Where do I draw the line?

[RyanA]

If you're putting in mature content and excessive violence into your game for the sake of putting mature content and excessive violence in your game (or to be edgy) then no. Don't put it in. You're making an RPG. Sure there are mature themes, but sometimes they aren't necessary. What, are you going to have 2 sprites hardcore dry humping? That's about the extent of sexual maturity you can get with RPG Maker.

What's a dry hump? :3

 

[Tuomo L]

If you're putting in mature content and excessive violence into your game for the sake of putting mature content and excessive violence in your game (or to be edgy) then no. Don't put it in. You're making an RPG. Sure there are mature themes, but sometimes they aren't necessary. What, are you going to have 2 sprites hardcore dry humping? That's about the extent of sexual maturity you can get with RPG Maker.

What about Polymorphous Perversity? :huh:

 

[zacheatscrackers]

What's a dry hump? :3

Let me put it in text terms for you:

unf unf unf unf unf unf

But yeah, I agree with the sentinent that you don't just put a bunch of mature content in your game for no reason. Like, if you did it to intensify the situation or for laughs, that'd at least be understandable. But just putting a bunch of guys spouting the f-word for the hell of it is just... well, stupid if it has no context whatsoever.

 

[Gomi Boy]

It's funny that the word "mature" tends to be used for sexual/violent content added in just for its own sake, since it's just about the opposite of that.

 

[crimcrim]

It's funny that the word "mature" tends to be used for sexual/violent content added in just for its own sake, since it's just about the opposite of that.

rated 'M' for Mawk

 

[LouisCyphre]

Dhux's Scar is a good example of a game that gets a pass on its content due to being, well, good.

Also, I'm compelled to post this:

*removed*

 

[Tuomo L]

Dhux's Scar is a good example of a game that gets a pass on its content due to being, well, good.

Also, I'm compelled to post this:

*removed*

I knew what that was going to be before even clicking it. :lol: Dooms 2 is also really good. Many people name it as their favorite RPG maker game, despite the nature of some of the "heroes" in the game.

 

[Gomi Boy]

Uh huh.

 

[Lunarea]

I've edited out the image Louis posted because it's the sort of thing that dances on the line. We're not going to go as far as banning any kind of controversial content, but can you guys at least try to be tasteful with the content you share?

 

[Gomi Boy]

It... had a 2k3 RTP character saying the word "penis" along with some stupid non-sequitur humour. That's all. There's a point at which you run the risk of validating people who make this nonsense for the sake of being controversial.

 

[Tuomo L]

I've edited out the image Louis posted because it's the sort of thing that dances on the line. We're not going to go as far as banning any kind of controversial content, but can you guys at least try to be tasteful with the content you share?

Lunarea, I have been thinking something since the start of this topic. What are your thoughts on something of beautiful, artistic level in a violent game? Art game, if you will. Do they get passed through the looking glass even thought they may be of mature quality because of the quality of the end product? I mean games like Beautiful Escape: Dungeoneer and games that are to levels of that game in both artistic way but also the violence/mature acts being part what makes the game, well, "good" ?



Trailer doesn't really show anything but speaks volumes.

It... had a 2k3 RTP character saying the word "penis" along with some stupid non-sequitur humour. That's all. There's a point at which you run the risk of validating people who make this nonsense for the sake of being controversial.

It is not humor or joke. He really did insert a nail through "it" and he suffers from it greatly and it brings him closer to god and he thinks by sharing pain with others and making them feel great pain helps take them to god as well. It is mentioned the nail will most likely kill him, even if he removes it or keeps it.

Also that was not RTP.

 

[Gomi Boy]

I'm actually glad that this got brought up, because it's been something I've been thinking about for quite some time. In the end, I don't believe that simply setting out to upset the player and then accomplishing it by easy means (such as vivid depictions of violence) can be classified as "art", even though it's a common defense. Art is meant to be evocative, yes, but simply fishing for a reaction, any reaction at all, and obtaining them by any means necessary isn't evocation. It's simple shock.

Saying "I want to push people out of their comfort zones" and then making them, the player, torture people to death... Well, you've achieved your goal in discomforting the player, but to what purpose? What are you actually saying? You've solved an equation, but that's all. With the nebulous state of "games as art", of course, people will call anything art just to be seen as an advocate of the movement -- but a critical eye is necessary.

Let's say I'm a performance artist. I make it my goal to be "seen", so I go around in a scary mask screaming at people. By my own standards, I've succeeded, but there's no denying that I've set awfully low and broad standards.

It is not humor or joke. He really did insert a nail through "it" and he suffers from it greatly and it brings him closer to god and he thinks by sharing pain with others and making them feel great pain helps take them to god as well. It is mentioned the nail will most likely kill him, even if he removes it or keeps it.

