Violence will be censored too, I bet. Still, it's apples and oranges. Different effects.
- Status
Censorship in entertainment is an outdated concept (just like region-locking). The only reason it still exists is that nobody bothered to change the law or weren't in a position to do so. There are a lot of weird remnants to be found because of how the law has "evolved" in the past.
Onward to the game...
As far as it's viable for the devs to do so in order to reach a larger audience. However, a distinction should be made between adult scenes and adult themes. The former can more easily be censored, for example, by removing blood and guts from combat and full nudity from sex scenes. The latter is more problematic. Having drugs as a reference is already crossing a line for some, never mind the ability to use drugs yourself. I would not even bother to try to censor adult themes because you'll only end up butchering the game.
Hmm, I'll try to clarify... Yes, different areas of the world handle this type of thing differently. I don't take any issue with this, at all. The concern is when personal requests get added on top of that.
The game is built a certain way and meets certain criteria to satisfy a certain rating. The entire point of going through this process is to establish the target audience for the game. This way you can look at the rating and know what type of content will be in the game. Why should additional steps need to be taken beyond this to make the content appropriate for other demographics outside what it has been rated for and targeted toward?
The rating panel has met their responsibility by rating the game and holding the developer to it. The developer has met their responsibility by marketing and ensuring it meets the criteria for the intended rating provided by the rating panel. Any responsibility beyond this rests on the user of the content.
Let's try it this way.... Say a movie is rated R in the US. Let's say you want to see this movie. Let's also say you want to watch it with the entire family, including your young children. Since we're in a hypothetical, suppose you feel young children shouldn't see R rated movies. Is it acceptable to ask the creators of this movie to provide a PG rated version of the movie, just for you?
As an edit... To be clear, if it requires minimal effort and is easy to pull off to provide an option to disable nudity, sure, why not? Options = good. It's just.... the phrase slippery slope probably applies here.
Now, if you'll excuse me. I'm going to get back to having my character in DIsco Elysium take his pants off and drop some speed before making this jump
.
Last edited:
For me this debate is easily fixed by the adult player . I am a PS player so i have always played in a main room of the house . When my kids where young i couldn`t play some games when they were around . I played the Grand Theft games with out sound because of the constant swearing . So if you have young ones around there`s two choices don`t play when they are there or don`t play at all
I have 2 kids and PC in main room but have never had such issue. And not because I am ok with showing nudity and violence to them. I simply play only after they go to sleep. And even if I would accept them to watch such scenes (which I do not) I couldn't focus and 100% dive into the game world if they would be around.
And I would love to change those laws, but it needs to be done in such a way that doesn't start a riot (figuratively or literally speaking). I think it will always be there in some form until the structure of government changes to something more global and less regional...but I also think that's a long way off (...and an even longer way off until it would actually work well.)
Hmm, I'll try to clarify... Yes, different areas of the world handle this type of thing differently. I don't take any issue with this, at all. The concern is when personal requests get added on top of that.
The game is built a certain way and meets certain criteria to satisfy a certain rating. The entire point of going through this process is to establish the target audience for the game. This way you can look at the rating and know what type of content will be in the game. Why should additional steps need to be taken beyond this to make the content appropriate for other demographics outside what it has been rated for and targeted toward?
The rating panel has met their responsibility by rating the game and holding the developer to it. The developer has met their responsibility by marketing and ensuring it meets the criteria for the intended rating provided by the rating panel. Any responsibility beyond this rests on the user of the content.
Let's try it this way.... Say a movie is rated R in the US. Let's say you want to see this movie. Let's also say you want to watch it with the entire family, including your young children. Since we're in a hypothetical, suppose you feel young children shouldn't see R rated movies. Is it acceptable to ask the creators of this movie to provide a PG rated version of the movie, just for you?
As an edit... To be clear, if it requires minimal effort and is easy to pull off to provide an option to disable nudity, sure, why not? Options = good. It's just.... the phrase slippery slope probably applies here.
