Support NeoGAF

[Arkage]

this paints a scary and disappointing future for gaming - all it takes is a few emails from a 'gaming' website to censor or outright prevent a game release ON LAUNCH DAY.

If the game was 1) anything other than shit 2) not clearly misogynist at every turn and 3) had a fanbase that would invest in the game, it might be a problem. But Sony/Steam loses nothing other than bad publicity by dumping the game. Also: the devs can release it on their own and cater it to the own fanbase if indeed one exists. PS and Steam would just serves as an outreach program to introduce PUA to gullible youth, which is something I'm sure they have no interest being complicit in. Neither have pretended to be free speech marketplaces, so they shouldn't be expected to hold up those ideals.

 

[buizel]

If the game was 1) anything other than shit 2) not clearly misogynist at every turn and 3) had a fanbase that would invest in the game, it might be a problem. But Sony loses nothing other than bad publicity by dumping the game. Also: the devs can release it on their own and cater it to the own fanbase if indeed one exists. PS and Steam would just serves as an outreach program for gullible youth, which is something I'm sure they have no interest being complicit in. Neither are free marketplaces, so they shouldn't be expect to hold up the ideals of a free marketplace.

yeah, but xbox 360 indie arcade was full of 'dating titles' like this. EXACTLY like this. of course it was all seen as "ahaha trash 99c indie game" then, rather than "omg BAN THIS FILTH". any publicity is good publicity? id say that applies to a game like this, and people are free to make their own opinions.

i havent seen anything of this game outside of dunkeys video, so maybe im not the best person to talk about this, and im unsure of how 'serious' the actor was about his advice, i dunno man. its like, listen to the GTA V radio stations, they talk about beastiality, necrophilia, child abuse, women abuse, pedophilia etc etc but its all done in a parody-way, but young people wouldnt get that.

ill have to look more into this game. i love FMV stuff, its fucking hilarious. this is just the 2018 version of night trap. yaawn

 

[Arkage]

yeah, but xbox 360 indie arcade was full of 'dating titles' like this. EXACTLY like this. of course it was all seen as "ahaha trash 99c indie game" then, rather than "omg BAN THIS FILTH". any publicity is good publicity? id say that applies to a game like this, and people are free to make their own opinions.

i havent seen anything of this game outside of dunkeys video, so maybe im not the best person to talk about this, and im unsure of how 'serious' the actor was about his advice, i dunno man. its like, listen to the GTA V radio stations, they talk about beastiality, necrophilia, child abuse, women abuse, pedophilia etc etc but its all done in a parody-way, but young people wouldnt get that.

ill have to look more into this game. i love FMV stuff, its fucking hilarious. this is just the 2018 version of night trap. yaawn

Times change. Not sure why talking about 360 games is relevant. If MS would've banned those games (which I'm sure they would now) the same argument stands. It's not censorship, go release it online on your own website or platform. MS/Sony/Steam is under no obligation to allow all games equal access to their marketplace. As for GTA, yea it's mature content which is why it has age restrictions for as much good as that does. Though PUA isn't parody - it's systemized manipulation/harassment/objectification of women, it's purpose is to train young boys/men to behave a certain way around women in real life. Hence why it was all live action based clips.

 

[WaterAstro]

Has Sony really blocked the release? I can only find confirmation from Motherboard, and why the hell should I believe their source?

 

[buizel]

Times change. Not sure why talking about 360 games is relevant. If MS would've banned those games (which I'm sure they would now) the same argument stands. It's not censorship, go release it online on your own website or platform. MS/Sony/Steam is under no obligation to allow all games equal access to their marketplace. As for GTA, yea it's mature content which is why it has age restrictions for as much good as that does. Though PUA isn't parody - it's systemized manipulation/harassment/objectification of women, it's purpose is to train young boys/men to behave a certain way around women in real life. Hence why it was all live action based clips.

I guess yeh, i just see things as much more imitable than this. I feel people look at this, cringe and realise they probably shouldnt act this way.

i dont have much experience in the way of pick up artists. i rarely hear of them, i think the last time i heard/saw one was that pick up artist on the h3h3 youtube channel who... didnt seem very good at his job.

i think ill live stream this game with my sister, in case yall wanna see a WOMANS REACTION

 

[WaterAstro]

I guess yeh, i just see things as much more imitable than this. I feel people look at this, cringe and realise they probably shouldnt act this way.

i dont have much experience in the way of pick up artists. i rarely hear of them, i think the last time i heard/saw one was that pick up artist on the h3h3 youtube channel who... didnt seem very good at his job.

i think ill live stream this game with my sister, in case yall wanna see a WOMANS REACTION

Do a twerk attack on your sister while you twerk attack in game.

 

[DryvBy]

I guess yeh, i just see things as much more imitable than this. I feel people look at this, cringe and realise they probably shouldnt act this way.

i dont have much experience in the way of pick up artists. i rarely hear of them, i think the last time i heard/saw one was that pick up artist on the h3h3 youtube channel who... didnt seem very good at his job.

i think ill live stream this game with my sister, in case yall wanna see a WOMANS REACTION

I'm going to have my wife play it with me this weekend. This game looks like a parody of a pick up artists. Like how Surgeon Simulator isn't a real surgeon simulator (to my disappointment at the time!)

 

[Fnord]

"yes, it’s incredibly heteronormative"

And... this is a problem why, exactly?

 

[WaterAstro]

I'm going to have my wife play it with me this weekend. This game looks like a parody of a pick up artists. Like how Surgeon Simulator isn't a real surgeon simulator (to my disappointment at the time!)

Well, you should pick all the wrong choices first. The good choices are actually good advice, and there are parts where it's really hard to tell what's good or bad. Those that seem bad, at first thought, end up being good choices with pretty sound reasoning in the feedback part.