If this was your intention, then your presentation of the event was almost criminally lacking. This isn't the sort of thing that you can put in author's notes later -- it has to be apparent from the work itself, speaking on its own behalf. Without you speaking for it, the event seems as if it can only possibly be a joke, or a quick shock. There's none of the gravity that you're attributing to it.

 

[Tuomo L]

I'm actually glad that this got brought up, because it's been something I've been thinking about for quite some time. In the end, I don't believe that simply setting out to upset the player and then accomplishing it by easy means (such as vivid depictions of violence) can be classified as "art", even though it's a common defense. Art is meant to be evocative, yes, but simply fishing for a reaction, any reaction at all, and obtaining them by any means necessary isn't evocation. It's simple shock.

There are many levels of art as well as styles of what is art. Extreme violence if decipted in certain way is art, depending on how visual and how it's portrayed.

Saying "I want to push people out of their comfort zones" and then making them, the player, torture people to death... Well, you've achieved your goal in discomforting the player, but to what purpose? What are you actually saying? You've solved an equation, but that's all. With the nebulous state of "games as art", of course, people will call anything art just to be seen as an advocate of the movement -- but a critical eye is necessary.

Beautiful Escape really is the closest to art game ever made, far more so than any other game of anykind I've ever seen.

Let's say I'm a performance artist. I make it my goal to be "seen", so I go around in a scary mask screaming at people. By my own standards, I've succeeded, but there's no denying that I've set awfully low and broad standards.

That is true. You could make your performance and broaden it up, even when your subject is to be seen, you could make yourself seen more in various ways. Again, it comes to levels of portrayal and how visual it is.

If this was your intention, then your presentation of the event was almost criminally lacking. This isn't the sort of thing that you can put in author's notes later -- it has to be apparent from the work itself, speaking on its own behalf. Without you speaking for it, the event seems as if it can only possibly be a joke, or a quick shock. There's none of the gravity that you're attributing to it.

It is apperant...... Extremely so actually. The game is not about ultra violence but what makes a human mind and why someone would do a thing like that. In fact, it's not even all that bloody even though there's few visceral scenes, it's more of a dive into the darkest corners of mind... From what you said I take you never played the game.

 

[Gomi Boy]

You can't simply argue that since everything is subjective, everything is beyond reasonable critique. Technically speaking, most creative ventures culminate in a piece of art. However, and this is the really important part, simply being art doesn't entitle the piece to anything. It's vastly common for someone to claim that their work is art and, therefore, unquantifiable -- if you have negative things to say about it, then you "just don't get it".

I don't agree with this.

While an all-encompassing objective standard for art is impossible to create (and would likely have unfortunate implications for the state of art altogether), there are various criteria that art can be examined in relation to. One of these is looking at the underlying message and the ways that the author makes it apparent -- and while it'd be shortsighted and egotistical of me to say that all art needs an underlying message, it's the results of this and other examinations (and comparisons with other existing works) that can contribute to a critical view of the work as a whole. Depiction of violence can be art, or an aspect of it. This is very true. Does this mean that including violence in your game automatically makes it more artsy? Absolutely not.

It's a little strange that people will argue their own take on subjectivity until they're blue in the face, and then turn around and approach their own works with such a sterile, mathematical philosophy of design.

 

[Lunarea]

@Mawk:

I realize that any moderating action can have the opposite result, but I'm hoping for the best.

Here's the thing ... If you (general you, not yourself specifically) want people to treat you as an adult, to show respect to you and to appreciate your work, you need to be able to show those same actions/qualities toward others. This includes at least acknowledging that some of our member base is younger and that certain situations/themes/content may not be appropriate for them. I'm not telling people to go as far as never having anything remotely mature in their games. Controversial content is generally okay, especially if you've given a warning. But at least try to keep the members' age in mind when you make your thread.

We're not going to go as far as banning any possibly controversial content or censoring anything that's even remotely considered mature. But we are going to try our best to make the forum content as appropriate to the age groups we cater to as possible.

@MISTER BIG T:

My personal view - and I say personal, because other mods may disagree - is that whether something is artistically gorgeous or not has very little bearing on how appropriate the content is. In my view, labeling something as "experimental" or "artistic" isn't a free pass to do whatever you want or approach any subject you want.

That said, I can agree that some themes fall into a gray area and how appropriate they are is situational. People can take some difficult and/or mature themes and present them in a way that's acceptable. And I've seen people turn completely basic and simple themes into something that made players intensely uncomfortable. It happens a lot in thrillers and horror.

There are actually a lot of themes that fall into this gray area - especially when it comes to topics that can be turned into something mature or psychologically intense. This is why we don't have a lengthy list of things you can and can't use. If you're concerned, you can message a moderator and we'll take a look at it.

 

[Tuomo L]

You can't simply argue that since everything is subjective, everything is beyond reasonable critique. Technically speaking, most creative ventures culminate in a piece of art. However, and this is the really important part, simply being art doesn't entitle the piece to anything. It's vastly common for someone to claim that their work is art and, therefore, unquantifiable -- if you have negative things to say about it, then you "just don't get it".

