@gamefreak9: Sorry for going in circles with this. I get your point, but unfortunately it entirely dismisses the consequences that said products/technologies could have. Not to mention that the most privileged barely donate in proportion to their wealth. Most people don't do their research and don't really donate to where it is needed the most (if they can even afford to donate). It has been proven that humans have a hard time feeling empathy for big groups of people, and mostly donate to charities that they can personally relate to or that are marketed the most.

Sure, individualism and empathy can coexist, but I am not talking about balanced individualism. I am talking about hyper-individualism, which, by definition, can't coexist with empathy.

The tragedy of the commons is a theory that relates to what I am trying to say: "..which states that individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest, behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group, by depleting some common resource."

@demokk: I accept your premises but the solution is misguided. If you want to tax the individuals at a higher rate and allocate that to charity that's totally something I would support(that market is pretty elastic). Its just that getting it before they have it in their pockets decreases the total amount of value in the economy. Also that charity graph is bad... I am so puzzled as to why they didn't just use a bar graph(as someone who routinely models things, I like to think I know which graph is good for what). If you think that allocation is dumb just look up a government budget allocation. The private one is relatively efficient. If government started listening to every interest group, feminists/female rights/farmers/financial lobbyists/ patent trolls/etc, everything would be even more screwed up than it is now. So its best to just keep the market clean and efficient and use our democracy with taxes and budgets.

If there are negative consequences to the product, then it should be observed and stopped (at the very least) not assumed beforehand(unless there are some really strong priors). Does rape in video games have evidence of havoc in the real world? We don't have many examples so lets go to the closest medium, movies. Did rape or something else bad spike after a movie with rape? No? Then there's no evidence and we should not take any action. I would even say that if the problem arises from media outlets bashing it and causing outrage, I would rather ban the media outlets from discussing it than ban the product when there is no evidence. But generally when something is known there is no need for governmental action, for instance when mad cow disease was known everybody stopped buying beef, there was no need to ban beef. Good evidence has a way of smacking you in the face.

Tragedy of the commons is a real thing, (modern economists would call it a Nash equilibrium), but it doesn't apply to this domain because the product/input in question is digital and labor(respectively), both of which are not something very finite.

Refused classification is not BANNING the game in australia you can easily just import it and you are not breaking any rules. Thats what i did with Risen.

Sorry to say this Alex but I believe you misread the Wiki article on games ratings in australia during 1993-2012 the highest a game could be rated is MA15+ now they can be rated to R18+ but it may as well be the old system still as far as i can see there have been no real changes

Anyway Its good to see the Classification board promoting Pirating as that's what everyone will do here if they want the game Big + for that LOL

Honestly i really don't care i liked the soundtrack of the first game but that is about all i liked about it. Those type of games do nothing for me i don't even find them interesting.

@gamefreak9: Actually, the government (and everyone) should listen to others as equals. Listen to their arguments and decide as a group what is a good balance. It doesn't mean that everyone gets whatever they want, but that there is no bias or extreme inequality between the different individuals. And as it happens right now, there is crazy inequality. Especially in the US. Isn't that what democracy is about? That everyone deserves to be heard and have a vote?

As a matter of fact, it turns out that media does have a huge effect on society. Particularly in the over-stimulated western culture (links at the bottom). Not to mention that trusting that the masses will act and react justly is a bit naive, in my opinion; otherwise, why do people keep buying obviously harmful products like tobacco, or extremely processed sweeteners, soda, etc? Why do people keep buying gimmicks like new iPhone's when there is barely a need for it, yet it greatly contributes to exploitation in the third-world? Why do people keep buying junk food that contributes to heart diseases?

Money should serve people. The moment that money directly or indirectly contributes to the unethical treatment of people it means it has become corrupted. No one should have to suffer just because someone was luckier than them and was born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth.

"Violence in media causes desensitization to violence. It may facilitate violent acts. Violence may be contagious by observational learning and social agreement." (Link below).

More information on media and psychology:

MRI's Light Media Psychology in your Head

Brain, Behavior and Media

Media system dependency theory

Social conditioning

See! Don't you guys understand this is all for your protection!

@demokk:

First of all there is a need for nothing but oxygen, food and shelter, heck you don't even need those because you don't need to live. If we take your logic and just get rid of what we don't need we have nothing left... we don't need the internet. So at this stage its all about what people want, and since we are social beings it happens that we want what is socially cool, so Iphones are a thing. I personally have lots of fast food because I find the time saving convenient, I find it cheap, and tasty. I don't care if i'm going to live a few months less because of it, its my choice.

