Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mario wrote:
Yes you get to complain like any other customer in any similar situation and they get to decide what they want to do with your criticism (that is if they even know of it). Why would you want to restrict your rights to appease a company that is only after your money?

But complaining rarely works. Boycotts rarely work. If it is a tool of the consumer, it is an ineffective one.

Do you think they let the sculptors at Disney just "do their thing" and then sell whatever toys they come up with? Their art is a job first and self-fulfillment second (or third) and heavily regulated from the top to meet whatever specifications Disney needs. If they can't handle that they won't be employed for long.

In this example, the sculptors are considered contract workers as far as intellectual property is concerned and don't own their own work, nor are entitled to the results of their work. I don't consider artists to be employees of their audience.

GRRM, for example, created ASoIaF because he wanted to creates something that he was not able to do while writing TV shows (and was a bit fed up with that) and didn't even think it would be adapted for TV at the time (and when it happened he didn't have full control over the TV series because it was somebody else's project) while other writers create novels with the aim/hope of getting a TV deal. Some comics are made to look like storyboards (easier to adapt) and made as appealing as possible for TV/movie people because overall comic sales are not doing that great. If you think they are all aiming for the highest concentration of artistic expression and noting else in their work then the only word that comes to mind is: naive.

I think GRRM is. I'm not denying that people create for all sorts of reasons, but there is a difference between creating towards a specific goal and changing/censoring a work in response to external pressures.

For example, if I was paid to write a book and told that I could not use the word "the", I would have no problems with that (morally, at least). However, if I had written a book that I was rather proud of and the publishers wanted me to rewrite parts of it to remove all the "the"s, I would have a problem with that. I am not opposed to including your audience as part of your design goals for a project, but I am opposed to them coming in after the fact and telling you that you did it stupid.

And why do these arguments about art/free speech in a heavily commercial context always make the creators out to be weak willed pushovers who for some reason can't be trusted to form their own opinion? If they can't handle criticism they are in the wrong business (they should have learned how do that way back in art school or in their creative writing classes). They are creating a commercial product and it's their choice what audience they want to target. They need to be ready to deal with criticism like adults. There are other field of employment where you don't have to deal with other people's opinions.

My argument isn't that the creators don't face criticism, but that the criticism is worthless. Constructive criticism best comes from your peers and superiors. The audience wants something from you, and have this criticism colored by that bias.

You live in a human/capitalistic society where your choices have consequences.

And my argument is that criticism isn't a consequence. Whether you, personally, think a work of art is good or bad is really only relevant to you, personally. Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.

So.... I shouldn't use my massive army of Diaz daemonettes in a game store?

 cuda1179 wrote:
A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.

Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?

Not sure if it's been said but couldn't you just ask your opponent and the local game store if it's ok beforehand. I mean if they say it's ok then go ahead.

I will say though i hate the more offended bunch i will admit naked women models don't exactly make wargamers or yourself look good. If some women go around you might want to hide em a bit. After all if you saw a bunch of chiseled naked dudes with oiled up abs in a girl hobby you wouldn't think well of them either. That said it's a hobby and it's entirely your right to enjoy your hobby. So yeah more just words of advice rather than forcing you to put your naked lady models away.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
A while back I purchased a tub of models from a guy that was getting out of the hobby. Never met him before, it was just a random meeting at the gaming store. Well, today I decided to sort through the hunks of plastic and resin. It was mostly junk, but hey, I only paid $10 for a few bits.

Near the bottom of the container I found three unassembled and unpainted models. They are obviously 3rd party, but GOOD 3rd party with 40k style weapons. Imagine if you will, totally naked women, except they have combat boots and helmets. One has a bolter, one has a flamer, and one has a missile launcher. They are totally NSFW models, the question is what to do with them. Obviously openly displaying them in public is in poor taste, but they are pretty cool looking. So, what do you think, store them away in a drawer of shame, or try to get a laugh from friends by using them at private home games?

Not sure if it's been said but couldn't you just ask your opponent and the local game store if it's ok beforehand. I mean if they say it's ok then go ahead.

