Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Plus, does the OFLC's censorship extend to digital distribution?

At the moment, in practice, no. Theoretically, I don't actually know. I've tried checking up the regulations, but they're very vague when it comes to digital distribution. They suggest that you can get digital-only content classified if you want to, but don't actually state out that you have to.

From my observation, if a company has a digital storefront that's specifically tailored to an Australian audience, such as the Wii Shop, then they do get everything classified. If it's for a general worldwide audience they don't bother. I've seen an Australian retail chain have a link to their American store with ERSB ratings and a conversion table.

Quote: Will they monitor your network traffic and block a download if its digital signature resembles a restricted game? I don't live in Oz, so I don't want to be too flip, but this does seem like less of an issue from a pragmatic perspective, and more of an objection on principle.

Unfortunately, one of the suggested uses of the great national firewall being proposed by Senator Stephen Conroy is the blocking of restricted material. That's operating from a blacklist (at least I think so), so it's a more blunt instrument. I also have doubts as to its effectiveness or even if it will see the light of day, although the damned proposal is still alive.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
The world outside gaming affects us. Case in point: it's not the Australian gamers who want all R18+ games banned here.

The world outside doesn't know nor cares about a relative obscure hack and slash game. This game was developed for a particular group that requires a particular marketing strategy (although they could've run something more intelligent than this I suppose). I don't think casual or 'new' gamers will be affected by this to the extend that from now on they will perceive games as just a medium for twenty year old frat boys. Every ad for the Wii I've seen features a suburban family with 2.3 kids, a silver Toyota Prius and a perfectly trimmed dog named Rusty, and Nintendo seems to do well. Different games for different people.

And politicians that think that video games are spoiling our youth: they will always find a reason, if it's not sexual explicit content then it's 'extreme' violence (zombies have feelings too, you know).

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
Like Lessbread, I'd actually be interested in a Dante's Inferno inspired game - if it was a decent mix of classic Dante and modernised Inferno. However, I'm fairly convinced now that this is a shameless God of War rip-off - so I'd need pretty solid proof it's above that before being interested.

There's actually some irony in this. God of War is based on Greek mythology. Virgil wrote the Aeneid as an extension of the Iliad in order to create a similar mythology for Rome. The Aeneid takes the point of view of the Trojans. As the Greeks sack Troy, Aeneid flees, eventually settling in Rome and thus providing Rome with roots in the "golden age" of mythology. Dante employs Virgil as his guide in order to elevate his stature as a poet, but also to associate Christian Italy with Rome and the "golden age". From this, I suppose it's fitting to use Dante to rip off God of War.

Quote: Original post by WanMaster
I agree it isn't the most tasteful campaign I've ever seen. But booth babes have always been at these conventions and many other places too. If you're offended, I think you could blame society in general rather than this specific incident.

The presence of booth babes isn't the issue, and "offensiveness" is the lesser of the charges leveled against EA.

Quote:

Quote: you just *know* they want people to push the limits (even if they do have disclaimers in the small text), and it should be obvious that this is encouraging inappropriate behavior (sexual harrasement) towards booth babes.

Just taking pictures is highly appropriate: that's one of the main reason why they are there,

Part of the job description for these girls is to get their pictures taken. Being groped or fondled or creatively humiliated while these pictures are taken, however, is not part the job description.

Quote: whether you like it or not. I can't blame EA if anyone crosses the line, people should be able to think for themselves.

They should, but they don't. There's a reason that it's illegal to incite others to commit criminal acts, and it's a good reason. Simply put, the contest crossed the line from "bad taste" to "irresponsible". Now, it is just this side of over the line, but over the line nonetheless. It is disingenuous, and close to straw-man territory, for some of you to keep dismissing the lesser evil of offensiveness when we're talking about a case of irresponsible behavior.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish
Part of the job description for these girls is to get their pictures taken. Being groped or fondled or creatively humiliated while these pictures are taken, however, is not part the job description.

Indeed. Did I miss something that suggested people grope, fondle or creatively humiliate booth babes?

Quote: It is disingenuous, and close to straw-man territory, for some of you to keep dismissing the lesser evil of offensiveness when we're talking about a case of irresponsible behavior.

Just so that we're perfectly clear, can you state for the record precisely what irresponsible behavior it is that you're talking about? I suspect it's the "acts of lust" phrasing, but I don't want to assume.

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:

Quote: you just *know* they want people to push the limits (even if they do have disclaimers in the small text), and it should be obvious that this is encouraging inappropriate behavior (sexual harrasement) towards booth babes.

Just taking pictures is highly appropriate: that's one of the main reason why they are there,

Part of the job description for these girls is to get their pictures taken. Being groped or fondled or creatively humiliated while these pictures are taken, however, is not part the job description.

Quote: whether you like it or not. I can't blame EA if anyone crosses the line, people should be able to think for themselves.

They should, but they don't. There's a reason that it's illegal to incite others to commit criminal acts, and it's a good reason. Simply put, the contest crossed the line from "bad taste" to "irresponsible". Now, it is just this side of over the line, but over the line nonetheless. It is disingenuous, and close to straw-man territory, for some of you to keep dismissing the lesser evil of offensiveness when we're talking about a case of irresponsible behavior.

Perhaps US law has a different interpretation, but I don't see asking to take photographs at a convention as provoking criminal behavior. I don't think the line between taking pictures and sexual harassment is that thin, at least not in this situation. I could see your point and agree with it if they ask you to take shots of your neighbor taking a bath; or for their next racing game's marketing campaign would ask you to break the speed limit and 'drift like the pros' next time you're on the interstate.

I don't care for this kind of marketing either, but only because it doesn't suit my taste, not because it's potentially illegal.

