[Videogamer555]

QUOTE (Bad Girls @ Sunday, Oct 30 2011, 06:29)

QUOTE (Videogamer555 @ Sunday, Oct 16 2011, 23:47) Oh and here's another tasteless game (which would have been banned if the Bush congress had gotten its way, and is currently illegal in Canada, the UK, and Australia). It's called Rapelay. Click these pictures to see larger versions of the pictures. It's a 3d computer rendered game using characters who have an anime look about them, that was made in Japan. The plot is you are some sex offender and your goal is to rape this woman and her two daughters. It never was released outside of Japan, and therefore the torrent of it with fanmade translation is the only way a westerner will ever get to play it. You are more likely to get arrested for piracy (though that itself unlikely cause the Japanese company probably doesn't care if someone who never could have purchased it over in the US downloaded it instead) than you are for any other crime, because this great nation, the United States considers free speech to be one of the most important liberties that one can have. Um, games can be "banned" from sale in the US. If they're given an Adults Only (AO) rating, pretty much all stores will refuse to sell it and animated content can be illegal, even in a video game. Child porn and rape porn would fall under that, so that Japanese game would most certainly be banned in the US if they tried to sell it mainstream. Obviously, through the internet you can get anything. That doesn't mean its legal, though.

Actually you are wrong about that. Let me explain to you the history of the law I believe you are referring to. Under George W Bush, the congress passed a law banning underage pornographic cartoons, and signed into law by the president. HOWEVER it was STRUCK DOWN by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds, as the law didn't protect anybody (nobody was really being harmed) and therefore the law only served to violate the US constitution 1st ammendment (free speech). Later (still under Bush) Congress passed a new similar law (which would again have banned underage pornographic cartoons). Again it was signed into law by the president, but AGAIN it was then struck down by the supreme court on constitutional grounds.

Currently in the US, there is NO LAW banning underage pornographic content when the person in question is just a fictional character. It is only illegal if the image is a photograph, or such a realistic computer graphic that the average person would mistake it for real child porn (and the only reason the law banning "photorealistic" images is not struck down on constitutional grounds is that such imagery cause the police to divert attention to such images until it can be determined they are not real, and such waste of police resources puts many other people in danger, much like a prank 911 call).

And GTA isn't even about child porn. If children WERE included, the problem would be in the sense of showing PHYSICAL VIOLENCE (not sexual violation) toward the children. Such VIOLENT material involving fictional children has NEVER EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED UNDER ANY LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by Videogamer555 on Friday, May 4 2012, 12:41

[bugoy]

I wanna play that Jap game so bad right now.

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (universetwisters @ Monday, Oct 17 2011, 10:13)

i can imagine morality being a huge issue. I personally wouldnt feel right putting a gun to a kid and blowing him away. And even if it isnt intended, theres always collateral. I could be driving down a sidewalk and accidently hit a kid, or i could be in a shootout with the police and a kid gets hit by a stray bullet from either party plus, it could be out of character from the most part. I can imagine the GTA 3 guy doing it, as he is a psychopathic silent killer with no remorse, but Niko doing it? Or CJ? it wouldnt feel right

You wouldn't feel right!?! Have you not noticed that GTA is a game and that in the game the children would just be digital people shorter than the other digital people. I'm sure you don't care shooting adult people in a game, so what's it matter if it's a child.

[Simon_V]

There will never be kids in a GTA game, that's for sure. The ESRB and other rating companies wouldn't rate the game. The same goes for the ''Max Payne 3 gore'' in V.

[Videogamer555]

QUOTE (Simon_V @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 11:23)

There will never be kids in a GTA game, that's for sure. The ESRB and other rating companies wouldn't rate the game. The same goes for the ''Max Payne 3 gore'' in V.

You don't need a rating to sell a game. There's no law about that. Also a game can be rated AO. While these only get sold in stores that sell AO or unrated games it would still be a viable option. R* already makes pleanty of games that are less than AO rating, that they could have one GTA game that didn't make a proffit, and overall they would still make money from all the games they sell that ARE rated and ARE rated at less than AO.

I'd find it an interesting experience to play a game that had "no holds barred" and just put in whatever the game makers wanted, ratings be damned.

[universetwisters]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 06:05)

QUOTE (universetwisters @ Monday, Oct 17 2011, 10:13) i can imagine morality being a huge issue. I personally wouldnt feel right putting a gun to a kid and blowing him away. And even if it isnt intended, theres always collateral. I could be driving down a sidewalk and accidently hit a kid, or i could be in a shootout with the police and a kid gets hit by a stray bullet from either party plus, it could be out of character from the most part. I can imagine the GTA 3 guy doing it, as he is a psychopathic silent killer with no remorse, but Niko doing it? Or CJ? it wouldnt feel right You wouldn't feel right!?! Have you not noticed that GTA is a game and that in the game the children would just be digital people shorter than the other digital people. I'm sure you don't care shooting adult people in a game, so what's it matter if it's a child.

but niko & cj has morals to a point

[Simo54321]

Why don't they do what Bethesda do in their games, seems ok to me.

[TheJustinAllenK]

If they bring back the Honor system (literally, the honor system from RDR), then it'd be okay in my eyes. i.e. If you kill an innocent civilian adult, -50, if you kill an innocent civilian child, -200.

[Simon_V]

QUOTE (Videogamer555 @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:48)

QUOTE (Simon_V @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 11:23) There will never be kids in a GTA game, that's for sure. The ESRB and other rating companies wouldn't rate the game. The same goes for the ''Max Payne 3 gore'' in V. You don't need a rating to sell a game. There's no law about that. Also a game can be rated AO. While these only get sold in stores that sell AO or unrated games it would still be a viable option. R* already makes pleanty of games that are less than AO rating, that they could have one GTA game that didn't make a proffit, and overall they would still make money from all the games they sell that ARE rated and ARE rated at less than AO. I'd find it an interesting experience to play a game that had "no holds barred" and just put in whatever the game makers wanted, ratings be damned.

I fully agree with u, I also want to play a game (Manhunt 2) that's rated AO. But the rating companies will not rate them, unless they downgrade/censore the violence (Manhunt 2).