. But really maybe Japan should just stop making sexually suggestive underaged characters. Then again, it's a different culture with different standards of maturity, so it seems kind of wrong to impose our feelings upon them... Damn it. Anyways fuck censorship, and fuck sexy little girls. Wait that came out wrong.

#17 Posted by Baillie (4081 posts) -

Yes, the small minority of people who post pictures of their children online because they want to share their most adored thing in their life, but end up having their pictures downloaded by paedophiles are the ones to blame.

Hope your proud of yourself taking everything a little bit too far, idiot. Fuck your cookie.

#18 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@Hunter5024 said:

Normally I'd be right there shouting for a game's right to have whatever content it wants, but when that content involves sexualized children it's kind of hard to get behind it. At the same time though I certainly wouldn't consider girls in bikinis pornographic content, and I certainly wouldn't consider the Dead or Alive girls children either, and saying a fictional character's age is a couple years shy of the age of consent, and using this as the reason to censor, remove, or ban content, seems like some arbitrary bullshit. But really maybe Japan should just stop making sexually suggestive underaged characters. Then again, it's a different culture with different standards of maturity, so it seems kind of wrong to impose our feelings upon them... Damn it. Anyways fuck censorship, and fuck sexy little girls. Wait that came out wrong.

But what about the context in DOAD and Project Zero 2? There's a special mode in both games where you photograph these children/cartoons/women in bikinis.

And how do you define a "child"? Age? Looks? Behaviour?

#19 Posted by Branthog (5563 posts) -

You're pushing into dangerous territory when you start censoring content that is not the actual crime, but is evocative of it. Murder is about the most vile act one can commit, but I'm not concerned with games, cartoons, stories, music, or art depicting it. Just because I find the subject of the games listed above to be repulsive doesn't mean I should have the right to censor them, when no actual crime is committed or harm is being done and there are plenty of real actual crimes in real actual space against real actual people that remain to be addressed, without me bothering to venture into the world of thought-crimes, here. Instead of worrying about the sexualization of a non-existent imaginary character, let's worry about -- say -- actual children being violated by caregivers and family members every day, in the real world.

It's also probably worth noting that pedophilia has nothing to do with "teenagers", either. As Jamie Walton of the Wayne Foundation is quick to point out, when she speaks of her own sex-abuse, pedophilia involves pre-pubescent children who look like children. Someone who is underage, but for all intents and purposes appears to be an adult, is an issue of legality and morality and certainly still an issue of trust and violation in all other senses, but is not quite the same *type* of vileness as if we were talking about people who look at actual kids and are like "aw, yeah, that's so hot, because SHE/HE LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING **KID**".

Of course, it's very easy to start pushing censorship through avenues like this, where the content is something nobody could defend nor would they want to -- and once we establish that it's okay to censor something, as long as most people think its okay, then there is no longer free speech. There's just mob-rule.

And, yes, I'm only speaking from the perspective of America; I don't necessarily have familiarity with the laws or constitution in other countries.

Online
#20 Posted by Kidavenger (3533 posts) -

These games don't sound like they have much merit for existing, the lawmakers probably deemed it child porn just so they didn't have to deal with it. 15 year olds in bikinis isn't child porn, but a video game about taking pictures of them is really creepy and anyone worried about not getting this type of game is a hardcode creeper.

#21 Posted by Animasta (14675 posts) -

you know what?

even if they're not children it's still mega creepy.

NOW YOU KNOW

#22 Posted by Counterclockwork87 (655 posts) -

As long as it doesn't look like a kid and it's a video game I don't think it matters. Let weird people do what they want.

#23 Posted by Aetheldod (3555 posts) -

What a child is varies from country to country ... but for me 15+ no longer a child .... so I dont see what is the problem , granted Im not taking pics nor doing anything of that sort anyway , all Im saying is that people nowadays are way overprotective etc. And before anyone says so , yes sexual abuse is a terrible thing .... but it does not matter if you are 0 or 100 such acts are terrible for anyone. Also what said (he speaks better than I do}

Online
#24 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

These games don't sound like they have much merit for existing, the lawmakers probably deemed it child porn just so they didn't have to deal with it. 15 year olds in bikinis isn't child porn, but a video game about taking pictures of them is really creepy and anyone worried about not getting this type of game is a hardcode creeper.

Are you familiar with Senran Kagura? I's been confirmed for release in Korea in January next year, and who knows when it'll arrive in the US and Europe...

In Senran Kagura, they're sexualizing minors. For example, one of the girls is 15 years old, have little to no boobs and her clothes rip apart when she takes damage (it's a hack'n slash game). You can even blow her skirt up by blowing into the microphone on the 3DS. And one of her idle animations is groping her own boobs, and then shake her head in despair because her boobs are so small (compared to the other girls in this game).