 

[Dunki]

If the game was 1) anything other than shit 2) not clearly misogynist at every turn and 3) had a fanbase that would invest in the game, it might be a problem. But Sony/Steam loses nothing other than bad publicity by dumping the game. Also: the devs can release it on their own and cater it to the own fanbase if indeed one exists. PS and Steam would just serves as an outreach program to introduce PUA to gullible youth, which is something I'm sure they have no interest being complicit in. Neither have pretended to be free speech marketplaces, so they shouldn't be expected to hold up those ideals.

I love people who have no idea about what they are talking about. Maybe you should ask actual women who have played and streamed the game how they think about it?

But maybe you first need some advices about being respectful and friendly towards other people. And maybe this game can help you a bit as well.


As for It is their choice: Yes it is HOWEVER. Something like Twitter or Facebook are much more than just a service these days. These are opinion maker these regulated the outrage, in the world as well. They have way too much social power to let them alone decide. As for Playstation. Yeah its only like 40% of the current market so this could still apply here. Steam however is different. The moment you are not on Steam you will lose like 80% of your potential market. Its like not being able to ride a train.

 

[daibaron]

Stop placing women on a pedestal. They dont want to be there. They want and they will to go to bed with the fancy pua guy.

Dont hate the playa, hate the game! Only problem is that the game is life, biology itself and you cant change that.

I too, a really nice and decent guy to women, have been pretered more than once over some shit style pua (aka as the guy that ACTUALLY gets the girls) ending with a broken heart and a rude awakening. But i took it as a man and grew up, i dont go banning videogames like it would make a difference.

 

[Mattyp]

Remember when Vice was actually decent and relevant at exploring real world issues about drugs & gangs and all that jazz? Pepperidge farm remembers.

 

[autoduelist]

Because straight male pandering abolition was always implicit part of the crusade, even though they claimed no. Their complaint is basically "men shouldn't have a fantasy simulator where you input the right answer and get to bang digital chicks". Japan has made a living off such a thing for decades, both sfw and nsfw. Some things can be done out of respect for women, others as a "Fuck You" to males. In regards of videogame censorship and sexism, it's often the latter disguised as the former.

Romance novels are a huge market, offering a wide range of sexual fantasies and fetishes aimed directly at women. The market makes no attempt to be inclusive, and shouldn't, because it knows women are its market.

Whether you want to be a queen with a harem of slaves, or a princess abducted by a surprisingly handsome man trying to save the world, you can find it.

Actually, the entire book industry knows its primary buyer is female and produces and markets content with that in mind. This has been true for a long time.

The idea that every niche needs be inclusive or else left behind is absurd. Rather than being upset not everything is for everyone, we should celebrate that there is something for everyone.

 

[LegendOfKage]

So here's an aspect of this that I wouldn't mind hearing discussed. Modern feminist theory, or at least some modern feminists, seem to suggest that no woman should ever be shamed for her sexuality. If a woman dresses "too provocatively" or is "too promiscuous," it's none of your business. And that's fine. I agree with that. Basically, the idea is don't be judgmental. But is that not a two way street?

I get that people have issues with the idea of pick up culture, but if a woman wants to find a guy just to have sex, we're supposed to be fine with that. If a guy wants to find a woman just to have sex, we're supposed to think he's a slimeball? Is there a double standard here, or am I misrepresenting the issue somehow? I think it's fine to think casual sex is okay, and I think it's fine to think people should wait to have sex until they actually do care about each other, but at least be consistent about the issue.

Honesty is important, though. If someone specifically has issues with any aspects of pick up culture that encourage lying, that's fully understandable.

 

[autoduelist]

It's not censorship, go release it online on your own website or platform. MS/Sony/Steam is under no obligation to allow all games equal access to their marketplace..

This idea that censorship can only come from the govt is entirely incorrect. Yes, a marketpkace does not have any obligation to sell all things, but when you have a dominant market that does not sell certain products, it is still censorship.

It also creates a atmosphere of self-censorship, in which creators become afraid to go near certain topics for fear of not being allowed to sell. This happens in every creative industry.

Those into banning stuff always seem to yell that it's not censorship if it doesnt come from the government, but all this shows is a complete lack of understanding of the use, definition, and history of the word. Yes, government censorship is one type of censorship, but its only one. A corporation can censor as well - for example, a media conglomerate can choose not to allow coverage that would hurt a child company. The pressure can be overt or, more likely, subtle... a journalist knows doing an expose on a company they are sisters with would be career suicide. Even if they wanted to, everyone up the chain will pressure them not to, since theyd all be at risk. Why fund your own funeral? All of these various pressures, whether economic or social, fall under the umbrella of censorship. That is how the word has always worked, both in common usage and in academia. Its why we even have the term self-censorship, among others. The only ones shouting what they are doing isnt censorship are the censors themselves.

 

[Fnord]

This idea that censorship can only come from the govt is entirely incorrect. Yes, a marketpkace does not have any obligation to sell all things, but when you have a dominant market that does not sell certain products, it is still censorship.

Correct. Somewhere along the way, censorship became conflated with the US first amendment.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Correct. Somewhere along the way, censorship became conflated with the US first amendment.

It's a bit ridiculous that we have to keep having this conversation. The ACLU even acknowledges that censorship can come from outside of government.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression."

Again, that's the ACLU talking.

 

[Kadayi]

I see professional wobble chops John Walker of Rockpapershitshow is once again abusing the Steam News system to trot out his hot take on matters: -

Super Seducer is a game made by self-described “pick-up artist” (PUA) Richard La Ruina, aimed at teaching straight men so-called seduction techniques for attracting women. The result is a farcical and disastrous laughing stock of a game. But PUAs aren t a funny joke, rather they’re a frightening reality of a deeply misogynistic culture that in its less PR-friendly moments has frequently advocated sexual assault against women.