Now, if you'll excuse me. I'm going to get back to having my character in DIsco Elysium take his pants off and drop some speed before making this jump
I still don't think there's much distinction with the censorship issue itself. All censorship is a result of numerous, individual requests. It doesn't happen arbitrarily; it's a result of the same requests or complaints being issued repeatedly over a period of time. Hearing only one of those requests does not mean that it's the only one. I've come across at least 10 different members that have shared a similar opinion or concern for Cyberpunk, The Witcher, and Gwent.
As for whether there should be options in games for this type of thing, I look at that as being a bit different than censorship. While I have no issue with nudity in CDPR's titles, and I feel they've handled it very thematically, we lose nothing by providing options. This is a standard that more video games could be exploiting. It's not really possible to do such with film or literature, but it's relatively easy to customize and experience in a game to one's liking. If it's possible for a game to provide an option for people to cater it to their liking...why would a studio ever say 'no'?
To me, an option to remove nudity or censor sexual scenes would be no different than options to turn HUD elements off, or disable the floating numbers that appear when you cause damage, or disable dismemberment and graphic blood-spray, or disable the artificial film grain effect if it's bothering me. I wrote a post years ago about this, basically highlighting that studios stand only to gain by letting the player decide.
My initial response in this thread was before I knew that the art assets to remove nudity were a thing. Now that they're there...why would the not be made available to anyone and everyone? I'll be keeping the nudity in-game as originally intended because I can already see that it takes characters to a certain level of vulnerability, and I feel that changes the way the game feels on a macro scale. (Again that whole theme of transhumanism that Cyberpunk explores.)
On the flip side, I am actually not a fan of gratuitous nudity and sexuality in games. As with a lot of RPGs and such, female characters dressed in the proverbial "chain-mail bikini" is something that I find absolutely annoying and immersion- breaking.
I haven't mentioned any personal views on the topic. This is for a reason. Well, several reasons... Personal views on the matter have nothing to do with my comments.
Short answer, they shouldn't have to say yes. Going off this logic, what if a person has a personal issue with, I don't know, pink hair? Should the game now include a specific set of assets to replace every single instance of pink hair with a different color? Let's make it more controversial. What if a person has an issue with people of a certain ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious belief system? Should the game offer an optional toggle for those elements?
there is always a line that must be drawn when it comes to accomodation (in the case of violence, gore, sex, nudity) and exclusion (bigotry, erasure, prejudice). and the answer to where that line is draw is: somewhere. that's it. where the line is drawn is up to the developer and the choice to engage with the content is then up to the individual (even the regional market for that matter, as is the case with Japan).
adjusting to someone's sensitivity to nudity and gore is patently different from adjusting to someone's xenophobia/queerphobia/religious bigotry. there are, very simply, fewer ideological nuances to nudity and gore than there are to ethnicity, sexuality and religion.
[Edited -- SigilFey]
@SigilFey is this conversation getting out of line/hand? i don't wanna be the one but...i had to make my point
adjusting to someone's sensitivity to nudity and gore is patently different from adjusting to someone's xenophobia/queerphobia/religious bigotry. there are, very simply, fewer ideological nuances to nudity and gore than there are to ethnicity, sexuality and religion.
"you want a toggle on nudity and blood? yeah sure i can do that"
"you want a toggle on [people of a certain ethnicity]? n...no?...i will not do that."
the line is drawn somewhere, most often at the boundary of the greater and lesser historically complex ideologies[Edited -- SigilFey]
@SigilFey is this conversation getting out of line/hand? i don't wanna be the one but...i had to make my point
Last edited by a moderator:
It is, sure. Obviously, filtering out those other things I mentioned isn't exactly the same thing. It's not going to happen either. Nor should it. The point is in both cases the concession is being made because someone wants an option to alter a game built with a certain type of content, for a certain demographic, to fit their own personal criteria.
Once again, I don't feel a developer should have to make these type of concessions on top of the ones they already have to make on a regional level.
