Well there goes my Violence Jack game I was about to release!

Obvious question : Is IllusionSoft a EOCS member?

As indiviual who deplores rape and pornography I personally find bans such as this nature to be counterproductive as does nothing but drive it underground give the material a better environment to thrive in.

In the the end it should be up to the individual to reject any and all forms of entertainment that might be offensive,deplorable or that infringes on the individuals rights of others by voting with their dollars rather letting the hand of government regulate our lives.

I agree with Andre. What is the moral difference between letting players participate in general violence and sexual violence?

That argument is a false dichotomy and it is one I've heard repeated ad nauseum.

Simply put, there's a big difference between letting players participate in general, cartoonish violence (which is easily distinguishable from reality and fact) and sexual violence that depicts the victims as enjoying the act of rape. When such depictions are rendered acceptable, you'll have ignorant fools who actually believe that women actually enjoy being violated and this hyperreality alone is more dangerous than any impact that violent games like Grand Theft Auto could ever have on society.

In any case, the government isn't banning this -- the software organization that promotes video games in Japan, which is voluntary, I might add is taking a stance against these games because they bring down the reputation of video gaming in general. You'd know this if you bothered to read the article instead of raging against 'the man' or some unrelated nonsense.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I'm for free speech; but that doesn't mean you should try to say everything you can.

Randall, the differnece between sexual violence and regular violence is that sexual violence is never justified. regular violence can be in self defense, or to protect people. I don't have to sexualy grope people or rape people to keep people safe or defend myself. I don't even think Jack Bauer rapes terrorists for information (I don't watch 24 that often, but I'm pretty sure).

Andre, people's enviroments change the way people think. I'm not advocating a socialist/facist regeime; people should have the choice of their enviroments. Yet anyone isnt given access to any enviroment, many places have rules as to where sex offenders can live and where they can go. you arn't allowed to enter bars unless your 21 (in some states). you are not allowed to smoke pot, unless you have a medical reason in certains states (but still illegal under federal law, policy prevents you from being arrested).

Goverments and organizations ultimatly try to make an enviroment that's good for the people they are serving. I think if anything this law is over-due.

I also agree with Andre.

Spending resources to try to regulate individuals' decisions is usually ineffective and wasteful. Just look at the war on drugs.

@Tommy - There are plenty of violent acts that most people would not consider "justified". Take a look at Postal or Manhunt. A lot of people that play GTA spend most of their time running around beating up old ladies. Obviously these aren't actions that we want to encourage people to do in real life, but you have to look at the costs/benefits of implementing a law to reduce certain individuals' choices.

> What is the moral difference between letting players
> participate in general violence and sexual violence?

Hmmm... Not entirely sure what my thoughts are here. But how about: What's the moral difference between a game in which you can have sex with an adult and one in which you can have sex with a toddler? Clearly in such matters there is a line which can be crossed, and not everything can be blanket-classified under the same banner, be it 'violence' or 'sex'.

I think Tommy's point above has _some_ merit, but there's plenty of examples of violence in games which is not self defence or otherwise altruistic.

Free speech doesn't mean you should say everything you can, it means you should say what you want. What gives a particular rights group the ability to say I don't like this get rid of it? Video games often portray activities that are illegal, killing, drugs, theft, people play these games and the world hasn't torn itself apart yet, so if your argument is that this game will lead to people being hurt or raped then your fooling yourself. If you just don't like the idea that a product would depict women being hurt, therefore I shall ban it, then that is the worst kind of censorship. If you personally don't like something then don't partake. That's the great thing about the entertainment business, there's a wide variety of products for difference audiences, kids and all types of adults. Personally when I heard of this game I didn't view it as a game, more along the lines of interactive pornography, not my particular cup of tea, so no thanks for me, but that doesn't mean that since I don't agree with it it should be outlawed.

My overall argument is, if you don't agree with somethings subject matter, don't play. If you find something offensive, don't play. And if you think people base their life choices off of video games, you have know idea what your talking about. Special interest groups ought to improve the lives of those they represent, not control the lives of others they don't. That said, this organization has every right to police itself, although I don't agree with it's decision, I wouldn't try to take that right away. And Japanese game developer have every right not to be apart of this organization, and if that's to much for them, then they should question if creating one organization to control them was a wise idea.

So when are they going to ban the games that involve shooting people?

The censorship does squick me a little, but here's the difference: there is no epidemic of shooting violence. It's extremely unlikely that someone who plays violent video games is going to go out and shoot someone. However, it is quite likely that a person who plays these rape fantasy games will go out and rape someone. In this country at least, one in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. One in six. That's ridiculous, and I believe the figures are much worse in Japan. Clearly there is a huge problem that needs to be combated here, and I am all for anything that helps real people.

Ian Cheong said: "When such depictions are rendered acceptable, you'll have ignorant fools who actually believe that women actually enjoy being violated and this hyperreality alone is more dangerous than any impact that violent games like Grand Theft Auto could ever have on society."

Then by all means legislate against ignorant fools.

Meanwhile, there are already perfectly adequate laws forbidding violence against women - even in Japan, I'm sure. If censorship is to be seriously considered IN ADDITION to those laws, the onus must be on those seeking to restrict individual rights to make an airtight case.

Can anyone PROVE conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the games in question have contributed in any way to any actual crime - against women or anyone else? This must be the test. (And, no, screaming "It's obvious!" isn't good enough.)

As far as I know, even broad statistical evidence is nonexistent, or highly contradictory at best. In which case the focus should be on enforcing existing laws, rather than on restricting the rights of fools and non-fools alike.

I believe these games are disgusting, sick, and... well, just plain wrong. But they are legal. And I believe they should stay that way.

Also, Ian Cheong, you need to look up what a "dichotomy" is and understand that the only one coming close to making one here (false or not) is you.