Within the US inequality might be growing but its because capitalism is becoming international and US corporations are big throughout the world. The money is as good a metric as we have for saying how much value is brought to the world, but inequality in the world is lower now than its ever been. Are you implying people don't know that smoking is bad for them? If you ban it they will probably find ways to do it anyway.

This emphasis on money has eradicated more poverty than any other system in the history of civilization itself, instead of looking at little incident here and there focus on the big picture. Most of the countries where exploitation has taken place have risen to much higher levels of wealth. You can't just look at a static picture.

Actually, no. If anything, it has increased between the 80s and now. "Over the past 25 years, income inequality [1] of OECD countries increased from 0.29 to 0.32 between the mid 1980s and late 2000s. This is a historic reversal amongst these countries, which since the Second World War seemed to progress towards more equal income distributions. For many this reversal results from an inability to reduce unemployment and create quality jobs for all."

That is actually what I mean. You can't trust the majority to make just and altruistic choices if they do what's obviously bad for them. I never said that we should ban it, just that the masses make rather questionable decisions.

Here is a report on poverty stating how "great" of a year 2014 was: http://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/sotu/SOTU_2014_CPI.pdf

@demokk: Nono you are confusing the stats, they tell you that inequality within countries is higher than ever. However inequality globally is low relative to the trend. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/20/upshot/income-inequality-is-not-rising-globally-its-falling-.html?abt=0002&abg=1

That's not the point, people make choices about their health and they think it isn't worth it. That thing you sent me about poverty is about the US not global poverty.

http://www.cgdev.org/blog/global-absolute-poverty-fell-almost-half-tuesday

Play the violence. Become the violence.

@theht said:

Despite some of the cast, that production screams "Quality".

@gamefreak9: I am glad then that the US' fall hasn't had a global effect, at least not yet. The other article is not so positive though, it is just a playing with the statistics: "Perhaps most importantly, it is worth repeating what didn’t change between Tuesday and Wednesday. The people who have just been classified as ‘not absolutely poor’ don’t actually have any more money than they did yesterday, and will still struggle in terms of getting a decent job, and many still face grim daily tradeoffs between buying school supplies or ensuring their kids are well nourished. In fact, if the new PPP numbers suggest anything it is that the quality of health or education or access to services associated with a given income has just gone down."

@demokk: Indeed the problems are still strong but the last 50 years have overall been good for the world. The consensus among economists at the moment is that technology is culprit behind inequality. The hypocrisy is that right now a good chunk of economists think patent law is harmful(to innovation), and i'd say between abolishing patents, copyright laws(legal monopolies) and fixing the financial sector you'd get a massive drop in inequality within the US and outside yet these are not favored, (except the last one but nothing seems to get past those lawyers).

I think me and you have a knack for getting all threads off topic...

The arguments that violent media leads to desensitization and facilitation of violent acts flies in the face of all empirical evidence we have on the subject, and for that matter, so does the argument that sexualized media leads to violence against women. If these things were true there would be a corresponding increase in crime, sexual and otherwise, and this has just not been the case. In the largest individual market for video games (the United States), access and mainstream attention to violent video games has been increasing for decades, and crime has careened. Media in general grows increasingly sexual, and access to sexually explicit content (outright porn and otherwise) is greater than ever, while rates of rape and sexual assault fall steadily for years. (Hell, the rate for incidence of rape in the US is down something like 80% since the late seventies.)

The generations with easiest access to media that we've all been told desensitizes us and facilitates contagious acts of violence, the generations with greatest access to sexually explicit media, are some of the least criminal, least sexually violent, most socially conscious and liberal-minded groups of people since we've kept comprehensive records. As far as I'm concerned, people can take their theory-crafting and stuff it. The only way you could contradict this is to start arguing that there's a wildly snowballing number of millions of unreported crimes influenced by all of this, and that these things are influencing us on some sort of deeper level that the lamestream media and the government can't measure or quantify, and at that point you're into unfalsifiable hypothesis territory that would be thrown out of any legalistic or scientific setting.

lol sucks to be them

@gamefreak9: Haha indeed. It has been enlightening nonetheless. Sorry, I tend to get a bit.. passionate about this stuff sometimes.

