I dunno if the game Xenosaga for the PS2 is very popular or not, but I have it, and I like it. This game was originally released in Japan first, and when it made it''s way to the rest of the world it had undergone some changes. It got censored. The part that got sencored was a scene where some bad dude was sticking his hand inside a 12 year old girl''s stomach (she just has an appearence of 12, but she''s an artificial human and is probably way older then you). He then starts moving his hand around inside her stomach looking for "information" while the girl is in a state that''s somewhere between wanting to scream out in pain, but too weak to scream so little moaning like noises come out. Anyway, this scene was totally sencored for the American release version. It was replaced by the dude putting his hand over the girl''s forehead and and his hand just glows and it''s like he''s probing her brain or something. Now the second scene is obviously less violent. You guys think the rest of teh world can''t handle that kind of violence? Japan could! Or is it becuase it''s a little girl and the scene could have looked sexually explicit in some way? Have any of you actually seen the deleted scene anyway? or do any of you have this game and know of the scene that Im talking about? I dunno....what do you guys think? :::: [ Triple Buffer V2.0 ] ::::

I can see why that would be censored. Basically the weakest of facades is put over what is obviously intended to be a sexually stimulating scene. An android who just happens to look like a young nubile girl.. Who then starts moaning as an adult male in close proximity somehow finds it necessary to stick his hand into her..

I''m not against sexually explicit content, but obviously stuff like that is going to be viewed harshly by the censor. Also, I suspect the market for games with such content is higher in Japan, whereas in (say) the US the game might do better with a lower rating so they censor some of the questionable bits for the US release.

Ehh, that''s a little odd, but you never know what could be deemed "inappropriate" for audiences around here.

I haven''t played through much of the game yet so I don''t know what scene you''re talking about, but I fail to see how a guy sticking his hand inside said android''s stomach (12 != nubile!!) could be seen as sexually explicit. Of course, it depends on what the scene really looked like.

Since you''re probably talking about Momo here, I would say that Argus''s response is rather off-base. She''s an android who looks like a little child !

The mindset of Japanese censorship has a certain "Zen"-flair to it and that's why I suspect censorship differes.
The view is that movies, games, entertainment and the like are fiction, therefore it's not unlegal to depicture very sexual situations; for example pedofilism in hentai-movies and so on. It never happened, it's just drawn or animated figures, so it's not a crime since cartoons can't commit crimes.

This is very loose assumptions, since I read it on the Internet (a source of sometimes very doubthful information and can't back it up with a link for you. But I think the overall idea get's though.

Therefore censorship on purely fictional material (games included here of course) isn't as high in Japan as in the states or Europe where the mindset is that the material itself are "contagious" and can ,by influence, lead to crimes. Japan has very high standards on what can and what can not be shown though (pubic hair for instance is banned); it's just a matter of deciding weither the material is viewed as criminal or if crimes where being committed while making it.

As I see it: there are two mindsets here;
1. Although Momo looks like a child, she (or It) is an *android* and therefore has no gender or significance other what the viewer gives her. She's a product, a thing, and so the scene can be seen, if interpreted sexually, as a guy making out with a interactive blown-up sexdoll. (She's not a girl, remember?)

2. Momo is a child and has childish attributes, her appearence hints to that she is a normal girl and the fact that she is a android is of no importance. It's the *apperance* and in the game that matters. And since she acts as a girl, she has all the attributes that girls do and so even sexuality.

I believe it's a matter of the viewers perception. Some percieve it sexually, some don't but I think it's fairly obvious that this is purely fiction and guys poking their hands into stomachs of little girl-androids are what you make it to. It's down to perception and I think that even is it maybe sexual tense, it's not something I think worth being censored. Just my two cents worth... or dollars.

[edited by - Bangladesh on March 27, 2003 5:32:15 AM]

[edited by - Bangladesh on March 27, 2003 5:41:50 AM]

Video games and cartoons in the US have not yet lost their "for kids" social stigma, even though the majority consumers of such products are now in the 18-49 age range. That''s partly due to disconnected and thick-headed policymakers touting "family values" as the linchpins of their campaigns to conservative senior citizens (who aren''t with the "digital revolution," but did drugs in the 60s - go figure), while secretly downloading pr0n and abusing their secretaries and interns... but I digress.

The point is that any form of sexually explicit content in those two areas - or even material that may merely be construed as sexually explicit by some - is controversial in the US, as opposed to Japan''s more liberal and often more adult-oriented attitude to interactive media (remember the first time you saw a Manga cartoon rated 18? I''m yet to see a US-produced title rated anything higher than PG-13)

Note that the US audience''s/censors'' problem is with sex and sexually explicit material, not violence (though gore will shave off your brownie points). Many, many cartoons published for kids in the US are extremely violent, though the violence is always stylized (Powerpuff Girls features an amazing amount of physical violence, and almost always depicts the bloodied, beaten villains but in a color-neutralized fashion, for example).

quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Video games and cartoons in the US have not yet lost their "for kids" social stigma

and such a sad-sad thing this is.

No wonder we are such a violent nation! Maybe everyone should watch porn and then we will be less violent. (It's just a hypothosis, it would have to be tested before proven.)

I just don't understand why they would censor that in a game when End of Evangelion had the same thing happen.

[edited by - smiley4 on March 27, 2003 9:43:36 AM]

What happened to the US supreme court ruling that games do not count when it comes to free speech? I lost track of that issue a while back, did anything else happen?

quote: Original post by smiley4
No wonder we are such a violent nation! Maybe everyone should watch porn and then we will be less violent. (It''s just a hypothosis, it would have to be tested before proven.)

Would other nations being less violent but having very similar censorship rules validate or invalidate the theory? Just curious.

It would seem that a lot of American violence is rooted in "frontierism". Gun advocates claim that the possession of firearms enables every citizen to protect life and property, a claim that was true when America was a rough, uncivilized place. Today, however, the strength of the stance is much more dubious; it is conceivable that the ease with which guns are acquired contributes to the rate of gun violence, though the determined criminal will purchase a gun from a gunrunner, not any legal or semi-legal outlet.

Anyway, frontierism. We Americans (I prefer to stand with America when I criticize it, because I am as guilty of anything I blame her for) love the concept of the "stupendous badass", to use the words of Neal Stephenson, and the most intrinsic badass metric is physical force. America invented the action movie, the rogue cop, the bad boy. American culture eliminated the social norms of deference and (sometimes excessive and false) politeness in favor of "equality" (yes, I know how refined we were when Mrs. Beaver lived down the street). American violence is a function of the structure of our society, not the (sole) product of media influence.

That said, there are many cultures much more violent than we are. Censored, bottled-up cultures with historical predispositions to violence - often catalyzed by despondent socioeconomic conditions.

Ah, I''ll shut up now. I''m rambling.