Quote: Original post by Osha
Re actual contest pics:
Their website and facebook pages have both already been taken down.

I'd like to reiterate that I don't find booth babes (overly) offensive, it is the contest that I don't like.

Phew, well I'm mentally exhausted.
I'll probably respond more tomorrow.

I get the impression that you might even not mind the contest. It's the safety of the women at the con that you're concerned about, both the patrons and the models. Safety concerns make perfect sense to me. Wouldn't a heads up to security be sufficient to keep most trouble makers in line? Whether security was enhanced or not probably wouldn't be readily available public info but I think that would be the question to answer first before making claims of irresponsible behavior.

Quote: Original post by Osha

Quote: Original post by necreia
On a personal 'moral' level, I think it's fine. It's all fantasy unrealistic expectations on both sides. At least it's physically possible for a woman to have double-D breasts and a 24 inch waist - there's no surgery for a man to become a vampire.

There are women vampires that are designed to be sexy too (bloodrayne anyone)
Apart from that, women have a lot of self-esteem issues due to societies image of the ideal of feminine beauty. In lots of ways there's more pressure on women to be beautiful then on men to be beautiful or handsome.

It stirs no where near the magnitude of reaction. My point is that Men and Women respond to different types of marketing due to basic differences in interests. Woman's marketing also creates unrealistic expectations that men cannot typically fulfill. Harry Potter and Twilight are the last two big examples of the female gender in this general age group that I can think of, and both have made many men feel uncomfortable or hostile as a result. There are whole groups of males 'against' them.

While men have an unrealistic idea of beauty towards women in mainstream US society, women have an unrealistic idea of romanticism and mystery towards men. It even goes to the very basic "The man buys the ring and proposes" and "He better bring me flowers on Valentines Day!".

Quote: Original post by Osha
Edit the forth:

Quote: Original post by necreia
Breaking that down the issue (in my mind) doesn't have to do with what's offered but rather what's desired. Aside from very few examples a company exists to make money. If companies research showed that showing off males as eye-candy was a method to make huge amounts of money- they would do it in a heart beat. Especially if it meant they would be exploiting an untapped market. If there was less demand for the booth babes- or more demand for booth studs- the system would correct itself.

Yeah, I don't want to imply that I think these things should be illegal. I do want to work on changing culture so that they're no longer profitable.

So what is your ideal form of culture? While I think it's somewhat futile to expect male sexual interest to fizzle out as long as we have personal freedom, I really am curious as-to what you think we can 'become'. Is it the blurring of gender differences as a whole?

I don't quite understand how this would encourage any sort of immoral behavior. Actually, let me rephrase that, I don't quite understand how this would encourage any sort of immoral behavior from a stable human being.

This is quite similar to the tired "Video games cause violence" malarky. Noone in their right mind would try to jack a car and run over an old lady because they played GTA, they have to be predisposed to that sort of behavior. And if it wasn't the game that brought it out, it could have been anything.

If anything, I consider this a shallow tacky marketing ploy, for a shallow tacky product, farted out by a shallow tacky publisher.

Which begs the question, how else would they market such a product? Certainly not by giving a copy of the original text, that would have added insult to injury.

[Edited by - WazzatMan on July 29, 2009 3:45:01 PM]

Quote: Original post by WanMaster

Quote: Original post by BerwynIrish

Quote:

Quote: you just *know* they want people to push the limits (even if they do have disclaimers in the small text), and it should be obvious that this is encouraging inappropriate behavior (sexual harrasement) towards booth babes.

Just taking pictures is highly appropriate: that's one of the main reason why they are there,

Part of the job description for these girls is to get their pictures taken. Being groped or fondled or creatively humiliated while these pictures are taken, however, is not part the job description.

Quote: whether you like it or not. I can't blame EA if anyone crosses the line, people should be able to think for themselves.

They should, but they don't. There's a reason that it's illegal to incite others to commit criminal acts, and it's a good reason. Simply put, the contest crossed the line from "bad taste" to "irresponsible". Now, it is just this side of over the line, but over the line nonetheless. It is disingenuous, and close to straw-man territory, for some of you to keep dismissing the lesser evil of offensiveness when we're talking about a case of irresponsible behavior.

Perhaps US law has a different interpretation, but I don't see asking to take photographs at a convention as provoking criminal behavior.

I wasn't saying that EA was so far out of line as to be doing anything illegal. My point about the law was that even the law recognizes that an inciter can bear some of the responsibility of the actions of the incitee. This was a meant as a general counterpoint to your general statement that "people should be able to think for themselves." My word for EA was "irresponsible", not "criminal".

Quote: I don't think the line between taking pictures and sexual harassment is that thin, at least not in this situation. I could see your point and agree with it if they ask you to take shots of your neighbor taking a bath; or for their next racing game's marketing campaign would ask you to break the speed limit and 'drift like the pros' next time you're on the interstate.

They said "Commit acts of lust. Take pictures with us or any booth babe." By itself, this is open to interpretation if the taking of the picture of a booth babe is sufficient to qualify as an act of lust. In fact, I would say that it sounds like mere picture-taking is sufficient. But this is clearly a contest, to be won by "one hand-picked winner", not chosen at random. Presumably the judge(s) will be looking for some criteria, and the only hint of criteria they've given you is to be lustful in these pictures. That's where you get the incitement to sexual harassment.

Again, I consider this just one step over the irresponsible line and not that big of a deal, so anybody looking to vent against over-reaction can go look elsewhere. This doesn't demand a letter-writing campaign or a boycott or anything. I just don't understand why people apparently can't see how this at least edges towards irresponsibility, even if you don't agree that it's slightly over the line or way over the line as others argue.

[Edited by - BerwynIrish on July 29, 2009 3:18:37 PM]