@imsh_pl@crysack@tuxfool: I'm afraid I don't have time to respond to everyone individually here, so I'm going to have to be a bit crass and make a blanket response. I know not every point in here will be relevant to every one of you, but just bare with me. Firstly, I am not arguing that it is not the right of the creators to include the content they have in this game. Secondly, I am not saying that because Hotline Miami 2 contains this kind of content that it should be removed from existence. Neither of those were points I raised. I do however disagree with the ideas that this rape scene is a minor part of the game and that minor aspects of a game don't deserve criticism. If there was something wrong with a menu or the lighting in a level you'd call it out, not least of which because it informs other people. Criticism is not a finite resource that we have to parcel out sparingly or we won't be able to apply to certain issues. I also disagree that we have zero context for the sexual violence in the game. We've seen the scene from beginning to end and Weidin's response to the initial criticism was to inform us about the context of the scene. We already have a pretty structured context here. Now, could the game be a more nuanced take on sexual violence overall? Could there be later events in the game which completely recontextualise that opening scene? I think it's very unlikely, but sure, it's possible. As Cara Ellison put it however, "The damage is already done". Even if this game turns around at the end and has some hyper-intelligent take on depictions of sexual violence in the media, it would already have committed the same low brow throwaway depiction of sexual violence it would be condemning. It would be hypocrisy.

I still don't think the "Bad controls/Bad depiction of rape" example is moot either. I mean it doesn't have to be controls in that example, it could be character design or graphics or whatever else, but in all the cases I'd disagree largely with arguments about "proof" and standardisation. There are standard ideas of how to properly do controls, graphics, certain gameplay systems, and so on. People have written and spoken for a long time on how to do the things within many of these categories correctly, but then people have spoken for a long time on issues with rape in the public consciousness and its depiction in media too. Again, I'm getting the general sense that people are seeing this as a "How could we ever know this was a bad depiction? Where is the proof?" situation when there are years and years of people writing about bad treatment of rape like this, it's just that the gaming community is not nearly aware enough of it. Certainly, Weidin's response didn't actually engage with a lot of the criticism or really indicate that he understood the full extent of the issues. I could ask for hard evidence and proof that the controls of a game are bad, but we both know that assessments of these things arise from collective societal criticism, and I think the question partly misses the point to begin with. You also cannot by default start blotting out any criticism of rape in the media by saying that it must be proved that it's not all entirely biased. It would be a clearly bigoted way to frame the issue to say that all those rape survivors and people vulnerable to rape who speak out about bad depictions of rape are just getting wrapped up in their own emotions while everyone else is a logical, rational human being.

To clear up another few issues I think the idea that this sort of content and the criticism of it should exist side by side without each informing the other is counter-productive. A huge part of criticism's purpose to begin with is to inform creators in what they create. You wouldn't suggest that major studios should just throw their QA results in the bin and release a game as it is. If somebody criticised the graphics of a game and it was stated they should be better, it wouldn't be seen as some sort of violation of what should artistically happen, so why should it be the case when a game actually has the potential to not just disappoint but do real damage criticism shouldn't have an effect? Again, I think there's a kind of special pleading which goes on when it comes to issues like this one. I'm also seeing the point that we cannot deal with the topic of rape in video games without hurting some people, and I believe that's true. This is why even empathetic, educational media about rape comes with trigger warnings. That being said, we should try our best, and what we see in this scene is not intelligent or empathetic, it does not "deal" with the issue of rape as much as it uses it, and my criticism remains. Lastly, perhaps the most worrying idea I've seen expressed here is that people, their emotional wellbeing, and the health of our society are "Arbitrary barriers" that box creators in. That's downright Randian. You don't do things that damage society or needlessly hurt people, and video games are already made with people and emotions in mind, it's just their scope is currently too narrow.

Overall, one of my worries here is that we should have seen by now that gaming has a huge problem when it comes to including women and people who are generally societally disadvantaged in some way, and what we have now is a huge body of criticism out there about the way rape is treated in society and the media, largely written by women, with women in mind, that it is being dismissed largely by men and people who aren't vulnerable to these issues. We need to do better.

Is Randian the new Marxist; a useful, threatening label to pin on anything that won't fall in line?

I notice it also comes with an unspoken implication that failing to fall in line and enjoy the right media causes real damage to society.