If that isn't borderline pedo soft porn in game form, I don't know what it is. The producer Kenichiro Takaki is also famous for being a sexist pig, with comments like:

"Tits are life, ass is hometown"

"Because I wanted to make tits that could be licked"

"Ninjas, sushi, schoolgirls, samurai, and boobs. These are the things that cross all borders, and tie us together"

The above comments are EXACT QUOTES what the producer said. Can you imagine anyone else besides that creep Itagaki say such a thing about underage girls? He's not even hiding he's sexualizing girls as young as 15. He does it openly and the nerd/pedo crowd cheer him on.

#25 Posted by Hunter5024 (5639 posts) -

@SL68 said:

@Hunter5024 said:

Normally I'd be right there shouting for a game's right to have whatever content it wants, but when that content involves sexualized children it's kind of hard to get behind it. At the same time though I certainly wouldn't consider girls in bikinis pornographic content, and I certainly wouldn't consider the Dead or Alive girls children either, and saying a fictional character's age is a couple years shy of the age of consent, and using this as the reason to censor, remove, or ban content, seems like some arbitrary bullshit. But really maybe Japan should just stop making sexually suggestive underaged characters. Then again, it's a different culture with different standards of maturity, so it seems kind of wrong to impose our feelings upon them... Damn it. Anyways fuck censorship, and fuck sexy little girls. Wait that came out wrong.

But what about the context in DOAD and Project Zero 2? There's a special mode in both games where you photograph these children/cartoons/women in bikinis.

And how do you define a "child"? Age? Looks? Behaviour?

That's basically why I'm not taking a stance on either side. Kind of hard to determine what makes a child a child, and I may think the Fatal Frame stuff is gross, but I also wasn't raised in Japan so I'm not about to judge their culture for it. It's definitely a really weird gray area that's hard to say anything about.

#26 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@Hunter5024 said:

@SL68 said:

@Hunter5024 said:

Normally I'd be right there shouting for a game's right to have whatever content it wants, but when that content involves sexualized children it's kind of hard to get behind it. At the same time though I certainly wouldn't consider girls in bikinis pornographic content, and I certainly wouldn't consider the Dead or Alive girls children either, and saying a fictional character's age is a couple years shy of the age of consent, and using this as the reason to censor, remove, or ban content, seems like some arbitrary bullshit. But really maybe Japan should just stop making sexually suggestive underaged characters. Then again, it's a different culture with different standards of maturity, so it seems kind of wrong to impose our feelings upon them... Damn it. Anyways fuck censorship, and fuck sexy little girls. Wait that came out wrong.

But what about the context in DOAD and Project Zero 2? There's a special mode in both games where you photograph these children/cartoons/women in bikinis.

And how do you define a "child"? Age? Looks? Behaviour?

That's basically why I'm not taking a stance on either side. Kind of hard to determine what makes a child a child, and I may think the Fatal Frame stuff is gross, but I also wasn't raised in Japan so I'm not about to judge their culture for it. It's definitely a really weird gray area that's hard to say anything about.

Are you saying that cultural differences is an OK excuse for pedophilia? In certain arab countries in the old days, grown men where fucking little girls and they thought it was OK back then because of their culture...

There is good culture and there is bad culture.

#27 Posted by BlackLagoon (1411 posts) -

@SL68 said:

Then why did they ban Project Zero 2, too? And why did they remove the bikinis?

Not releasing it does not equal ban. It was undoubtedly just Nintendo being wary after the stupid "3DS game has child porn" style headlines they got. Doesn't matter that the headlines were incorrect, they have a family friendly image to protect and would want to eliminate the possibility of a similar situation happening again.

#28 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@BlackLagoon said:

@SL68 said:

Then why did they ban Project Zero 2, too? And why did they remove the bikinis?

Not releasing it does not equal ban. It was undoubtedly just Nintendo being wary after the stupid "3DS game has child porn" style headlines they got. Doesn't matter that the headlines were incorrect, they have a family friendly image to protect and would want to eliminate the possibility of a similar situation happening again.

But if that's their reason, don't you think they just ADD headlines instead by banning these games?

#29 Posted by Demoskinos (14778 posts) -

Honestly I kind of find it absurd not that im promoting kiddie porn but its lines on a fucking piece of paper that someone drew it doesn't have an "age" and I think it would a much better use of time to try to focus on helping ACTUAL children being exploited.