Hmm, how come? The example provided was clearly exaggerated to get the point across. Sometimes it's necessary to throw out ridiculous commentary to get a point across. It wasn't made to offend. It wasn't made to suggest I personally think there are any merits to optional filters for those areas (I do not, for the record).
The pink hair example was probably the more useful one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't this actually the same question as asking Nintendo to add a nudity/gore toggle to the next Mario game?
There is definately an audience for this, but would it make sense?
There is definately an audience for this, but would it make sense?
Presumably because it's what matters to him/her. It's not my place to tell someone else which subset of vices they should or shouldn't be offended by.
Edit: Only because someone will ask an idiotic question that they think is clever: I'm not declaring nudity, violence, or anything else to be vice or non-vice. That's up to each individual. I'm simply responding to the framing that was implied in the question.
Your post crossed the line a bit, that guy. But the sentiment is a valid point.
Let's keep the conversation on the topic of censorship in general. Let's not start talking about specific, real-world groups, regions, or politics -- even for the sake of example. Discuss the over-arching philosophy only.
Personal views? I'm not talking about any one person's personal views. I think we're addressing two different things.
My point is that regardless of what the detail is that's up for censorship, the act of censorship itself does not happen out of thin air. Censors don't wake up and go, "I don't approve of that. [CENSORED!]" It's a system put in place based on hundreds or thousands of individuals demanding the censorship. Then, a system of "dos and don'ts" is created, and that system is followed in that region.
A person making a request for censorship does not directly determine what will or will not be censored. That only happens after lots and lots and lots of people make the argument to ban a certain type of content with all sorts of validation to back up how and why they want it removed. If anything is censored, it's because LOTS of people wanted it gone. (In the vast majority of places, at least.)
That's why we have experts to draw the line, and it's not decided by anyone and everyone.
And like I argued earlier, it's also a lost cause, in the end. The amount of repression and sheer destruction that would be required to completely eradicate material of any sort is so extreme, we're talking Geneva Convention levels of wrongdoing. (Literally, the burning of the Library of Alexandria. And with most material stored on internet servers nowadays, instead of in physical form...there aren't enough torches in the world.) Hence, once something is created...it's out there. And anyone that really wants to see it is going to see it. Anyone that tries to censor anything is ultimately going to fail in the face of anyone that is determined to get the content.
Thus, I say trying to universally "ban" something is a waste of time. Rather, if anything could be deemed controversial to the point of being harmful to a certain demographic...just add a toggle. Let those who would rather not partake of one or two details still enjoy the rest. Why not?
Vice versa, if censoring something is the act that's causing harm, that's why we have those same experts to say, "No way. We're not censoring that."
Last edited:
Exactly. Every person in life is going to encounter something that makes them uncomfortable, and every person will have to choose whether they're going to adapt to it or walk away. Not liking something is not, in and of itself, an argument to have something censored.
The reason we try to keep certain content away from certain people (or all people) is because of culture. In the Middle Ages, in Europe, touching one's face with their hands at the dinner table would have been considered rude enough for children to sent to bed without eating or for guests to be asked to leave. In the 1700's, someone refusing to smoke would be looked at as risking their health and the security of their families. After all, smoking was vital for healthy lungs and to stem off disease.
Beliefs on what is or is not acceptable changes with the winds. Cultures don't need to make perfect sense, they just need to get along. I'd argue, as the world becomes more and more globalized, we're going to need to just start letting people manage their own affairs in that regard.
But, for the sake of creating interactive video games, if it's as simple as clicking a menu button or an installation option to add or remove material that may not be considered appropriate for all situations...why the heck not? It won't always be possible -- sometimes, people will simply have to take it as it is or leave it -- but it would be foolish to turn away an audience simply because I'm trying to prove a point. That's not constructive.
Last edited:
By personal views I meant thoughts on censorship. I did not mention it because you were speaking about personal views on the matter. I mentioned it to clearly point out the comments had nothing to do with personal views on censorship itself.
Yes, I realize censorship is an evolving... process. This is beside the point.