If there was a lot of writing about a topic, by men, for men in mind, that was dismissed largely by women and people who wouldn't be affected; would that prove anything, or is it just telling others to fall in line because men said so? Don't worry, according to empathetic people who want to help, men aren't affected by rape or emotionally affected by depictions of it. This is why men have to do better. Work harder, sacrifice more, do better. Are you a man; you're not doing enough. Work harder. You're not vulnerable to feeling negative emotions when seeing a depiction of rape, not like women. You're not vulnerable in any way! You need to help others. You don't even know the meaning of work, less privileged people work harder than you, men. Do better. Expect less. Work harder. I'm sorry, are you playing a video game? No, your video game is damaging society. Just listen to these women who will tell you how your video game hurt them. Stop sitting around playing video games and work harder. Do better. You're men, after all. You are responsible for solving problems. Give more. Work harder.

By the way, this structure in which men are invulnerable hyperagents with temptation problems who need to work harder 'for society' in order to prove their worth, and women are fragile, innocent and defenseless, especially as regards sexual matters, who require the intervention of society as a whole to ensure their emotions aren't too strained... This structure isn't Victorianism in 2015; it's progressive!

This is not a campaign for anything other than piety. They are not asking you to be less violent, because you're already not violent. They're not asking you to stop raping, because you're not raping. They're not asking you for anything but to prostrate and show how pious you are, usually by financially supporting them. And while the upper and middle classes fall over themselves to earn the most community respect, the lower classes can't afford to; this demonstrable lack of piety is used as justification for their derogation in polite company. I dealt with the demands and commands of privileged, pious hierarchs my entire childhood; I won't do it as an adult. I especially won't buy into this neo-Protestant work ethic shit about "doing better". It means the same thing it always did; fall in line.

@brodehouse: @gamer_152:

I do however disagree with the ideas that this rape scene is a minor part of the game and that minor aspects of a game don't deserve criticism. If there was something wrong with a menu or the lighting in a level you'd call it out, not least of which because it informs other people. Criticism is not a finite resource that we have to parcel out sparingly or we won't be able to apply to certain issues.

This seems to be a strawman. I do not believe there was an idea that the 'rape' scene (I'm putting rape in quotes since we're talking about a video game depiction of movie rape) should not be criticised. Quite the contrary, the overwhelmig consensus seems to have been the idea that people should be free to criticize and scrutinize a work of art. However, they should not expect that their criticism should be taken at face value and not, in turn, counter-criticized. Protesting of poor criticism does not equal protesting of criticism.

I also disagree that we have zero context for the sexual violence in the game. We've seen the scene from beginning to end and Weidin's response to the initial criticism was to inform us about the context of the scene

Again, I don't see how that's anything but a strawman. No one was claiming that there is zero context for the assault; we were claiming that the context is inadequate. We can only speculate. For me, personally, the fact that this scene was shown and that they did not reveal its future context means that it's some kind of a plot twist or an otherwise part of the story/game. But that's just me.

You also cannot by default start blotting out any criticism of rape in the media by saying that it must be proved that it's not all entirely biased. It would be a clearly bigoted way to frame the issue to say that all those rape survivors and people vulnerable to rape who speak out about bad depictions of rape are just getting wrapped up in their own emotions while everyone else is a logical, rational human being.

Third time... the idea is not that criticisms of rape should be hushed down, discouraged, or criticized inadequatly. It's just that this particular criticism of the sex scene (not even a rape scene) is weak and unfounded.

To clear up another few issues I think the idea that this sort of content and the criticism of it should exist side by side without each informing the other is counter-productive. A huge part of criticism's purpose to begin with is to inform creators in what they create. You wouldn't suggest that major studios should just throw their QA results in the bin and release a game as it is. If somebody criticised the graphics of a game and it was stated they should be better, it wouldn't be seen as some sort of violation of what should artistically happen, so why should it be the case when a game actually has the potential to not just disappoint but do real damage criticism shouldn't have an effect? Again, I think there's a kind of special pleading which goes on when it comes to issues like this one.

But graphics/controls/gameplay is different from the story and the characters. The former is meant to both entertain and portray the developer's vision in the best way. The latter is a part of the artist's vision.

Can you think of any game, or any piece of art for that matter, where the artist would, before release, beta test or QA the story or the characters? The only one that comes to mind is Cole's face in infamous 2, and that still was only a graphic overhaul.

Characters, the story, the plot devices and twists are rarely, if ever, subject to change before a release, because they are the message that the artist wants to convey. Gameplay, controls and graphics are most often only means (with exceptions, also atmosphere can be said to send a message), and developers are more willing to change these, because they are supposed to be compatible with the audience at large.