I fully expect the game will now become a top seller

 

[Arkage]

This idea that censorship can only come from the govt is entirely incorrect. Yes, a marketpkace does not have any obligation to sell all things, but when you have a dominant market that does not sell certain products, it is still censorship.

It also creates a atmosphere of self-censorship, in which creators become afraid to go near certain topics for fear of not being allowed to sell. This happens in every creative industry.

Those into banning stuff always seem to yell that it's not censorship if it doesnt come from the government, but all this shows is a complete lack of understanding of the use, definition, and history of the word. Yes, government censorship is one type of censorship, but its only one. A corporation can censor as well - for example, a media conglomerate can choose not to allow coverage that would hurt a child company. The pressure can be overt or, more likely, subtle... a journalist knows doing an expose on a company they are sisters with would be career suicide. Even if they wanted to, everyone up the chain will pressure them not to, since theyd all be at risk. Why fund your own funeral? All of these various pressures, whether economic or social, fall under the umbrella of censorship. That is how the word has always worked, both in common usage and in academia. Its why we even have the term self-censorship, among others. The only ones shouting what they are doing isnt censorship are the censors themselves.

Governmental censorship is very different than a company not wanting to sell a product, and conflating the two in order to make a general "argument against censorship" is disingenuous. Especially when company "censorship" is totally within their own control to either ignore or listen to their customer base. Apparently in your world a company having any sort of quality control is actually "censoring" (shitty bad) games - that should tell you how meaningless that word becomes when used in this context. They can ignore the complaining groups or listen to them. If you don't like their choice, than find a different company. Maybe if a bunch of free speech purists like you abandon steam they'll change their mind (/s). They are, again, under no obligation to support products that are as bad as a PUA dumpster fire game in order to pass some free-speech purity test.

I love people who have no idea about what they are talking about. Maybe you should ask actual women who have played and streamed the game how they think about it?

But maybe you first need some advices about being respectful and friendly towards other people. And maybe this game can help you a bit as well.


As for It is their choice: Yes it is HOWEVER. Something like Twitter or Facebook are much more than just a service these days. These are opinion maker these regulated the outrage, in the world as well. They have way too much social power to let them alone decide. As for Playstation. Yeah its only like 40% of the current market so this could still apply here. Steam however is different. The moment you are not on Steam you will lose like 80% of your potential market. Its like not being able to ride a train.

If you want to be on Steam, don't make a shitty misogynist live-action ego inflating PUA game who's entire goal is to spread a real-life shit ideology to gullible young men. It's that simple. Steam also wouldn't allow a altrighter to make a game about harassing Jews online to exist. Would you cry censorship if a Nazi themed game of working a gas chamber was banned from Steam? I doubt it. At some point people draw the line, because very few are actually "free speech" purists despite pretending to claim as much. Stream draws their lines sooner than you would - so what? They see it as beneficial to their company image and their bottom line, and they're probably not wrong.

 

[WaterAstro]

It's funny to think that how many times this game promotes being honest, it feels like anyone who is against this game is promoting dishonesty at this point lol.
Of course, they didn't play it, so they wouldn't know.

If you want to be on Steam, don't make a shitty misogynist live-action ego inflating PUA game who's entire goal is to spread a real-life shit ideology to gullible young men. It's that simple. Steam also wouldn't allow a altrighter to make a game about harassing Jews online to exist. Would you cry censorship over a Nazi themed game of working a gas chamber? I doubt it. At some point people draw the line, because very few are actually in "free speech" purity despite pretending to. Stream draws their lines sooner than you would - so what?

Oh hey, you're another one of those "haven't posted since October" visitors. Waddup! How's the other forum?

 

[Arkage]

Oh hey, you're another one of those "haven't posted since October" visitors. Waddup! How's the other forum?

Actually my last post here was from November 5th. But yea, the other site is pretty good. As someone who got permabanned from gaf multiple times for having moderate opinions in the past, I haven't even gotten a warning over there yet and meanwhile have seen many extreme leftists get banned and warned, so the mods are doing a good job being even handed IMO. The mods here seem good too, though the site lost quite a lot of it's userbase and content creators, which is why I end up using the other site more. Also the userbase here seems to have swung from majority strong left to majority strong right. Frankly the lack of pushback most of you guys receive on topics like this is pretty sad since apparently most left of center or leftists left, which is why I decided to chime in a bit. In any case this is off topic, wouldn't want to totally derail

 

[WaterAstro]

Actually my last post here was from November 5th. But yea, the other site is pretty good. As someone who got permabanned from gaf multiple times for having moderate opinions in the past, I haven't even gotten a warning over there yet and meanwhile have seen many extreme leftists get banned and warned, so the mods are doing a good job being even handed IMO. The mods here seem good too, though the site lost quite a lot of it's userbase and content creators, which is why I end up using the other site more. Also the userbase here seems to have swung from majority strong left to majority strong right. Frankly the lack of pushback most of you guys receive on topics like this is pretty sad since apparently most left of center or leftists left, which is why I decided to chime in a bit. In any case this is off topic, wouldn't want to totally derail

Okay dude, yeah, one post on that date. lol

 

[BANGS]

As someone who got permabanned from gaf multiple times for having moderate opinions in the past, I haven't even gotten a warning over there yet and meanwhile have seen many extreme leftists get banned and warned, so the mods are doing a good job being even handed IMO.

I got a temp ban over there for basically saying "notallmen" because apparently that invalidated victim's experiences...

 

[bitbydeath]

So here's an aspect of this that I wouldn't mind hearing discussed. Modern feminist theory, or at least some modern feminists, seem to suggest that no woman should ever be shamed for her sexuality. If a woman dresses "too provocatively" or is "too promiscuous," it's none of your business. And that's fine. I agree with that. Basically, the idea is don't be judgmental. But is that not a two way street?