I will say though i hate the more offended bunch i will admit naked women models don't exactly make wargamers or yourself look good. If some women go around you might want to hide em a bit. After all if you saw a bunch of chiseled naked dudes with oiled up abs in a girl hobby you wouldn't think well of them either. That said it's a hobby and it's entirely your right to enjoy your hobby. So yeah more just words of advice rather than forcing you to put your naked lady models away.

Why would I care what models female or male gamers use in a game? Chiseled naked dudes and gals and for that matter naked babies are all over the place in the form of stone, concrete and Marble Statues and Fountains that men women and children of all ages can aee in any park or museum for free. and dont say "but they're art!" A donger in public is a donger in public, stone, marble, plastic or otherwise.

If it's that offensive to you then worry about it if you have to play that person. Otherwise it shouldn't matter to you.

 DeffDred wrote:
So.... I shouldn't use my massive army of Diaz daemonettes in a game store?

The only problem you'd face flaunting those beauties would be jealousy.

Mario wrote:
art world (as in "capital a" Art)

The actual spectrum of artistic freedom here is surprisingly (and, with the economic disparities and lack of culture as a status symbol, which we've been seeing, increasingly) narrow: the top is dominated by art-as-investment (often with enjoyment as secondary or nonexistant), and the bottom is plagued with all of the regular commercial stuff you need to consider, leaving a small window where you're successful enough to not be scrounging but not so prestigious that your career is based on maintaining your buyers' investments. If you're not independently wealthy, the art world is a pretty hostile place.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
So.... I shouldn't use my massive army of Diaz daemonettes in a game store?

The only problem you'd face flaunting those beauties would be jealousy.

Oh yeah they were gorgeous models, then Matt ward came along and ruined demons in 7th by making them fugly.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

Mario wrote:
art world (as in "capital a" Art)

The actual spectrum of artistic freedom here is surprisingly (and, with the economic disparities and lack of culture as a status symbol, which we've been seeing, increasingly) narrow: the top is dominated by art-as-investment (often with enjoyment as secondary or nonexistant), and the bottom is plagued with all of the regular commercial stuff you need to consider, leaving a small window where you're successful enough to not be scrounging but not so prestigious that your career is based on maintaining your buyers' investments. If you're not independently wealthy, the art world is a pretty hostile place.

I wanted to keep the post short (I was already rambling) thus the "even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time" bit. Fine art is, more or less, it's own industry and next to the art-as-investment there's also the art-as-speculative-investment group where people try to push the young artists they invested in into prominence and fame. The industry has everything from high school popularity contests to economic gambling, in addition to the actual art. :/

Then there's a certain disdain from the Art world for the craftsmanship of illustrators and non-fine-art painters. Some people literary have multiple personas so their their artwork doesn't get devalued or seen as inferior from the art side. A few people even manage the jump from being a "lowly" illustrator to fine artist (although they tend to plateau at some pop art level) while some "real" artists pillage the history of illustration and comics and are seen as revolutionary. And there are also groups like ARC who have a allergic reaction to anything that drifts to far from realistic or representational art (ARC is not bad per se but sometimes just a bit narrow minded, in my opinion).

 Sqorgar wrote:
For example, if I was paid to write a book and told that I could not use the word "the", I would have no problems with that (morally, at least). However, if I had written a book that I was rather proud of and the publishers wanted me to rewrite parts of it to remove all the "the"s, I would have a problem with that. I am not opposed to including your audience as part of your design goals for a project, but I am opposed to them coming in after the fact and telling you that you did it stupid.

You can have a problem with that if you want, but you have no grounds for your (moral) outrage. If your employer doesn't want to buy a book without "the" in it then you either write a book without the offending word or you don't get paid. That's just how business works.

The audience wants something from you, and have this criticism colored by that bias.

So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.

Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.

Sure it does. I'm the customer, I have the money. Do what I want or I don't pay you. I have every right to demand things from a business, just like people demand better FAQs or lower prices from GW. If you don't like customer demands then don't do art as a for-profit business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Would I make a PC game that I couldn't sell on Steam because Steam doesn't sell AO games? No, I'd be giving up the majority of my profits

And this is the problem with your argument. It isn't about artistic integrity and being able to create whatever you want (which you can still do, there is no legal requirement to participate in ESRB ratings), it's about being able to make money as a for-profit business. And you aren't entitled to sell your products on Steam or in Walmart or whatever. If the market for AO-content games is not sufficient to make the level of profit that you want then too bad. You aren't being oppressed or losing your right to freedom of speech just because nobody wants to buy your work.