I'm also seeing the point that we cannot deal with the topic of rape in video games without hurting some people, and I believe that's true. This is why even empathetic, educational media about rape comes with trigger warnings.

Well, the warning was put in, so that doesn't really apply in this case.

That being said, we should try our best, and what we see in this scene is not intelligent or empathetic, it does not "deal" with the issue of rape as much as it uses it, and my criticism remains.

That's your personal opinion, and, with all do respect, I find it troubling that you want to pretend like it is anything more. I personally see this scene as a criticism of the pursuit of shock value in blockbusters, the notion that they are not even disturbed by putting such content in their movie.

Lastly, perhaps the most worrying idea I've seen expressed here is that people, their emotional wellbeing, and the health of our society are "Arbitrary barriers" that box creators in. That's downright Randian. You don't do things that damage society or needlessly hurt people, and video games are already made with people and emotions in mind, it's just their scope is currently too narrow.

First of all: wow, I wasn't aware that calling something Randian was meant to be an argument. I can call your perspective Saarkesianist, do I win?

Second of all: it is not up to you whether a controversial, disturbing or even a 'triggering' message is needless. Art is supposed to convey a message. Any and all viewings of this 'rape scene' are completely voluntary, as the video itself inform the user of the sexual content. People too often think that saying 'I'm offended/upset' means anything of value. Making people uncomfortable and presenting them with ideas out of their comfort zone is one of the primary purposes of art, I would argue.

Third of all: 'their scope is just too narrow' is nothing more than a sophist non-argument.

Overall, one of my worries here is that we should have seen by now that gaming has a huge problem when it comes to including women and people who are generally societally disadvantaged in some way.

Wait, what?

I might give you women but... seriously, socially disadvantaged people?

Gaming is pretty much the most popular hobby of the socially disadvantaged! The bullied, the awkward, the shunned, the laughed at, the shy - gaming is pretty much the most popular pasttime among these people.

what we have now is a huge body of criticism out there about the way rape is treated in society and the media, largely written by women, with women in mind, that it is being dismissed largely by men and people who aren't vulnerable to these issues

The gender/sex of neither the person making a claim nor the skeptic is relevant to the validity of those claims. That's just logic 101.

Also it's extremely insulting for you to imply that men are not vulnerable to rape while men are more often raped than women in the US.

Bonus points: Brodehouse put it way better than me, but absolutely:

The idea that men should be collectively responsible for the fragile emotional well-being of women who are seen as too weak to even see a piece of art that might be mentally straining, and that men, instead of treating women like they would other men ('your own emotions don't give you the right to dictate what others should do, you are an adult') should censor themselves is extremely sexist and insulting to both men and women.

@imsh_pl: I'd like to remind you before anything else that I am a moderator on this site. I want nothing more than a respectful, civil discussion. please do not use this thread as a platform to make passive aggressive jabs at me or any other user. Moving onto your arguments, I don't believe those first three points you've highlighted were strawmen. I was told directly and overtly that among other things, we had zero context for the rape scene, that it was the prerogative of the devs to put a scene like this in the game if they wanted, and that by taking a minor example of something harmful in a game criticism of more extreme elements is diminished. It was these kind of statements that I was replying to.

Moving on, I think there's a crucial self-contradiction in what you're saying. You repeatedly and rightly say that there should be open and quality criticism of games, but you're also saying that on principle I cannot call a hurtful or damaging scene needless, that I couldn't even call a scene needless when it causes traumatic rape flashbacks in victims. One of the purposes of art is to convey a message and another purpose is to bring people out of their comfort zones and present them with new ideas, but I don't think art gains some special kind of immunity for having a message or some uncomfortable content. If that message is damaging or irrational there is no reason it should not be called out, if that content truly hurts people there is no reason it should not be criticised. It also matters very much who that art challenges and in what ways. In a society where rape is already not taken nearly seriously enough this scene doesn't actually challenge the preconceived negative ideas or apathy of people in any way, it just adds to these existing problems and causes discomfort for rape victims. This is an example of art punching down, not up.

The idea that this should not be criticised the same way you'd criticise anything else is what I'm taking exception to. Okay, an artist is conveying a message, why does that mean we shouldn't point it out or fight back against it when it hurts people or spreads gross ideas? In fact surely with the power story and message have they should receive greater criticism than other elements of media. When people say they're offended or upset that should mean something, it's basic human empathy and morality to care about and pay some attention to the emotional well-being of other people, I don't think that should get thrown out the window. This is what I was calling Randian, the idea that it's okay to hurt and damage and mislead as long as you're saying whatever it is you want to say, that the artist gets some kind of special pass from moral or sociological criticism. It's a selfish concept.