I get that people have issues with the idea of pick up culture, but if a woman wants to find a guy just to have sex, we're supposed to be fine with that. If a guy wants to find a woman just to have sex, we're supposed to think he's a slimeball? Is there a double standard here, or am I misrepresenting the issue somehow? I think it's fine to think casual sex is okay, and I think it's fine to think people should wait to have sex until they actually do care about each other, but at least be consistent about the issue.

Honesty is important, though. If someone specifically has issues with any aspects of pick up culture that encourage lying, that's fully understandable.

Do you really want to date a feminist though? You may as well go get a gimp suit because you’ll be in for a lifetime of bondage.

There’s a reason sayings like ‘Live in the moment’ exists. Feminists win when you start seeing yourself as a lesser person and putting yourself behind them.

 

[WaterAstro]

Do you really want to date a feminist though? You may as well go get a gimp suit because you’ll be in for a lifetime of bondage.

There’s a reason sayings like ‘Live in the moment’ exists. Feminists win when you start seeing yourself as a lesser person and putting yourself behind them.

I think there are degrees of feminists though. Some women just seek to be stronger, get involved in equality, respectful things like that. They will protest if you say things like I didn't think to include you to my friend's soccer game because you're a girl. That's all good in my mind.

When a feminist is like I will always pay for my bill, I don't need your help, don't buy anything for me, I'll drive myself, then you've got a problem because why the hell are they even in a relationship other than to step all over you.

 

[autoduelist]

Governmental censorship is very different than a company not wanting to sell a product, and conflating the two in order to make a general "argument against censorship" is disingenuous. Especially when company "censorship" is totally within their own control to either ignore or listen to their customer base. Apparently in your world a company having any sort of quality control is actually "censoring" (shitty bad) games - that should tell you how meaningless that word becomes when used in this context. They can ignore the complaining groups or listen to them. If you don't like their choice, than find a different company. Maybe if a bunch of free speech purists like you abandon steam they'll change their mind (/s). They are, again, under no obligation to support products that are as bad as a PUA dumpster fire game in order to pass some free-speech purity test.




If you want to be on Steam, don't make a shitty misogynist live-action ego inflating PUA game who's entire goal is to spread a real-life shit ideology to gullible young men. It's that simple. Steam also wouldn't allow a altrighter to make a game about harassing Jews online to exist. Would you cry censorship if a Nazi themed game of working a gas chamber was banned from Steam? I doubt it. At some point people draw the line, because very few are actually "free speech" purists despite pretending to claim as much. Stream draws their lines sooner than you would - so what? They see it as beneficial to their company image and their bottom line, and they're probably not wrong.

Don't accuse me of conflating two terms when I am pointing out that you are misusing a term. I am not conflating, you are simply incorrect in your usage.

The rest of your post is similarly misguided. For example, only a few decades ago, music Publishers were considered to be necessary as quality control. The expense of making albums was high enough that they were the quality Gatekeepers. They could not only control who got to be heard but what was heard both genre wise and lyric wise. Technology advanced, first with cassette tapes, recordable CDs, streaming... And The Gatekeepers were shown to be wrong. Punk is a perfect example of a genre where quality control was wrong. Garage bands and many other obscure genres did not fit The Gatekeepers definition of quality and did not find success until technology broke down those very gates.

So, to your point, quality control by a Marketplace gatekeeper is a form of censorship. Far from meaningless, as you claim ,it's actually vital to understanding the meaning of the word censorship. I hope my example of the music industry is enough to show you how having a few control quality can suppress content that others might Define as quality.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example societal pressures to self censor. I know nothing about this specific game, but I know that your opinion on it is not the only one. Yet you pretend to be a societal GateKeeper, and justify your censorship as common sense. You do not have faith in the marketplace deciding whether something is of value, and instead would have us worry about "the children". Those poor fragile Minds, good thing you're there to save them. Meanwhile, you get self-righteous and say you're not a censor but that's exactly what you are trying to be.

 

[KevinKeene]

Governmental censorship is very different than a company not wanting to sell a product, and conflating the two in order to make a general "argument against censorship" is disingenuous. Especially when company "censorship" is totally within their own control to either ignore or listen to their customer base. Apparently in your world a company having any sort of quality control is actually "censoring" (shitty bad) games - that should tell you how meaningless that word becomes when used in this context. They can ignore the complaining groups or listen to them. If you don't like their choice, than find a different company. Maybe if a bunch of free speech purists like you abandon steam they'll change their mind (/s). They are, again, under no obligation to support products that are as bad as a PUA dumpster fire game in order to pass some free-speech purity test.




If you want to be on Steam, don't make a shitty misogynist live-action ego inflating PUA game who's entire goal is to spread a real-life shit ideology to gullible young men. It's that simple. Steam also wouldn't allow a altrighter to make a game about harassing Jews online to exist. Would you cry censorship if a Nazi themed game of working a gas chamber was banned from Steam? I doubt it. At some point people draw the line, because very few are actually "free speech" purists despite pretending to claim as much. Stream draws their lines sooner than you would - so what? They see it as beneficial to their company image and their bottom line, and they're probably not wrong.

How full of yourself can you be? Impressive. A whole lot of words, yet one sentence following the next one amounts to no more than 'if you don't share my opinion, you're wrong'.

Censorship is when speech, art, creativity or any product are forcibly altered in terms of their meaning. There is no 'conflating' censorship from the government and censorship from companies, because both amount to the same. You hide behind the argument that companies 'listen to their customer base' and are 'in full control'. You know exactly that's not true, so stop being disingenuous yourself instead of making hollow call-outs against others.

