Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on April 09, 2006, 08:13:09 am

Title: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 09, 2006, 08:13:09 am
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30852

As it turns out, they released a patch to remove a nipple from an unused texture.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Prophet on April 09, 2006, 09:24:42 am
Good thing they did. As the article states, americans are phobic about nudity. :wtf:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Deepblue on April 09, 2006, 10:37:14 am
Denied by Eidos. Apparently it's in the Euro version but not the US version.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 09, 2006, 11:20:21 am
Denied by Eidos. Apparently it's in the Euro version but not the US version.

Yeah, cos just look at Rockstar/Take2 & Janet Jackson for why they might want to deny it.  In any case, even if that is the truth, it means they took pre-release measures to remove an unshown nipple from the US but not Europe version.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Rictor on April 09, 2006, 11:32:44 am
I see they they're now starting to include the nude skin within the actual game. Good work Eidos, now I don't have to go around hunting for it on mod websites.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: an0n on April 09, 2006, 11:33:45 am
If I wanted to see models with no nipples, I'd be sat at a Russian fashion show....
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Nuclear1 on April 09, 2006, 11:37:33 am
Oh no! Not a nipple! Quick, cover your virgin eyes!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: an0n on April 09, 2006, 11:39:55 am
I'd rather cover my virgin.

In semen.

Animal semen.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Prophet on April 09, 2006, 11:44:30 am
an0n, you filthy minded you :lol:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Flipside on April 09, 2006, 01:06:28 pm
Well, if nothing else, it shows the wonderful wave of Hysteria that has hit parts of Media America regarding computer games and nudity/violence.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Polpolion on April 09, 2006, 01:26:19 pm
Quote
America has a terrible fear of breasts

I'm not scared of boobs!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: an0n on April 09, 2006, 01:32:29 pm
BOOOObs!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: vyper on April 09, 2006, 01:37:03 pm
ZOMG! NIPPLES!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Nuclear1 on April 09, 2006, 05:43:04 pm
And that, children, is how you cause an admin to lock a thread. :D

Boobies!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Mefustae on April 10, 2006, 12:59:05 am
This one's for you, DB...

(http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4482/jubblies9ll.jpg)

:p
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 01:04:46 am
:lol:

Seriously something is sick there. (with the banning of nipples)
How about a revisit to our roots, where rome quite frequently had orgys for all?

Back then everyone was doing it. Why change now? =/
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Taristin on April 10, 2006, 01:49:15 am
We're becoming the Islamic Christian Republic of America. :nod:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 02:06:22 am
We're becoming the Islamic Christian Republic of America. :nod:

:shaking:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: WMCoolmon on April 10, 2006, 03:44:01 am
Oh God, I went to Xboxic...

And there were NIPPLES!!  :eek: Noooo!!

And...that face...the two circles...like...NIPPLES!!!!

Aggghhh....*claws shirt to shreds*...Wait...what's that...OH NO!! I have NIPPLES!!!

ARRGGGGGGGGGGNNNNIIOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Kosh on April 10, 2006, 03:52:23 am
We're becoming the Islamic Christian Republic of America. :nod:

:lol:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 04:01:33 am
Oh God, I went to Xboxic...

And there were NIPPLES!!  :eek: Noooo!!

And...that face...the two circles...like...NIPPLES!!!!

Aggghhh....*claws shirt to shreds*...Wait...what's that...OH NO!! I have NIPPLES!!!

ARRGGGGGGGGGGNNNNIIOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

:lol:
Seriously, doesn't anyone walk around without shirts on in America?

If I ever visit America, I'll wear a shirt with a picture of a nice set of a woman's baby feeders. :D
I'm sure I'll be ever so popular.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Mefustae on April 10, 2006, 04:07:54 am
If I ever visit America, I'll wear a shirt with a picture of a nice set of a woman's baby feeders. :D
I'm sure I'll be ever so popular.
Go on a roadtrip across the Bible-Belt wearing a shirt depicting large breasts and big bold writing that says 'ANAL SEX RULES!', you'll be real popular-like.