The gender of the people making the criticism is entirely relevant when you consider that there is already a bias against one gender not just societally but in video games specifically. Games already listen to one gender far more than the other and we need to redress that balance. Games do have a problem with people who are at a societal disadvantage, but the gaming community has a running history of not being able to think of "social disadvantage" as something other than being awkward around people or having been bullied in school. Yes, it's important that we welcome people from both of those corners, but we also have to think about other socially disadvantaged groups and groups that have had trouble finding a space in gaming like women and those with issues surrounding rape. Now I could fight you on the statistics, the FBI have a really crappy history in this area, but the bottom line is I extend that latter sympathy to both women and men. This isn't about forcing people to create anything or women or other people being weaker than others, what this is about is a system of discrimination and privilege already being loaded against a certain set of people and not nearly enough consideration being given to them and their opinions.

It baffles me that this argument is simultaneously arguing about "artists shouldn't be given a pass just because it's expressing a message they want to express" (which I think is a misrepresentation of what people are actually saying, but okay) as being a "selfish concept" while the criticism of the scene rests on nothing more than not wanting to upset people, because all art should apparently be concerned about the feelings of anyone it would theoretically offend... but this is somehow not a selfish concept. I fail to see a meaningful logical distinction between the two things when it comes to accusations of selfishness, one is just appealing to the sensibilities of more people and thereby saying those feelings should have more weight than the feelings of the artist.

Moving on, I think there's a crucial self-contradiction in what you're saying. You repeatedly and rightly say that there should be open and quality criticism of games, but you're also saying that on principle I cannot call a hurtful or damaging scene needless, that I couldn't even call a scene needless when it causes traumatic rape flashbacks in victims.

I don't think many people are arguing that people can't think something is hurtful or needless, but merely that an artist shouldn't be so harangued about what is ultimately a subjective thing that they feel compelled to remove it from the game so as to not offend people. This ultimately gets us into the "they're taking away our games" thing. You're not saying things like this should be censored... just so socially ostracized that they feel compelled to not offend people for fear of backlash. Which... I don't find a very big practical difference between.

This is an example of art punching down, not up.

Okay, an artist is conveying a message, why does that mean we shouldn't point it out or fight back against it when it hurts people or spreads gross ideas?

This is what I was calling Randian, the idea that it's okay to hurt and damage and mislead as long as you're saying whatever it is you want to say,

I feel like these arguments are happening from a separate reality where this scene is actually way more violent and tasteless and pointless than it actually is. Where is Hotline Miami 2 punching down? What about the scene, which is meant to satirize the nature of exploitation movies throwing in sex as a cheap thrill, where no actual rape occurs, is "spreading gross ideas"? What about it is meant to "hurt and damage and mislead" outside of your personal interpretation of the scene? This argument is centered around the foundation that this scene is some cheap, violent rape scene meant to throw middle fingers at rape victims when that's not at all what it is. If it was that, I would be right there with you being skeezed out by it, but the descriptions of it, and the outrage surrounding it, in no way befits the actual contents of the scene or the message behind it!

The way people are reacting to this scene, or at least the arguments that are being used, are behaving as if this scene is specifically to make fun of rape victims or something, which is a complete misrepresentation of what's going on. That's where I get a little offended at the "Randian" accusation. Ayn Rand's own M.O. was total selfishness. I would understand if the scene was a juvenile "ha ha! rape! remember how this feels??" jab that tried to hide under artistic freedom (which it still should, principally, but would at least be legitimately repulsive) but the only way you could think that about this scene is to completely miss the point, because that's not the actual intent.

It's just so weird to me that multiple people are now dismissing something as Randian when the principles behind the idea are no different than the lefties in American society that inspired the free speech movement and led to people like George Carlin battling right-wing obscenity standards.

Look, every piece of art can offend anyone, for any number of reasons, legitimate or not. The issue that I and many others take with the outrage over this scene in particular is that there's a lot in society that's really awful and really gross, that are more or less frequent than rape is, and if you accept that the door should open to "not going there" on one particular issue, there remains no logical argument for why outrage over literally anything else can't be considered just as valid. Should we "not go there" when it comes to gang violence? Or domestic abuse? Or religion? Any scene in a video game where animals are casually abused, should this be off limits because it's "not taking the issue seriously enough"? All forms of media don't grant the "appropriate seriousness" to certain issues, largely because life doesn't grant "seriousness" to every issue.