Companies these days don't listen to their customer base. If that were true, Tokyo Mirage Sessions wouldn't have been censored. The boob slider in Xenoblade Chronicles X wouldn't have been removed. Gal Gun would be releasing in Germany. And so on (and if those aren't the best examples, there's better ones. Don't you dare dismiss everything because of that). Companies (and fortunately not all of them) listen to the complaints of a very vocal minority that hardly overlaps with their customer base. It's never the customers when some ignorant, morally close-minded jerks are outraged over some anime-game. These are people that hate anime in its entirety. Yet, companies HAVE TO listen to them or feel they have to, because otherwise the harassment will start and the combined campaign efforts of websites like Kotaku, Polygon and a certain forum will make sure to brand the company as racist, sexist, homophobe or whatever discriminative buzzword is en vogue that moment. These companies don't have the courage to stand up to these terrible bullies and censor their games - someone coined the fitting term 'culturalization', because what happens isn't mere localization. Although censorship exists beyond Japanese games coming to the West, of course.

The point is: censorship is a real thing in gaming and it's even more perverse than government censorship. When the government censors something, it's because it sees the need to protect people from something. Which I don't support, as censorship is always wrong, but I can understand their line of thinking. However, when companies are censoring their own products, it's not because of any sort of noble cause. It's cowardice, bowing to the pressure of an obnoxious small group of people that never had any intention to buy their product. This group's goal only is to forcibly change the world to fit to its authoritarian, ignorant, small ideas. And thanks to Twitter and the aforementioned websites, as well as the fact that minorities are untouchable in the current climate no matter how wrong they might be, companies adhere to these people. And commit censorship.

So don't you dare tell us what is and isn't censorship. You know full well what the problem ist, but you gleefully choose to ignore it. Because your own ideology isn't 'shit ideology', huh. And you care so much about young men, huh? You don't. You never did. But you didn't expect to get called out yourself or maybe you did, and you'll reply with a 'this place has really gone to hell' (EDIT: I see you already did that. Yes, clearly there are no more people of this left on NeoGAF. Clearly, as the political compass thread demonstrates. Lol) - because those who don't share your 'shit ideologies' are wrong, alt-right, neonazis, misogynists, harassers, racists, gamergators, and whatever else catchphrase you can come up with.

Don't like this game? Don't buy it. What a novel idea, I know.

 

[bitbydeath]

I think there are degrees of feminists though. Some women just seek to be stronger, get involved in equality, respectful things like that. They will protest if you say things like I didn't think to include you to my friend's soccer game because you're a girl. That's all good in my mind.

When a feminist is like I will always pay for my bill, I don't need your help, don't buy anything for me, I'll drive myself, then you've got a problem because why the hell are they even in a relationship other than to step all over you.

True, probably should use a different word though rather than group them all together.

It’s not fair on those trying to do the right thing vs ones that are only out for themselves.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Do you really want to date a feminist though? You may as well go get a gimp suit because you’ll be in for a lifetime of bondage.

There’s a reason sayings like ‘Live in the moment’ exists. Feminists win when you start seeing yourself as a lesser person and putting yourself behind them.

My post really wasn't about dating a feminist, but to answer your question, feminism is an ideology. It's a political opinion / movement that someone identifies with, and not every follower of a movement is going to happen to have the same opinions.

It would absolutely be possible to gather a feminist, non-feminist, and anti-feminist in a room, ask them ten questions about how women should be treated / represented / respected in society, and all of them could have the same answers. I could also gather three random feminists in a room, and all of them would disagree on those same ten questions.

I used to identify as a feminist myself, but I no longer do, because I've grown to dislike ideology and the "us vs them" mindset that it creates for people. But I could still call myself a feminist, and keep my same opinions. In the end it doesn't matter. So rather than us vs them, I'd rather learn how individuals feel, which is why I asked the question.

To fully answer your question, I wouldn't have an issue dating someone who identifies as a feminist, as long as we both shared the same values and had mutual respect for each other. I care more about how people think and why they think that way, not what they identify as.

Regarding this game, I think it's fine if Sony didn't want it on their service, but they should have probably decided that long before the developer spent time and money making a PS4 version. The idea of Sony being pressured into a last minute cancellation seems unfortunate to me. I might not even agree with some of the game's content myself, but I don't like the idea other people's subjective morality being used to limit what can be seen or heard.

 

[Arkage]

Don't accuse me of conflating two terms when I am pointing out that you are misusing a term. I am not conflating, you are simply incorrect in your usage.

The rest of your post is similarly misguided. For example, only a few decades ago, music Publishers were considered to be necessary as quality control. The expense of making albums was high enough that they were the quality Gatekeepers. Technology advanced, first with cassette tapes, recordable CDs, streaming... And The Gatekeepers were shown to be wrong. Punk is a perfect example of a genre where quality control was wrong. Garage bands and many other obscure genres did not fit The Gatekeepers definition of quality and did not find success until technology broke down those very gates.

So, to your point, quality control by a Marketplace gatekeeper is a form of censorship. Far from meaningless, it's vital to understanding the meaning of the word censorship. I hope my example of the music industry is enough to show you how having a few control quality can suppress content that others might Define as quality, Punk music being a perfect example.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example societal pressures to self sensor. I know nothing about this specific game, but I know that your opinion on it is not the only one. Yet you pretend to be a societal GateKeeper, and justify your censorship as common sense. You do not have faith in the marketplace deciding whether something is of value, and said worry about quotation marks the children quotation marks. Those poor fragile Minds, good thing you're there to save them. Meanwhile, you get you get self-righteous and say you're not a sensor but that's exactly what you are trying to be.

You are conflating two sharply different contexts into a single word. Sorry.