An example would be a game rated 18+, for whatever reason. If it's rated as such then we should expect to see content appropriate for the 18+ age group in that game. Why should the game have to then provide optional toggles to specific pieces of content deemed suitable for this age group? It completely undermines the purpose of the rating system.
I'm not sure I'd call them experts, but... yeah.
Anyway, this is the other side of the personal view comment. I can only assume you're saying rating systems are pointless here because they do not work. If it makes you feel any better, yes, rating systems are pointless because they don't work. I agree completely. Providing options to turn features on or off because they might be deemed inappropriate for someone is a much better approach.
The problem is, it's not the world we currently live in. Right now we have these highly subjective rating systems, decided upon by "experts", determining what is or isn't appropriate for content targeted at certain demographics. These rating systems already have to be navigated around by developers. Probably at great expense to them. They shouldn't have to go the extra mile to further censor their content because someone is inconvenienced they feel forced to play their adult rated game away from their young children.
I'd add, it's not hard to see where you're going here. The idea being games can begin offering optional toggles on top of the rating systems. Eventually, hopefully, we'll hit a point where those rating systems are recognized for the obsolete, ineffective concepts they are and replaced with a better option. Unfortunately, I don't think it will play out this way.
The way I see it playing out is a developer starts offering toggles for, I don't know, nudity. Now they feel pressured to continue doing it (cat is out of the bag, so to speak). From there other developers feel pressured into it. Next thing you know someone is asking, as mentioned earlier, for an optional toggle for pink hair. Meanwhile, they still must keep meeting whatever requirements the rating systems throw at them.
And, this all brings us full circle back to my original concern. As I'm sure you're aware, game design is often zero sum. You add X, you can't add Y. I'd rather not end up in a scenario where developers are walking on egg shells and devoting all their attention to optional toggles for feature after feature instead of making a decent game.
while i dont personally want the option it would be nice so could play game when foster child home without having to watch over my shoulder
There's where I think many people misunderstand the situation. The developers do not have to navigate around it. They do not have to add or remove content because "a censorship board said so". They can choose to cooperate with the censorship if they want to market their game in that region. That's all. Everyone stands to gain something and lose something either way.
This is quite literally the regional equivalent of someone saying, "We don't use foul language in our house." No one has the right to "challenge" that rule while under that person's roof. It doesn't matter how silly or ridiculous I may find it. It's their home. I can respect it, or leave. There is absolutely no problem with that reality in any way whatsoever.
More or less. And I think people are taking the idea of what these option toggles would mean to quite an extreme here. We're talking about graphic nudity and sexuality. We're talking about seeing someone's organs hit the wall and their face being turned into kibble with a shotgun blast. We're talking about language that would David Mamet wince. These are not elements of media that are only now being considered for the first time. People have dealt with this stuff in games, films, books, advertising, etc. for hundreds of years. It's no different now than it was in the late 1800s, when moving pictures first came out. It's no different than in the 1600s, when there was a huge push to rid the world of "fictional novels", because they were rotting people's brains.
People are going to just get on with life no matter what the censors say. We're going to have adult-oriented material no matter how much some people may dislike it. People that a given society says "should never be exposed to such filth" are going to sneak over to their friend's house and see it there. Humans are going to continue doing exactly what they've always done.
So, there's no issue in being able to turn underwear on or off. It changes absolutely nothing. Except giving even more people the chance to enjoy something they way they would prefer. It's no different than saying "Yes, I'd like whipped cream on my hot chocolate," or, "No thanks, you can hold the whipped cream."
Censorship has absolutely nothing to do with simply providing people options on how spicy they want their chicken wings.
They don't have to do so. If they're making the game they can do whatever they want. My understanding is development is pretty volatile though. If a studio pushes out game after game where they aren't making respectable profits there is a very real possibility they go tits up. There is a reason a great number of older studios from back in the day either disappeared or got swallowed up by the proverbial big boy studios.
Getting a game blacklisted in a region or across entire platforms (like Xbox/PS) isn't a realistic path. So yeah, it's a choice. It kind of isn't though.