I don't agree with this.

While an all-encompassing objective standard for art is impossible to create (and would likely have unfortunate implications for the state of art altogether), there are various criteria that art can be examined in relation to. One of these is looking at the underlying message and the ways that the author makes it apparent -- and while it'd be shortsighted and egotistical of me to say that all art needs an underlying message, it's the results of this and other examinations (and comparisons with other existing works) that can contribute to a critical view of the work as a whole. Depiction of violence can be art, or an aspect of it. This is very true. Does this mean that including violence in your game automatically makes it more artsy? Absolutely not.

It's a little strange that people will argue their own take on subjectivity until they're blue in the face, and then turn around and approach their own works with such a sterile, mathematical philosophy of design.

I think it's pretty clear you've not played Beautiful Escape. If you'd look at that game's start alone you'd agree it's art.

Also, I've not made Beautiful Escape and I'm also not calling any of my games art. (Heck, if you saw my intro post here, I call my games "Stupid but amusing" ) What I say are what other people have said about my games, such as Dooms 2 where I pointed out many people actually do declare it as one of their favorite RPGmaker game, right along with Blurred Line and such. Again, not my words but of others.

@MISTER BIG T:

My personal view - and I say personal, because other mods may disagree - is that whether something is artistically gorgeous or not has very little bearing on how appropriate the content is. In my view, labeling something as "experimental" or "artistic" isn't a free pass to do whatever you want or approach any subject you want.

All right, that is good to know.

That said, I can agree that some themes fall into a gray area and how appropriate they are is situational. People can take some difficult and/or mature themes and present them in a way that's acceptable. And I've seen people turn completely basic and simple themes into something that made players intensely uncomfortable. It happens a lot in thrillers and horror.There are actually a lot of themes that fall into this gray area - especially when it comes to topics that can be turned into something mature or psychologically intense. This is why we don't have a lengthy list of things you can and can't use. If you're concerned, you can message a moderator and we'll take a look at it.

Yes, exactly. This is what I've seen god knows how many times. A really "teen" game that is disturbing beyond words and adult oriented movie that was honestly, laughable in most regards. For instance, did you know that in the original Cinderalla story has the evil step sisters eyes poked out by birds "thus punishing their cruelty with blindness"? That's a story many of us grew up reading, many old time stories are really intense in their violent themes. Which is kind of what I mean, do we go for how young people may react to visual or mental things? For instance, the cinderalla is still a beloved children story despite the fact that toes are carved out and so are pieces of one's ankle. (You don't see that in the Disney version) Me, I like probing my players heads... And mess them up real good. Even if the material itself is not viscerally shocking, the themes itself can be quite disorrienting, even to adults. (Maybe even more so, especially to those who know about life and things)

 

[Gomi Boy]

If you're not going to engage on this subject beyond repeating that the foil to everything I've said exists in a game I've never played or talked about in particular and congratulating yourself for accolades you've received, then I don't see how we can keep this discussion up.

 

[Robin]

Yes, exactly. This is what I've seen god knows how many times. A really "teen" game that is disturbing beyond words and adult oriented movie that was honestly, laughable in most regards. For instance, did you know that in the original Cinderalla story has the evil step sisters eyes poked out by birds "thus punishing their cruelty with blindness"? That's a story many of us grew up reading, many old time stories are really intense in their violent themes. Which is kind of what I mean, do we go for how young people may react to visual or mental things? For instance, the cinderalla is still a beloved children story despite the fact that toes are carved out and so are pieces of one's ankle. (You don't see that in the Disney version) Me, I like probing my players heads... And mess them up real good. Even if the material itself is not viscerally shocking, the themes itself can be quite disorrienting, even to adults. (Maybe even more so, especially to those who know about life and things)

I'm really not clear what your point is here. The original Cinderella, a folk tale from the seventeenth century, if not before, had "violent themes". Then you reference Brothers Grimm' version, from the nineteenth century, which contains cruelty and violence. Then you said, the story is beloved despite this, but then saying the violent details from the previous versions are omitted in the Disney version... I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[Tuomo L]

I'm really not clear what your point is here. The original Cinderella, a folk tale from the seventeenth century, if not before, had "violent themes". Then you reference Brothers Grimm' version, from the nineteenth century, which contains cruelty and violence. Then you said, the story is beloved despite this, but then saying the violent details from the previous versions are omitted in the Disney version... I'm not sure what you're saying.

That something can be shown to teens despite cruelty and violence, while non cruel and non violent can be a much more traumatizing event.

 

[Robin]

That something can be shown to teens despite cruelty and violence, while non cruel and non violent can be a much more traumatizing event.

Well, something physically can be shown to children despite cruelty and violence, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

As for the second half of your sentence, can you be more specific?