The OP said the figures were standing naked in boots and holding guns. He doesn't say they are explicit or bent over like a Penthouse centerfold. Why are you assuming that the models are sexy and not just naked?

I'm assuming it based on what similar models look like. It's a safe bet that they are sexy models, not artistic studies of the female form.

We are talking about artistic nudity, maybe, but not sexual. It is still rather uncommon to see miniatures with molded labia or erections. Sticking your butt out a little isn't enough to go from artistic nudity to pornography. Are you now going to argue that the Sears catalog shouldn't have lingerie sections because you can spank to them in a pinch?

Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.

Mostly agree, Peregrine. Only point there is about ratings- there are a lot of things that mess with your ability to sell stuff in many markets if the ratings board decides they don't like what you're selling.

...which, IMHO, would be completely fine if there were rules you could know and follow or choose not to, except (at least in film, and I can only assume in other media) the boards are thoroughly proven to be incredibly subjective and fairly arbitrary with no clear criteria except rating higher (i.e. penalizing) things they disagree with, and that screws with people's livelihoods and by extension craft/lives. They basically function like a monopoly, in all the worst ways one can.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can have a problem with that if you want, but you have no grounds for your (moral) outrage. If your employer doesn't want to buy a book without "the" in it then you either write a book without the offending word or you don't get paid. That's just how business works.

You seem to believe that the almighty dollar is the ONLY factor in the creation of art, and I assure that it isn't - even to a business who's livelihood depends on selling things for money. There is a middle ground between capitalist slave and starving artist, and censorship is the most insidious attack on this middle ground. It is the fact that pro-censorship people don't understand the existence of this middle ground that allows them to make absurd claims like the following:

So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.

It really doesn't work like that. There's a middle ground between not getting paid and complete artistic freedom.

Not liking something does not give you any right to demand changes to it.

Sure it does. I'm the customer, I have the money. Do what I want or I don't pay you. I have every right to demand things from a business, just like people demand better FAQs or lower prices from GW. If you don't like customer demands then don't do art as a for-profit business.

I'm not sure there's anything I can do to cure you of your unwarranted sense of entitlement, but I am curious, how's it working out for you? Half the people on this board have you on their ignore list.

And this is the problem with your argument. It isn't about artistic integrity and being able to create whatever you want (which you can still do, there is no legal requirement to participate in ESRB ratings), it's about being able to make money as a for-profit business. And you aren't entitled to sell your products on Steam or in Walmart or whatever. If the market for AO-content games is not sufficient to make the level of profit that you want then too bad. You aren't being oppressed or losing your right to freedom of speech just because nobody wants to buy your work.

I lived in Japan for a while in college, and they have a very different attitude towards adult orientated games than the West does. And some of their adult games (which are displayed openly in big box retail stores and have easily found magazines dedicated to the genre) are actually quite amazing. People have this idea that adult games are just lewd - and a lot of them are - but that doesn't mean that they don't have artistic value. There are actually quite a few famous and respected anime properties that started their lives as pornography video games, and indeed, some of the most famous and respected artists in Japan have pornographic pasts (and presents, in many cases).

And we don't have that in the West at all. We don't have a market for adult games because nobody can sell or advertise adult games. Not only can we not create adult games, we can't even easily bring over adult games from other countries - which is probably why you don't realize that there IS a market for AO-content that absolutely can make a profit if it were allowed to.

Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.

Seriously dude, I think that maybe you don't have the healtiest attitude towards sexuality.

Western countries too quickly break things into porn and not-porn. If it is even the slightest bit lewd, it is porn. And if it is porn, it is dirty. I hate to bring up Japan again, but they have levels of lewdness that run a spectrum, from innocent fan service to moderate titillation to full on lewd to actual pornography. You can't just have two extremes which are subjective based largely on the political leanings of the viewer. There needs to be a level for "a bit sexy" that isn't flat out porn in the West, and I think the last time I saw anything like that was the late, great Benny Hill. I think naked miniatures are closer to Benny Hill than Chicks With Dicks, Volume 47 - so why do you insist on treating it as if it were the latter?