Okay but, uh, flip this analogy around a bit. Suppose foul language is perfectly acceptable in the house. Now suppose someone challenges it while there and requests foul language be off limits while they're present. Replace the house with the game and the foul language with the game content/rating. That's where I get confused.
To put this differently... The game is in CDPR's house. It should play by CDPR's rules. Requesting or demanding options to alter it is indistinguishable from doing the same in the above analogy. Honestly, it's good you brought it up because this illustrates my point. I knew what the point was but didn't really know how to put it into words earlier. At least, not in a way where it could be understood fully.
Pretty much. The funny part is I often wonder if the act of censorship isn't counter-productive. The, "Kids shouldn't see this, let's block it.". A great way to make a young, impressionable mind want something is to tell them no
.It doesn't but combing through a game built with nudity in it and filtering out every single instance of it isn't a simple task. Cutting out every instance of violent behavior or language isn't either. Adjusting every instance of pink hair, same deal. Those tasks consume resources. Those resources have to come from somewhere...
I'd much prefer people understand the content in the game and accept it for what it is. Not request or demand a special toggle, just for them, to adjust it. Again, sending ratings packing and having options for all of this type of stuff instead would be ideal. Doing things in an ideal fashion isn't exactly the MO of humanity, unfortunately.
Yup! That's the biz. But it's the same with or without censors. Dealing with "censorship" concerns is no different than dealing with "contractual" concerns, or "partnership" concerns, or "distribubution" concerns. Any one of those things can blow up in one's face any moment and cause major issues on the business end of things. (And by direct relation -- the creative end of things as well. This is often why otherwise brilliant games are rushed out the door before they're truly finished or suddenly canceled.)
At least with censorship, I sort of know what I'm dealing with upfront!
CDPR is the business, not the client. The business always answers to the client...or they are left with zero income and no business. Businesses do not get to "do what they please" without consequence. A business either gives clients what they demand, or they fail. Fortunately, CDPR has a knack for creating things people want. But it's not going to work every time.
So, as a business, I am never -- ever -- in a position to say, "Take it or leave it...!"
...
...without giving the client the option of leaving it. If that happens: No Sale. And that will be a negative for my business no matter how I slice it.
Hence, we're right back at the root of the issue yet again. If I want to be successful, I must learn how to compromise. If I try to stand my ground for no constructive goal, I am literally risking my future success for no gain.
So now, the balancing act continues.
- Do I subvert my whole creative vision to humor all censorship boards everywhere (Lose-Win)?
- Do I limit my market in certain censorship regions while still ensuring a profit (Win-Lose)?
- Do I reject the censorship and stand my ground to prove my point at my loss (Lose-Lose)?
- Or do I put a few options in-game to ensure it's playable across the censorship spectrum (Win-Win)?
Pretty much. The funny part is I often wonder if the act of censorship isn't counter-productive. The, "Kids shouldn't see this, let's block it.". A great way to make a young, impressionable mind want something is to tell them no
You bet! What I said earlier: taboo. The reason something is "taboo" is because it's off-limits...thus very alluring. Everyone always wants to see what's behind the huge, red door that says "Do Not Enter".
That was exactly what I was stating in my initial response to the OP -- that it would require the creation of alternative art assets to replace every asset of nudity. Tons of work. But...it's already done! They created exactly that for certain censorship regions and for streamers.
Hence...why would they not make it available to everyone? What constructive purpose would it serve to intentionally deny people the option? That would be extremely foolish -- especially if there's any level of demand for it.
But yes, in an ideal world, I would also like individuals to worry about their individual concerns without trying to impose their will upon everyone else. (Such as censorship boards.) As long as people are not at risk of suffering harm -- and once again, being really shocked by or uncomfortable with something is not causing "harm" -- I prefer to live and let live.
A primary tool of happiness is knowing when to walk away or go without.
If someone is Asexual doesn't that mean that they're not sexually attracted to anyone? If that's the case, why would nudity be an issue at all?
- Status