That art can be so widely interpreted is amazing and is what I love about living in a free society that doesn't impose a certain code of values and behaviors on its entertainment. But what one person or another interprets about a scene is not automatically granted more legitimacy than what I feel about it, and immediate deference shouldn't be given to those who are offended about something just because they feel offended. This is simply not rational. I think everyone is free to say what they want about Hotline Miami 2, insofar as they don't want to prevent its existence, in which case I have a problem. But in the end, if people see a piece of art they dislike, they are not obligated to experience it. The only way we have a free society is by the collective understanding that not everything is meant to suit our personal sensibilities and that we walk away from things we don't like instead of trying to snuff it out. That's just the only place this discussion can reasonably end.

@brodehouse: This is not a campaign for anything other than piety. They are not asking you to be less violent, because you're already not violent. They're not asking you to stop raping, because you're not raping. They're not asking you for anything but to prostrate and show how pious you are, usually by financially supporting them. And while the upper and middle classes fall over themselves to earn the most community respect, the lower classes can't afford to; this demonstrable lack of piety is used as justification for their derogation in polite company. I dealt with the demands and commands of privileged, pious hierarchs my entire childhood; I won't do it as an adult. I especially won't buy into this neo-Protestant work ethic shit about "doing better". It means the same thing it always did; fall in line.

As someone who follows politics a lot I would throw "we must do better" right in the "stump speech" bin. A lot like when people talk about "change" or "comprehensive reform" or "having a conversation." It sounds nice, it makes people feel good, and means jack shit.

The problem with this notion of idealized individualism is that it breaks apart rather quickly in our giant, multicultural societies. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea, but it starts to fall apart once you realize that as long as we coexist with other people in the same society, which imposes its own dominant culture and political ideas, there is bound to be conflict, and almost nobody is willing to open up about their perceptions because of this same individualistic approach. All that ingroup outgroup psychology. And if you add to that the fact that living in the same society means that our decisions and actions do affect others, it gets worse.

Isn't it that because of this the US has this huge religion vs science debate in schools? It is a really muddy grey area. If you really wanted to stress test this "free society" think about what would happen if some group of artists/people started promoting "outrageous" ideas such as sexual behavior on children, demilitarization of the US, matriarchy or, dare I say it, different economical systems other than capitalism. And none of these are wrong per se, but I'd be curious to see the general populace's reaction to something like that.

If our goal is to live in these super massive societies, then everybody has to be willing to give to reach a good balance.

Really not sure if you meant it, as you've kind of been arguing the opposing view in this entire thread, but thanks for making a great argument for the blanket necessity of free speech and expression! When we allow a government or the "general populace" to limit the dissemination of ideas about things that we can collectively find repulsive, we give them carte blanche to stifle any kind of intellectual progress regarding important things like, as you mentioned, demilitarization of the US. But those ideas should simultaneously not be limited by what some may deem offensive.

Say an artist creates a sculpture that she hopes will express ideas about the danger of the US's military presence in other cultures. As part of that sculpture, she depicts the World Trade Center buildings crumbling. Many folks would find that distasteful. Indeed, there are many people here and around the world who's loved ones died in that attack, and the sculpture might trigger those painful memories. Are we to demand the sculptor edit her creation? Should her artistic message be stifled to the whole world because some feelings might be hurt? Should I keep asking blatantly rhetorical questions like this?

Anyway. I hope that point comes through. If we define what should be permitted in art by what can offend, we've destroyed art entirely. Any protest mocking George W. Bush probably offended many Republicans and American "Patriots". Any book or whatever depicting a healthy sexual relationship between folks under 18, or even a woman owning her own sexuality, probably offended some religious or conservative people. And I don't think it's too much of an imaginary stretch to think of any given Fox News reporter calling a game like Lesbian Spider-Queens of Mars, something like "Perverted Filth".

You can't argue that art should be edited according to your own morality, and disregard the morals of everyone else.

@gamer_152: First of all let me clarify: at no point in my post did I mean disrespect. I can sometimes get passionate, especially when talking about such an emotional topic. I do not believe my remarks were too much. But whenever you feel like I'm crossing the line, please do feel free to point it out to me. Moving on the arguments.