Punk did just fine without gatekeepers, and that was in the era of cassette tapes let alone having the full resources of the internet and networking. Music gatekeepers don't exist in meaningful ways anymore, so why are videogame "gatekeepers" held up as some god that controls all? This belief is especially ridiculous in the age of the internet. The only thing keeping this shitty PUA game from achieving greatness is its own level of shittiness - look at Minecraft. The biggest selling game never needed a gatekeeper because it was a fantastic game and didn't need one. Gatekeepers are most valuable to games that can't sell themselves, to games that can't find their own footing in the actual "free speech" marketplace (i.e. the wild internet), and need someone like Valve/Sony to boost their signal. They are signal boosters and they can damn well choose which signals they want to boost and which ones they don't. It is, by definition, in their interest to have quality control. And if anything, most people want Steam/PS to have better, more rigorous quality control because the number of games coming out daily has reached astronomical heights, and the average consumer can't be expected to spend hours every day sorting out which games released that very day are actually good and which games are shit. Steam and PS should be viewed as curators, and the internet itself should be viewed as the "free" marketplace. Because that's the actual reality of the situation.

I'm literally not censoring anything, so I don't how I'm "justifying (my) censorship" or that I'm "trying to be a censor." I don't work for Steam or Sony, sorry. They are the ones "censoring", and I'm sure they have teams of marketing, branding, and economic analysis telling them it's a common sense move to block this shitty game. Are they going to be wrong, just like those record companies blocking punk, and wish they jumped on the chance to support a shitty PUA game? Just maybe!! Lol, jesus.

Don't like this game? Don't buy it. What a novel idea, I know.

Like a game? Tell the company you want to buy it from them directly instead of bitching about Steam and Playstation not wanting that company's controversial garbage in their storefront. What a novel idea, I know. The things we can do with the internet these days, shucks!

 

[Dirk Benedict]

How about we just stop making games altogether if there is any harm of any kind done to anything. Let's also not allow any skin being shown, that's right. Dinosaurs in trenchcoats, Dolphins wearing radiation suits, people covered in cement since people skin is one of the most sacred of all. Hell, don't release games anymore unless there are only skeletons as the characters. No more killing, no more sexualization, nothing. Just release visual skeleton novels where the characters talk about the mysteries of the universe.

/s

Spare me the fucking bullshit. I'm reacting to the title but im going to dig into the MEAT and potatoes of this article and see if that was exactly the case.
I want Sony to give us what WE want, not what media wants.

 

[jadedm17]

Dirk Benedict : As Jim points out in the video below it's more the perception we actually had it since it was announced as coming to PS4, and less that we don't have it; People are mad something was taken away rather than denied. The non-game is garbage and has no real value while also being marketed as genuine : Richard, the man in the game, believes what he's saying, this isn't satire. This isn't someone saying South Park needs to be banned - you do things in South Park. Super Seducer offers nothing but videos of nonsense. Nothing was lost here.

youtube link of fake video

it just feels like such an odd thing to center your outrage on, and theres much more deserving people and subjects to focus your intense hatred on.. idk man

Much like the "killing simulator" comment : LINES

This is a ridiculous video anyone with half a brain should see as fake;
Super Seducer is a non-game that's out to actively teach men to be douchebags.



@ 2:20 "This works because you're taking away her independence, like is she allowed to talk to other men?"

It's advertised trickery to get women to do things they dont want instead of actually respecting them;
Meanwhile we're fighting about if this is silencing of free speech when Richard himself was confronted and decided to silence free speech he didnt like about the game.

 

[Dunki]

Dirk Benedict : As Jim points out in the video below it's more the perception we actually had it since it was announced as coming to PS4, and less that we don't have it; People are mad something was taken away rather than denied. The non-game is garbage and has no real value while also being marketed as genuine : Richard, the man in the game, believes what he's saying, this isn't satire. This isn't someone saying South Park needs to be banned - you do things in South Park. Super Seducer offers nothing but videos of nonsense. Nothing was lost here.



Much like the "killing simulator" comment : LINES

This is a ridiculous video anyone with half a brain should see as fake;
Super Seducer is a non-game that's out to actively teach men to be douchebags.



@ 2:20 "This works because you're taking away her independence, like is she allowed to talk to other men?"

It's advertised trickery to get women to do things they dont want instead of actually respecting them;
Meanwhile we're fighting about if this is silencing of free speech when Richard himself was confronted and decided to silence free speech he didnt like about the game.

IT is called FMV game they were pretty popular in the 90s. Same yould be said about tender loving care for example...

And your independence part again. How often do I have to tell you that it is going against the guy and that it makes sense in the context of the conversation....

And for Richard what do you expect him to do when mass games media is blatantly lying and demanding the game to get out of kickstarter and also PSN store? I also do not talk to assholes so why should he? And yes the DMCA takedown was stupid but he is also learned a lesson. In this case he also learned a lesson to never trust games "journalism" like many gamers did before during lets say gamergate.

PS The Jim video is absolute trash like the vice article but yay games "journalism"

As for people who believe that censorship is only about the government. This is what the ACLU has to say

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

 

[KevinKeene]

Something being 'nonsense' doesn't justify its erasure.

Smash Bros. is nonsense. I like Smash Bros..

 

[LegendOfKage]

This isn't someone saying South Park needs to be banned - you do things in South Park. Super Seducer offers nothing but videos of nonsense. Nothing was lost here.

These two women seem to be enjoying themselves while playing the game, and I'm sure you can find many more examples on you tube. What was lost was the choice for people like these women to either buy the game or not, even if they only want to buy the game to mock it and talk about how wrong and stupid it is. I bet a lot of people would want to buy this game to MST3K it with some friends. That should be their choice. Instead, with regard to the PS4 version, that choice was made for them by a group of individuals putting pressure on a company to comply with their subjective opinion of right and wrong.

 

[WaterAstro]

True, probably should use a different word though rather than group them all together.

It’s not fair on those trying to do the right thing vs ones that are only out for themselves.

Pretty much. It's like how there are peaceful protestors, and there are people who just want to stir up trouble.
I also argue with people on here that they should separate gambling with most loot boxes because they are not the same thing.

@ 2:20 "This works because you're taking away her independence, like is she allowed to talk to other men?"