Because America is incredibly backwards in it's attitude about sex, that's why. For America any sort of nudity IS sex.

Just look at the big debate about breastfeeding in public, for chrissake! There's nothing at all sexual about feeding a baby, but from the reaction of the general public (or at least parts of it) you'd think mom was CONCEIVING a baby right there, not just feeding one.

Pretty well sums up the whole issue, in my opinion. America as a whole (regardless of the capabilities of any individual who may read this and disagree) lacks the maturity to deal with nudity and sexuality in a mature fashion.

 Sqorgar wrote:
You seem to believe that the almighty dollar is the ONLY factor in the creation of art, and I assure that it isn't - even to a business who's livelihood depends on selling things for money. There is a middle ground between capitalist slave and starving artist, and censorship is the most insidious attack on this middle ground. It is the fact that pro-censorship people don't understand the existence of this middle ground that allows them to make absurd claims like the following:

So what? Who cares if the audience's criticism is "right" according to some abstract standard of artistic merit. The audience pays your salary. It doesn't matter if their criticism is "right" or not, you either produce what they demand or you don't get paid.

It really doesn't work like that. There's a middle ground between not getting paid and complete artistic freedom.

I don't think you understand how this works in the real world. If your boss says "make an Ultramarines™ captain in power armor with a bolt pistol and power sword" you make exactly that model. If you make a Raven Guard captain with a power axe you get told to fix it asap and stop screwing around. If you make an Eldar thing, no matter how awesome, you are going to be lucky to keep your job after so blatantly ignoring your instructions and wasting company time. But this is not censorship. Calling your job "art" doesn't mean you get to make up whatever you want to do and ignore what your employer is paying you to do. Just like every other profession you either do your job or you don't have a job.

And we don't have that in the West at all. We don't have a market for adult games because nobody can sell or advertise adult games. Not only can we not create adult games, we can't even easily bring over adult games from other countries - which is probably why you don't realize that there IS a market for AO-content that absolutely can make a profit if it were allowed to.

This is completely false. There are no laws against making or selling "adult" games. If you believe that there is money to be made from "adult" games you are 100% free to make an "adult" game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. The government will not stop you from doing so. The only obstacle to success is convincing enough people to buy the product you want to sell, just like any other business.

Seriously dude, I think that maybe you don't have the healtiest attitude towards sexuality.

Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS. Calling my attitude unhealthy just because I'm honest enough to admit that something is porn is rather laughably wrong.

Western countries too quickly break things into porn and not-porn. If it is even the slightest bit lewd, it is porn. And if it is porn, it is dirty. I hate to bring up Japan again, but they have levels of lewdness that run a spectrum, from innocent fan service to moderate titillation to full on lewd to actual pornography. You can't just have two extremes which are subjective based largely on the political leanings of the viewer. There needs to be a level for "a bit sexy" that isn't flat out porn in the West, and I think the last time I saw anything like that was the late, great Benny Hill. I think naked miniatures are closer to Benny Hill than Chicks With Dicks, Volume 47 - so why do you insist on treating it as if it were the latter?

The problem here is that you're assuming that "porn" means "extreme". There is plenty of porn that doesn't involve explicit PIV sex. And there's no reason to label it as anything but porn, other than your weird reluctance to admit that the thing you like is porn. Perhaps you are the one who doesn't have a healthy attitude towards sexuality, if you're so concerned with saying "but not that kind of porn".

 Peregrine wrote:


Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS.

I think I've learned more about Peregrine in 5 minutes than in 3 years

Definition of Porn:

"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement."

Sounds to me like Peregrine is right about this, but it seems like your definition of pornographic material is entirely down to what "turns you on". That doesn't necessarily make it porn though.