At no point did I say that one cannot call a scene or a work of art needless. My point was that such a claim is always subjective, and depends on personal interpretation of the work of art. A work of art is supposed to convey a message that the artist wishes to proliferate, and it is a non-sequitor to claim that because one's own interpretation of a work of art deems an element unnecessary, the element must therefore be unnecessary. It was put there by the artist, therefore the artist sees it as necessary. I was not saying that you cannot see the 'rape' scene as needless, quite the contrary; I fully support and recognize your right to such an opinion. However, it is important to recognize that it's jut that: an opinion, an interpretation.

Next we have the issue of empathy. Let me clarify if I chose my words poorly: when I was saying that 'this makes me uncomfortable and I'm offended' means nothing, I meant it in the specific context of artistic criticism. I completely agree that sympathizing with someone suffering from mental stress is very much a sign of an empathetic soul. However, when it comes to artistic criticism, statements like 'I feel offended, this makes me uncomfortable' have no actual merit. They bring no insight to the issue, they don't serve as any criticism, they don't address the nature of the issues of an allegedly problematic piece of art, they are not arguments. From the standpoints of an empathetic human being, 'I feel discomfort' deserves attention. From an artistic standpoint, unless accompanied by actual criticism, it's nothing more than a whine. I mentioned this in a previous post:

Protesting of poor criticism does not equal protesting of criticism.

I also disagree with you on what empathy implies. To me empathy is the ability and willingness to look at an issue from another's point of view. However, this is not synanymous with agreeing with that point of view's conclusion.

Furthermore, I am honestly scratching my head when I'm reading your description of the negative consequences of the scene. You have called in needless, gross, hurtful, causing traumatic rape flashbacks, and spreading gross ideas. But what exactly about this scene is so shocking? What is so distasteful? First of all, the viewer is informed about the nature of the content they are about to watch. There is no graphic depiction of sexual assault. The camera doesn't zoom in on the teared up face of the victim or the lustful grin of the assailant. The scene does not drag on for minutes. Hell, there's not even sound. The sexual assault in the scene is purely conjectural, the visuals are very minimalistic, even for a pixelated game like HM. And immediately after the assault has been hinted at it is made absolutely clear that no one has been hurt, and no actual attack took place, even in the context of the game itself. I honestly can hardly imagine how they could have touched upon the subject of sexual assault in a less direct manner.

Last but not leas, regarding the issue of gender in video games: I agree. There certainly exists a large amount of bias and indifference when it comes to the genders in gaming.
There is one gender which, from the very beginning of the medium, always has been the predominant gender of the villains and the bad guys.
There is one gender which is so invisible that in your typical action game at least 9 out of 10 times the entire function of a character of said gender is to be killed by the player.
There is one gender which is so disposable that the characters of said gender's entire role is most often, if not almost exclusively, defined by their ability to undertake dangerous and harmful tasks filled with numerous instances of self-sacrifice, all for the precious and valuable safety of other characters, most often of the other gender.
There is one gender which is so undeserving of empathy that no matter how badly the characters of said gender are tortured, slaughtered or abused, a game will never be considered for a ban or mentioned in the mainstream media unless it contains an instance of a character from the other gender experiencing similar distress (but most often on a much smaller scale).

It's not the one you were thinking about though!

Fuck censorship. Just fuck it. Fuck.

Living in Australia would drive me mad.

I'd hate to be gamer in Australia, everything good gets banned or dissected. You would think they would just do an overhaul on their ratings board and set a new rate for violent games/media, even if it means asking for ID in stores, surely they are missing out on profit themselves by outright banning everything?

I'm from Australia and preordered the physical soundtrack on vinyl which comes with a code for the game on steam, I'm not quite sure if the code is going to work when the package arrives here would any of you guys know? or had a similar situation with a game refused classification?

@fissionmailed10: The code will work. You can use keys from other regions and it will give you that version of the game.

What?! "Protagonist character bursts into what appears to be a movie set and explicitly kills 4 people," and "he strikes a female character wearing red underwear. She is knocked to the floor and is viewed lying face down in a pool of copious blood. The male character is viewed with his pants halfway down, partially exposing his buttocks.". Yes, it appears to be a movie set because it is a movie set. They are filming a movie where the protagonist murders people and it shows a very brief pixelated "rape scene,". IT'S GODDAMN MOVIE WITHIN A GAME. C'mon Australia, unban it.