#30 Posted by Animasta (14675 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Honestly I kind of find it absurd not that im promoting kiddie porn but its lines on a fucking piece of paper that someone drew it doesn't have an "age" and I think it would a much better use of time to try to focus on helping ACTUAL children being exploited.

yeah, but not releasing a game is much easier than finding every single kid who is being exploited.

and nintendo isn't the police anyway, so...

(this is a dumb argument)

#31 Edited by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

I disagree that the games should be illegal.

I'm all for recognizing child pornography as crime, but not because I find it disgusting, but because people who are unable to consent to sexual activity HAVE to be involved in its making. But if a game is a cartoon then even though it posesses repulsive content, no one was harmed against their will during the production.

This is why we don't ban content that depicts animated murder... murder is one of the most despicable acts humans can commit, and yet we don't ban movies or video games with murder in them. Why? Because it's not real; no one was really murdered during the production and so the final product, altough deemed disgusting by some, wasn't based onhurting anyone.

Anyone who disagrees with me, please explain this: why is it that an act like murder or torture is allowed to be in a video game, but an act such as rape or sexualizing minors is not? Both are despicable, and I'd argue that torture and murder are much worse.

Animated pornography is a victimless crime, and so should be permitted.

#32 Posted by Hunter5024 (5639 posts) -

@SL68 said:

@Hunter5024 said:

@SL68 said:

@Hunter5024 said:

Normally I'd be right there shouting for a game's right to have whatever content it wants, but when that content involves sexualized children it's kind of hard to get behind it. At the same time though I certainly wouldn't consider girls in bikinis pornographic content, and I certainly wouldn't consider the Dead or Alive girls children either, and saying a fictional character's age is a couple years shy of the age of consent, and using this as the reason to censor, remove, or ban content, seems like some arbitrary bullshit. But really maybe Japan should just stop making sexually suggestive underaged characters. Then again, it's a different culture with different standards of maturity, so it seems kind of wrong to impose our feelings upon them... Damn it. Anyways fuck censorship, and fuck sexy little girls. Wait that came out wrong.

But what about the context in DOAD and Project Zero 2? There's a special mode in both games where you photograph these children/cartoons/women in bikinis.

And how do you define a "child"? Age? Looks? Behaviour?

That's basically why I'm not taking a stance on either side. Kind of hard to determine what makes a child a child, and I may think the Fatal Frame stuff is gross, but I also wasn't raised in Japan so I'm not about to judge their culture for it. It's definitely a really weird gray area that's hard to say anything about.

Are you saying that cultural differences is an OK excuse for pedophilia? In certain arab countries in the old days, grown men where fucking little girls and they thought it was OK back then because of their culture...

There is good culture and there is bad culture.

I think that not making a distinction between teenagers and children is making you come across a little hyperbolic. Character models of teenagers in swimsuits is really a far cry from fucking little girls dude.

#33 Posted by Animasta (14675 posts) -

@imsh_pl: rape is a form of torture and has been in games before. not graphic, of course, and I agree with the first part of your sentence, but rape is arguably worse than murder and at least equal to torture.

#34 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

I disagree that the games should be illegal.

I'm all for recognizing child pornography as crime, but not because I find it disgusting, but because people who are unable to consent to sexual activity HAVE to be involved in its making. But if a game is a cartoon then even though it posesses repulsive content, no one was harmed against their will during the production.

This is why we don't ban content that depicts animated murder... murder is one of the most despicable acts humans can commit, and yet we don't ban movies or video games with murder in them. Why? Because it's not real; no one was really murdered during the production and so the final product, altough deemed disgusting by some, wasn't based onhurting anyone.

Anyone who disagrees with me, please explain this: why is it that an act like murder or torture is allowed to be in a video game, but an act such as rape or sexualizing minors is not? Both are despicable, and I'd argue that torture and murder are much worse.

Animated pornography is a victimless crime, and so should be permitted.

The difference is, we're talking about graphical content of CHILDREN. When was the last time you saw a horror movie where a child was killed in front of the camera? Most of time, movies don't kill children at all, and when they do, they make sure it's not seen graphically.

What these games do is graphically depict underage girls in skimpy clothing for the pedos' viewing pleasure.

That's the huge difference between Japanese pedo games and horror/splatter movies.

#35 Posted by Branthog (5563 posts) -

@Aetheldod said:

What a child is varies from country to country ... but for me 15+ no longer a child .... so I dont see what is the problem , granted Im not taking pics nor doing anything of that sort anyway , all Im saying is that people nowadays are way overprotective etc. And before anyone says so , yes sexual abuse is a terrible thing .... but it does not matter if you are 0 or 100 such acts are terrible for anyone. Also what said (he speaks better than I do}

Inconsistency is pretty common in America, in this regard. Until a decade or two ago, the age of legal consent in two states was still twelve (Deleware and New Mexico, I believe). What's sicker is that whether or not you could consent at the age of twelve depended on whether or not you were a virgin. In other words, if you were violated by the age of twelve, it was okay to continue victimizing you. That's just fucking sick.