G.A

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think you understand how this works in the real world. If your boss says "make an Ultramarines™ captain in power armor with a bolt pistol and power sword" you make exactly that model. If you make a Raven Guard captain with a power axe you get told to fix it asap and stop screwing around. If you make an Eldar thing, no matter how awesome, you are going to be lucky to keep your job after so blatantly ignoring your instructions and wasting company time. But this is not censorship. Calling your job "art" doesn't mean you get to make up whatever you want to do and ignore what your employer is paying you to do. Just like every other profession you either do your job or you don't have a job.

Like I said, there is a middle ground. A lot of jobs will give you requirements, but they won't micromanage every creative decision you do (I've had jobs like that, so they exist - and they suck).

But I don't think censorship is a situation where your boss gives a work-for-hire employee instructions. Most of the time is a type of peer pressure based on a subjective morality that nobody ever defines or can fully explain the borders of. It is a hazy "this is wrong and you shouldn't do that" which eventually grows into a "you can't do that". And it usually comes from a VERY small minority who have somehow convinced themselves that their idea of morality is what is best for everyone.

This is completely false. There are no laws against making or selling "adult" games. If you believe that there is money to be made from "adult" games you are 100% free to make an "adult" game and sell it to anyone who wants to buy it. The government will not stop you from doing so. The only obstacle to success is convincing enough people to buy the product you want to sell, just like any other business.

Not laws. Regulations. The ESRB has a list of regulations that you must follow to sell or advertise AO games - if you do not follow them, the ESRB will withhold a rating. One place where this is egregious is that you can't advertise adult games (rated or otherwise) at the same place you advertise non-adult ESRB rated games (and this includes online storefronts). To do so would have the ESRB remove their rating for your non-adult games, making it impossible to sell them in stores or on Steam. There are several Japanese adult game publishers in the US that likewise sell non-adult Japanese games, but has to maintain two separate websites and two separate online stores, so as to not lose the ability to sell their non-adult games.

So the standards that are in place (you need an ESRB rating, they can withhold that rating as punishment) effectively give the ESRB undue control over your ability to make money - thus creating a chilling effect on releases. There is no adult game market in the US. It is almost entirely publishers directly selling PC games from their website.

Err, lol? I like sex. I like porn. I've made porn, FFS. Calling my attitude unhealthy just because I'm honest enough to admit that something is porn is rather laughably wrong.

That's my point. Porn is okay, but only when it is completely separated from not-porn. There's no in between. Either it is dirty or it is clean. Benny Hill isn't porn. Nude beaches aren't porn. Naked miniatures aren't porn. Just because there is a bit of titillation or nudity doesn't mean it is porn. I'm sure you are absolutely fine with porn. Your problem is that your definition of porn is too broad.

There is plenty of porn that doesn't involve explicit PIV sex. And there's no reason to label it as anything but porn, other than your weird reluctance to admit that the thing you like is porn.

I don't even think explicit PIV sex is necessarily porn. Do you think the health videos you watched in 10th grade biology were porn?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Like I said, there is a middle ground. A lot of jobs will give you requirements, but they won't micromanage every creative decision you do (I've had jobs like that, so they exist - and they suck).

Sure, but having a job that sucks is not the same as being censored.

But I don't think censorship is a situation where your boss gives a work-for-hire employee instructions. Most of the time is a type of peer pressure based on a subjective morality that nobody ever defines or can fully explain the borders of. It is a hazy "this is wrong and you shouldn't do that" which eventually grows into a "you can't do that". And it usually comes from a VERY small minority who have somehow convinced themselves that their idea of morality is what is best for everyone.

Except that "minority" has no power to force you to do anything. If they say "you can't do that" and you say " you I'm doing it" then that's the end of it, you do the thing. You may or may not make much money if you do the thing, but nobody can stop you from doing it. The only time where anyone has control over your art is when you're in that work-for-hire situation and your boss is telling you what to do.

Not laws. Regulations. The ESRB has a list of regulations that you must follow to sell or advertise AO games - if you do not follow them, the ESRB will withhold a rating.

So what? There is no legal requirement to participate in the ESRB rating process. You can still make and sell a game without an ESRB rating, you just can't put the ESRB logo on the box.

To do so would have the ESRB remove their rating for your non-adult games, making it impossible to sell them in stores or on Steam. There are several Japanese adult game publishers in the US that likewise sell non-adult Japanese games, but has to maintain two separate websites and two separate online stores, so as to not lose the ability to sell their non-adult games.