It's advertised trickery to get women to do things they dont want instead of actually respecting them;
Meanwhile we're fighting about if this is silencing of free speech when Richard himself was confronted and decided to silence free speech he didnt like about the game.

lol you completely took that out of context, and "taking away" is actually more like "challenging" her indepdendence. I exactly know what line that is, and it is a good line. In fact, that's a line feminists will say.

Richard is saying that you ask the girl if she's okay with being with other men, you are getting her to emphasize her independence, and you get the information to know if she is okay with being with you.
This is extremely respectful of the woman because you don't want to butt into a good relationship, and if they are independent from their current relationship, you can continue talking with her.
At the end of the whole thing, Richard didn't give her a reason to have an affair. He just got her phone number and a good impression. Are you trying to say that woman aren't allowed to have male friends other than her boyfriend? Because that seems like what you're trying to imply by saying he's wrong.

You should really watch the whole thing before making snap judgements using a sliced up video like that.

 

[strange headache]

It's advertised trickery to get women to do things they dont want instead of actually respecting them

Well I don't know about you, but I'd like to think that most women are smart enough to not fall for these stupid pick-up lines. I'm pretty sure they can handle themselves and don't need some random dude on a video game forum being outraged on their behalf. In fact, they pretty much do the same thing, like here, here and here, goddamn women's magazines are full of that stuff... oh and this one of course:



I'm not interested in this game, but geez, the whole outrage about it is just so petty and overblown. Do some of these game journalists ever go out once in a while? They'd see men and women hooking up for far sillier reasons all the frikkin' time. That game is tamer than a backroom lounge at your local club on a regular Friday evening. It always takes two to tango, you know.

P.S.: Anyone willing to listen to Sterling about anything dating/women related, is just...

Spoiler: don't click me

...yeah no, just no.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Actually my last post here was from November 5th. But yea, the other site is pretty good. As someone who got permabanned from gaf multiple times for having moderate opinions in the past, I haven't even gotten a warning over there yet and meanwhile have seen many extreme leftists get banned and warned, so the mods are doing a good job being even handed IMO.

Hahahaha. Oh wait, you were being serious. Let me laugh even harder.

The mods here seem good too, though the site lost quite a lot of it's userbase and content creators, which is why I end up using the other site more. Also the userbase here seems to have swung from majority strong left to majority strong right. Frankly the lack of pushback most of you guys receive on topics like this is pretty sad since apparently most left of center or leftists left, which is why I decided to chime in a bit. In any case this is off topic, wouldn't want to totally derail

As this has been said and shown time and again, the majority of people here are assuredly left leaning. There isn't push back because this community upholds the idea of an open discussion and not a closed echo chamber. This may appear to be right leaning if you consider anything that isn't the authoritarian left mindset that you are used to to be "strong right".

Dirk Benedict : As Jim points out in the video below it's more the perception we actually had it since it was announced as coming to PS4, and less that we don't have it; People are mad something was taken away rather than denied. The non-game is garbage and has no real value while also being marketed as genuine : Richard, the man in the game, believes what he's saying, this isn't satire. This isn't someone saying South Park needs to be banned - you do things in South Park. Super Seducer offers nothing but videos of nonsense. Nothing was lost here.

Much like the "killing simulator" comment : LINES

This is a ridiculous video anyone with half a brain should see as fake;
Super Seducer is a non-game that's out to actively teach men to be douchebags.



@ 2:20 "This works because you're taking away her independence, like is she allowed to talk to other men?"

It's advertised trickery to get women to do things they dont want instead of actually respecting them;
Meanwhile we're fighting about if this is silencing of free speech when Richard himself was confronted and decided to silence free speech he didnt like about the game.

Hm, it is almost like you can take things that were originally meant to be taken one way (like Tommy Wiseau's The Room) and view it in a different light! There have been plenty of people who have played and shown enjoyment from the game while still disagreeing with Richard or finding valuable information from the "tips". That doesn't mean the game is garbage or that it has no real value. Your attitude in this thread reminds me a lot of an old Simpson's episode. In particular, this scene with Marge:

 

[Link1110]

Hahahaha. Oh wait, you were being serious. Let me laugh even harder.



As this has been said and shown time and again, the majority of people here are assuredly left leaning. There isn't push back because this community upholds the idea of an open discussion and not a closed echo chamber. This may appear to be right leaning if you consider anything that isn't the authoritarian left mindset that you are used to to be "strong right".



Hm, it is almost like you can take things that were originally meant to be taken one way (like Tommy Wiseau's The Room) and view it in a different light! There have been plenty of people who have played and shown enjoyment from the game while still disagreeing with Richard or finding valuable information from the "tips". That doesn't mean the game is garbage or that it has no real value. Your attitude in this thread reminds me a lot of an old Simpson's episode. In particular, this scene with Marge:

Or take the tips with a grain of salt judging which ones are good. I can ignore take aways her independence and learn something from always ask a girl's schedule after I get her number so I know when I should call (which also shows respwct for her time. In fairness the game doesn't say the part in parenthesis)

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Well I don't know about you, but I'd like to think that most women are smart enough to not fall for these stupid pick-up lines. I'm pretty sure they can handle themselves and don't need some random dude on a video game forum being outraged on their behalf. In fact, they pretty much do the same thing, like here, here and here, goddamn women's magazines are full of that stuff... oh and this one of course:



I'm not interested in this game, but geez, the whole outrage about it is just so petty and overblown. Do some of these game journalists ever go out once in a while? They'd see men and women hooking up for far sillier reasons all the frikkin' time. That game is tamer than a backroom lounge at your local club on a regular Friday evening. It always takes two to tango, you know.

P.S.: Anyone willing to listen to Sterling about anything dating/women related, is just...

Spoiler: don't click me

...yeah no, just no.

That's a lot of bounce. Also, I've never seen nipples hang that low. I'm gonna go throw up now.

 

[WaterAstro]

lol uh got the better ending, and I don't know what to make of it.