As for the thresh-hold of age, I think there are two things involved -- though, as a society, we generally seem to broad-hand it, anyway. We're biologically driven to be attracted to the traits of a healthy and sexually matured human being. Therefore, there is something inherently off-putting and unnatural about someone specifically being sexually attracted to a person who is too young to posses any of those physical traits that announce to the rest of the species that we're ready to mate.

When you're a teenager, the issue is more about an arbitrary age (depending on state or country) at which we've determined that people are capable of making more or less rational choices on their own behalf. It's more about the greater chance of being taken advantage of by someone who has a certain sense of power and capability to manipulate someone who is a teenager, by virtue of their age and (often) position of authority (teacher, caregiver, family friends, etc).

Societally, we've sort of mixed the two together and don't differentiate the two. We tend not to acknowledge that there is any difference between a twenty year old dating a seventeen year old versus a twenty year old with a ten year old. And, of course, it depends on gender. When I was sixteen and sleeping with married adult women, that was okay. But if I had been female and they were male, I'd be a victim and they'd be in prison. It's all very inconsistent and weird.

@SL68 said:

The above comments are EXACT QUOTES what the producer said. Can you imagine anyone else besides that creep Itagaki say such a thing about underage girls? He's not even hiding he's sexualizing girls as young as 15. He does it openly and the nerd/pedo crowd cheer him on.

Erm. All media and all of society sexualizes girls as young as fifteen. And younger. Think about all the rock songs over the decades that were about fucking teenagers. Think about the fashion and makeup industries and the models they use and the way in which they depict them. Even right down to the boy-magazines that are pimped out to twelve year old girls, to prepare them for crushing on heart-throb underage male actors and singers.

As a society, we're sick and schizophrenic and the only rational thing to do is to make actual violations of actual human beings a crime and stay out of the world of "thought crime", no matter how vile those thoughts are.

Online
#36 Posted by Demoskinos (14778 posts) -
@Animasta It just seems like lazy legislation to me.
#37 Edited by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

@SL68 said:

The difference is, we're talking about graphical content of CHILDREN. When was the last time you saw a horror movie where a child was killed in front of the camera? Most of time, movies don't kill children at all, and when they do, they make sure it's not seen graphically.

What these games do is graphically depict underage girls in skimpy clothing for the pedos' viewing pleasure.

That's the huge difference between Japanese pedo games and horror/splatter movies.

So if a game had you murder a child, or a movie showed a child being killed, should they be banned?

#38 Posted by Animasta (14675 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Animasta It just seems like lazy legislation to me.

this is something that is easily done so they did it; I don't know what else you'd expect nintendo to do.

#39 Posted by BlackLagoon (1411 posts) -

@SL68 said:

But if that's their reason, don't you think they just ADD headlines instead by banning these games?

Google Dead or Alive Dimensions child porn you get hits to news stories and articles on a wide variety of international gaming sites and even some mainstream media. Do the same for Project Zero 2 child porn and you get a Gonintendo rumor article and some forum threads (including this one). The tactic seems quite successful to me.

#40 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

@SL68 said:

The difference is, we're talking about graphical content of CHILDREN. When was the last time you saw a horror movie where a child was killed in front of the camera? Most of time, movies don't kill children at all, and when they do, they make sure it's not seen graphically.

What these games do is graphically depict underage girls in skimpy clothing for the pedos' viewing pleasure.

That's the huge difference between Japanese pedo games and horror/splatter movies.

So if a game had you murder a child, should it be banned?

If they graphically shows (with blood and guts) how the child is getting murdered, then YES it should be banned. But I don't believe there are any such games.

#41 Posted by Demoskinos (14778 posts) -
@Animasta

@Demoskinos said:

@Animasta It just seems like lazy legislation to me.

this is something that is easily done so they did it; I don't know what else you'd expect nintendo to do.

Not Nintendo. Sweden's laws.
#42 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

These games don't sound like they have much merit for existing, the lawmakers probably deemed it child porn just so they didn't have to deal with it. 15 year olds in bikinis isn't child porn, but a video game about taking pictures of them is really creepy and anyone worried about not getting this type of game is a hardcode creeper.

Here is the definition of fatal frame from wikipedia as the game consists of taking pictures as most of the game and in which your character just so happens to possibly be underage as I dont remember a part where it defines her age. The game is made in japan, where sex is usually not as big of a problem as it seems to be in the states or other countries so Why would having this game be considered being a creeper of any sort?