So what? A private business saying "we don't want to sell this" is not censorship. You are still free to sell your product directly to the customer without going through Steam.

That's my point. Porn is okay, but only when it is completely separated from not-porn. There's no in between. Either it is dirty or it is clean. Benny Hill isn't porn. Nude beaches aren't porn. Naked miniatures aren't porn. Just because there is a bit of titillation or nudity doesn't mean it is porn. I'm sure you are absolutely fine with porn. Your problem is that your definition of porn is too broad.

You're the only one making value judgements here about whether porn is "okay" or not. I'm simply pointing out that porn and non-sexual nudity are two very different things. And a nude beach isn't porn because it's not sexualized. It's people wearing no clothing because they don't want tan lines or because feeling air on bare skin is nice or whatever, not people going around thrusting their sexy bits at people and saying "YOU LIKE THIS?".

I don't even think explicit PIV sex is necessarily porn. Do you think the health videos you watched in 10th grade biology were porn?

Oh FFS, you know what I meant.

 Peregrine wrote:
So what? There is no legal requirement to participate in the ESRB rating process. You can still make and sell a game without an ESRB rating, you just can't put the ESRB logo on the box.

Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.

So what? A private business saying "we don't want to sell this" is not censorship. You are still free to sell your product directly to the customer without going through Steam.

Stores don't sell games with an AO rating or lacking an ESRB rating. The ESRB is the ratings gatekeeper. This means the ESRB is the one pressuring the game makers, not the stores. The stores have placed all their faith in the ESRB as an official ratings system, and the ESRB abuses that faith in an effort to punish developers for their games' moral content.

Yes, the stores could sell AO/unrated games, but the fact is, they don't want to face a backlash from the congressional committee that caused the creation of the ESRB in the first place. That's why Target is fine with selling the NC-17 version of Showgirls, but won't touch an AO rated game with a 10 foot pole. Congress hasn't actually censored video games, but they've fething threatened to, and the ESRB is the self policing compromise that was come up with to censor without governmental oversight.

And a nude beach isn't porn because it's not sexualized. It's people wearing no clothing because they don't want tan lines or because feeling air on bare skin is nice or whatever, not people going around thrusting their sexy bits at people and saying "YOU LIKE THIS?".

Whether something is sexualized or not is subjective, and some people (like yourself, obviously) see it as a hard line that is crossed very early. I see it as a spectrum that has varying degrees of lewdness, and I don't think fan service crosses the line into pornography.

Because it is subjective, neither one of us can definitively be correct, so objectively, we must adopt a standard allows for the greatest variety of artistic expression (freedom of speech, at least in the US, still reigns supreme as a guiding principle) while still knowing when the reign it in for the sake of the children and society. Unless you can objectively tell me how a naked miniature holding a gun is destructive to children and society, I say let's allow it. It's obviously art.

Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.

Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.

Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.

But from the developers point of view you can't invest much money in to a game that isn't going to be sold through the primary distributors. It's the internet equivalent of saying "well you can sell DVD's of your movie on a street corner so what are you complaining about?".

It's also inconsistent which means it's hard to make games with adult content because you may have invested all your money in to a game only to find out at the last moment you can't actually sell it through the channels you had planned. Steam requires some games to be censored for sexual content (typically the ones that revolve around the sexual content) while others are fine (like The Witcher).

Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.

Nudity and Porn are different things, it is all about context.

 Peregrine wrote:

Pornography =/= actually having sex. There is plenty of pornography that simply depicts attractive people in sexual poses/outfits/etc without PIV sex occurring. And, again, the underwear section of the Sears catalog is an entirely different thing. Regardless of a person's desperation for masturbation material you're talking about people wearing very un-sexy underwear, posed in neutral ways that represent the product without carrying any sexual intent, etc. Contrast that with the typical nudity in miniatures, where it's sexy outfits (where clothing exists at all), exaggerated sexual characteristics, poses that are designed to say "I want to you", etc.

The Sears underwear section sound pretty boring then, all the clothing catalogues my Wife get have as much sexy posing as thoughtful posing regardless of what clothing they have on.