The first ending

Spoiler

is pretty novel. He talks about some cool things about the making of the game, and I was actually happy about this kind of reward.

The second ending

Spoiler

he says to take a selfie of the completion of the game (50% all levels and all best answers done), and he'll give a reward for like $100-300 or something. I don't know what it means...

 

[autoduelist]

You are conflating two sharply different contexts into a single word. Sorry.

Punk did just fine without gatekeepers, and that was in the era of cassette tapes let alone having the full resources of the internet and networking. Music gatekeepers don't exist in meaningful ways anymore, so why are videogame "gatekeepers" held up as some god that controls all?!

No, you simply dont understand what censorship is. Id try to explain again except it would fall on deaf ears, again.

And im surprised you can even think straight enought to type with that airplane flying over your head. Heck,you arent even grasping the concept of gatekeepers... you say that punk did well even with cassettes, fully missing that this was exactly my point, that cassettes were when we could first truly escape gate keepers in the music industry.

We never needed quality gatekeepers, and that you can see this in other industries that already went through these growing pains decades ago. You were the one defending quality control gatekeepers, remember?

You want so badly for everyone to fall in line with your views, and you are so sure you are just, that you wont even try to understand the very words you use. Enjoy your high horse.

I still dont even know what this game is about beyond its title, and i dont care. I see you up in arms about it, villifying it, and i dont care. It pixels and a pov, just like every other game. Maybe its good, maybe its trash, I do not care. But banning it from the storefront of the most popular console is textbook censorship, period. That you celebrate it and defend it as some sirt of quality control while pretending corporate censorship of a product you dont like is justified and a good [and therefore not censorship] as opposed to govt censorship, is laughable.

If you want to support removing products you hate from storefronts, by all means, do so. But own it. Understand you want to be the gatekeeper, understand that you are defending and supporting the role of the censor... because you and yours can view and judge safely, and then decide if others can handle it or not. Protect us, please.

 

[theclaw135]

Sony is under no obligation to sell a particular game, or disclose to the public their reasoning. (of course that might not be a good thing in itself. I am critical in general of the game industry's secrecy.) Whether this particular instance is deliberate censorship, or any number of issues (technical difficulties, etc) we don't yet know about, it's too soon to tell.

The effectiveness of the game I'm not sure about either. Are its techniques successful for men to pick up women?

 

[Geki-D]

The effectiveness of the game I'm not sure about either. Are its techniques successful for men to pick up women?

I doubt it, I guess it could help some men to get over initial anxiety and work up courage to talk to women in social settings. I haven't played the game, but from what I've seen the examples of the wrong choices are so silly and unbelievable I don't really see how pointing out you shouldn't do them is helping. Every functional human being knows you can't just show your cock to women on the street or jump out and shout boo! at women in a club.

Though I don't see why this matters. If people find a self help book to be pretty unhelpful, it's not like it should stop being sold, I'm sure all of the books written by this guy are junk too. I don't get why video game publishers have to be so prude with what they allow on their systems, it's not like a Sony DVD player will refuse to play a porn DVD so I don't get why any games relating to porn would just be refused a place on a platform. As long as it's properly age rated, there are people willing to make it and people willing to buy it.

 

[WaterAstro]

The effectiveness of the game I'm not sure about either. Are its techniques successful for men to pick up women?

The techniques aren't particularly special. The only thing that I really took away was how to break the ice and approach women. There are also a few Pick-Up Artist routines that seem to be effective.

Other than that, Richard is generally promoting honesty, respect, doing things that are attractive like looking intelligent, when to be playful, and how and when to escalate the mood. All of these things are pretty common sense in a date. The good thing is that you get to see it in action to get a better understanding of how it looks like, so I think this game is pretty effective simply because it's doing what women like on dates.

 

[KevinKeene]

Sony is under no obligation to sell a particular game, or disclose to the public their reasoning. (of course that might not be a good thing in itself. I am critical in general of the game industry's secrecy.) Whether this particular instance is deliberate censorship, or any number of issues (technical difficulties, etc) we don't yet know about, it's too soon to tell.

The effectiveness of the game I'm not sure about either. Are its techniques successful for men to pick up women?

Sony is under no obligation to not be criticized either.

 

[dragonfart28]

Just watched a stream where a girl was playing it and enjoyed the funny bits without getting offended.

They exist.

 

[TannerDemoz]

Do you really want to date a feminist though? You may as well go get a gimp suit because you’ll be in for a lifetime of bondage.

There’s a reason sayings like ‘Live in the moment’ exists. Feminists win when you start seeing yourself as a lesser person and putting yourself behind them.

I date a feminist and find this equally offensive and hilarious, because you clearly have a warped view of feminists

 

[Dunki]

Just watched a stream where a girl was playing it and enjoyed the funny bits without getting offended.

They exist.

I have watched quite a few streams to actually see how women are reacting and iI have not found one was was uncomfortable or offended by it.

 

[daibaron]

Actually my last post here was from November 5th. But yea, the other site is pretty good. As someone who got permabanned from gaf multiple times for having moderate opinions in the past, I haven't even gotten a warning over there yet and meanwhile have seen many extreme leftists get banned and warned, so the mods are doing a good job being even handed IMO. The mods here seem good too, though the site lost quite a lot of it's userbase and content creators, which is why I end up using the other site more. Also the userbase here seems to have swung from majority strong left to majority strong right. Frankly the lack of pushback most of you guys receive on topics like this is pretty sad since apparently most left of center or leftists left, which is why I decided to chime in a bit. In any case this is off topic, wouldn't want to totally derail

You want to prevent the pua techniques to propagate. Well you cant, it propagates from father to son, friend to friend, from observation and lastly but most importantly human biology.

If you want to be the real white knight go the clubs and bars and protect the women being preyed upon, warn them, explain to them the trap being set. Dont let them go away in that cab with the pua.