'' Created by Tecmo, Fatal Frame is one of the most well-received survival horror games to date. It was a unique entry in the genre, as the player explores a mansion and takes photographs of ghosts in order to defeat them. The Fatal Frame series has since gained a reputation as one of the most distinctive in the genre, with the first game in the series credited as one of the best-written survival horror games ever made, by UGO Networks. It has been revealed that Nintendo owns a large portion of the Fatal Frame series. "

#43 Posted by Animasta (14675 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Animasta

@Demoskinos said:

@Animasta It just seems like lazy legislation to me.

this is something that is easily done so they did it; I don't know what else you'd expect nintendo to do.

Not Nintendo. Sweden's laws.

still, it's not like that really cost them any money that would've been used to hunt for pedophiles.

#44 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

@SL68 said:

@imsh_pl said:

@SL68 said:

The difference is, we're talking about graphical content of CHILDREN. When was the last time you saw a horror movie where a child was killed in front of the camera? Most of time, movies don't kill children at all, and when they do, they make sure it's not seen graphically.

What these games do is graphically depict underage girls in skimpy clothing for the pedos' viewing pleasure.

That's the huge difference between Japanese pedo games and horror/splatter movies.

So if a game had you murder a child, should it be banned?

If they graphically shows (with blood and guts) how the child is getting murdered, then YES it should be banned. But I don't believe there are any such games.

But why should they be banned, and not, say, games depicting murdering adults?

The fact that you find something disgusting is not enough to justify you preventing other people from doing it.

Art forms are a form of free speech and cannot be banned simply on the grounds of not being liked.

#45 Posted by Dark (378 posts) -

Just to play Devils Advocate here, I don't want to stand on other peoples rights because I see a problem with them. I believe people who think violence in video games is immoral are crazy, however I also see where they are coming from when I see a situation like this. Whilst a large part of me wants to say 'screw these people its creepy' the other part says 'but they have rights too'.

Whilst it creeps me the hell out, if censoring stuff like this leads to violence getting censored then let them do what they want. Everything starts from somewhere and who knows, this could be the snowball at the top of the hill.

Once again, Devils Advocate, this shit be creepy.

#46 Posted by SL68 (50 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

@SL68 said:

@imsh_pl said:

@SL68 said:

The difference is, we're talking about graphical content of CHILDREN. When was the last time you saw a horror movie where a child was killed in front of the camera? Most of time, movies don't kill children at all, and when they do, they make sure it's not seen graphically.

What these games do is graphically depict underage girls in skimpy clothing for the pedos' viewing pleasure.

That's the huge difference between Japanese pedo games and horror/splatter movies.

So if a game had you murder a child, should it be banned?

If they graphically shows (with blood and guts) how the child is getting murdered, then YES it should be banned. But I don't believe there are any such games.

But why should they be banned, and not, say, games depicting murdering adults?

The fact that you find something disgusting is not enough to justify you preventing other people from doing it.

Art forms are a form of free speech and cannot be banned simply on the grounds of not being liked.

Adults can defend themselves, children are helpless. It's WRONG to use a child for sexual abuse or killing it. It's WRONG to show it, even if it's fictional. Such content should not exist, and that's why laws are in place.

It's not because of how it looks, it's because it's wrong. Children are innocent, they shouldn't be used for depicting murders and sexual assaults.

#47 Posted by BlackLagoon (1411 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

Not Nintendo. Sweden's laws.

As I've written elsewhere in the thread, Nintendo/Bergsala withdrew DoA: Dimensions from the Nordic countries all by themselves, presumably due to the press it was recieving. When someone actually bothered asking the Swedish police, they had no issue with the game whatsoever.

#48 Posted by Flacracker (1660 posts) -

All of those games listed are Japanese.

#49 Edited by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

@SL68 said:

Adults can defend themselves, children are helpless. It's WRONG to use a child for sexual abuse or killing it. It's WRONG to show it, even if it's fictional. Such content should not exist, and that's why laws are in place.

It's not because of how it looks, it's because it's wrong. Children are innocent, they shouldn't be used for depicting murders and sexual assaults.

Yes, I agree that showing things such as sexually abusing children is disgusting and wrong.

But the fact that you or anyone else finds something wrong or immoral is not enough to ban it. (EDIT: As I said earlier, real-life child pornography should be banned, but not because it's disgusting, but because people are harmed during its making).

And 'children are innocent': so if a video game had you kill innocent people should it also be banned?

#50 Posted by buft (3316 posts) -

I don't mourn the loss