Is the typical nudity in miniatures so bad, in summer (in my part of the world anyway) sexy outfits (on a range of body types) are everywhere enjoying the good weather. My neighbour is a model and he is always taking advantage of warm weather to walk around topless, I would too if I was a little less curvy.

I think it is unfair to highlight exaggerated sexual characteristics if you are talking about 28mm scale, the scale needs exaggeration otherwise you have to hold the figure close to your face to enjoy looking at it. Regardless, I am more annoyed by excessively thin waists than overly large T&A.

As to the OP, I would keep them for home games.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.

Maybe that more of a problem of Steam being a quasi-monopoly and not about censorship? Or is it also "effectively a form of censorship" that most big budget movies are rather safe and aimed at the mainstream. To me it just looks like big companies in billion dollar industries playing it very safe? I might not like it, I very much complain about it, and I spend my money somewhere else but I don't equate it with censorship. Because if that's censorship then nearly everything can be constructed as censorship.

When people say they want more normal female miniatures (or video game game characters) — the usual sexy/sexualised character complaints — some of the first replies are "then make your own, companies make what sells" and "if you want to buy some invest in it, nobody owes you these miniatures". Are practically armoured female miniatures somehow censored? Why is it always censorship when lewd content is considered but the harsh, rational, and capitalistic market when somebody wants a decent set or armour. It's funny how the argument is always censorship when they care but the market when they couldn't care less.

You want it? Then create a market for it. It seems that sexy female miniatures sell better than practically armoured ones. Why should it be so difficult for video games (when the market is orders of magnitude bigger)? If you want lewd games (to keep the argument simple) then maybe you should invest in them? If I remember correctly Steam has quite an extensive range of erotic/lewd visual novels/relationship simulators (cheap to produce), that type of gameplay just doesn't spread to other genres too much. They might experiment more if they had a bigger fanbase and budget so the occasional misstep wouldn't wipe out a company.

Besides if porn can make more money than Hollywood then somebody should really be able to profit from this unexploited market in the video gaming industry (from sexy to lewd, and even porn) with or without Steam. Wasn't this (NSFW?) the highest earner on https://www.patreon.com before it was shut down? No, not censorship, one of the developers took the money (just regular mismanagement). Or would that too be censorship in this vaguely all-encompassing definition of the term? More here: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-14-highest-earning-game-on-patreon-cancelled-amidst-developer-squabble . Here's a link to a followup game (if somebody's interested): https://www.patreon.com/CloudMeadow (probably NSFW).

By the way that's a general you, I don't know what game preference AllSeeingSkink has and that preference is also not the point of my argument (If I remember correctly you don't like AoS too much and I can totally agree with that).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Retailers will not sell games without an ESRB rating. Console makers will not allow games without a rating. The point isn't that it is impossible to sell a game without a rating, just really really hard. So hard that the ESRB has undue influence over the moral content of your game. It so closely resembles censorship that it turns out that it actually is censorship, and you'd have to be a pedantic little gak to argue otherwise.

Scorgar maybe before the web that argument holds water but now you can just download software, and there are websites that sell software that are 18+ without rating.

But from the developers point of view you can't invest much money in to a game that isn't going to be sold through the primary distributors. It's the internet equivalent of saying "well you can sell DVD's of your movie on a street corner so what are you complaining about?".

It's also inconsistent which means it's hard to make games with adult content because you may have invested all your money in to a game only to find out at the last moment you can't actually sell it through the channels you had planned. Steam requires some games to be censored for sexual content (typically the ones that revolve around the sexual content) while others are fine (like The Witcher).

Of course Steam is under no obligation to sell your game, but it is effectively a form of censorship.

I agree with you somewhat, but people with different tastes and i don't just mean porn, can get the stuff they are interested through other means, i mean sites like CD japan or Jlist cater to people interested in Japan, there is bandcamp for non mainstream bands,if you are not knowledgeable of these things you first have to do some investigation. What i am trying to say is that distributors are not anymore in full control as they used to be before the web came along, that is one of the reason so many board games and miniature games are being made. Thanks to kickstarter and boardgamegeek.com.