All the while, the rest of HLP can take bets on how long it takes before you're lynched... :p
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Gortef on April 10, 2006, 04:13:47 am
Boobs! \,,/

Oh there was something else on that news post aswell...
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: StratComm on April 10, 2006, 04:20:01 am
What's really sad is the parts of the US that are infested with prudes are also overrun with exactly the kind of person who buys those shirts.  I.e. the biggest, most displeasing form of redneck you can imagine.  Strange and somewhat ironic, I know, but I have experienced it firsthand for about 20 years.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 05:13:56 am
If I ever visit America, I'll wear a shirt with a picture of a nice set of a woman's baby feeders. :D
I'm sure I'll be ever so popular.
Go on a roadtrip across the Bible-Belt wearing a shirt depicting large breasts and big bold writing that says 'ANAL SEX RULES!', you'll be real popular-like.

All the while, the rest of HLP can take bets on how long it takes before you're lynched... :p

:lol:

What's really sad is the parts of the US that are infested with prudes are also overrun with exactly the kind of person who buys those shirts.  I.e. the biggest, most displeasing form of redneck you can imagine.  Strange and somewhat ironic, I know, but I have experienced it firsthand for about 20 years.

:lol:
You one of them? :p
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 05:19:48 am
If I ever visit America, I'll wear a shirt with a picture of a nice set of a woman's baby feeders. :D
I'm sure I'll be ever so popular.
Go on a roadtrip across the Bible-Belt wearing a shirt depicting large breasts and big bold writing that says 'ANAL SEX RULES!', you'll be real popular-like.

All the while, the rest of HLP can take bets on how long it takes before you're lynched... :p

Nah, they'd run away in terror at the sight of mammaries.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Mr_Maniac on April 10, 2006, 06:20:36 am

(.) (.)
 )   (
(  Y  )


 ;7
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 06:26:15 am

(.) (.)
 )   (
(  Y  )


 ;7
I'm impressed.
Dos porn eh. Always fun.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 07:17:10 am
AH!  Oh, won't someone please think of the children!
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Triple Ace on April 10, 2006, 10:34:14 am
This bullsh*t is starting to piss me off. There have been more movies with nudity and sex scenes than there ever will be in games. Why do they not go after the movies? Not that I want them to (I like boobs). But instead they go after games which do involve real people but instead have computer generated charactors and textures. This whole censorship thing is getting out of control. I bet sometime in the future they will start censoring real life.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Janos on April 10, 2006, 11:31:18 am
If I ever visit America, I'll wear a shirt with a picture of a nice set of a woman's baby feeders. :D
I'm sure I'll be ever so popular.
Go on a roadtrip across the Bible-Belt wearing a shirt depicting large breasts and big bold writing that says 'ANAL SEX RULES!', you'll be real popular-like.

All the while, the rest of HLP can take bets on how long it takes before you're lynched... :p

he would be an idol, a martyr to a true and honest cause

i would build a shrine for him

a shrine of boobs
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Black Wolf on April 10, 2006, 03:06:25 pm
And I would visit that shrine of boobs. Because boobs... are nice...
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Shade on April 10, 2006, 03:19:21 pm
Makes me feel lucky for living in a country where mocking and otherwise undermining any serious attempts at enforcing political correctness is commonplace. I bet in the US, someone would try to make the little mermaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Copenhagen-Mermaid_statue.jpg) wear a bra :lol:
Title: E
Post by: Ulala on April 10, 2006, 03:23:08 pm
I bet sometime in the future they will start censoring real life.

Equilibrium?  :shaking:

Well, at least with the texture removed there won't be any lawyers out there that can use it as ammo against the video game industry.

Has anyone figured out a logical explanation for why boobs are so attractive?  :nervous:
*runs*
Title: Re: E
Post by: Janos on April 10, 2006, 03:29:14 pm
I bet sometime in the future they will start censoring real life.

Equilibrium?  :shaking:

Well, at least with the texture removed there won't be any lawyers out there that can use it as ammo against the video game industry.

Has anyone figured out a logical explanation for why boobs are so attractive?  :nervous:
*runs*

"Look at my immense jugs, I am well-fed and can give birth to more children you can even sire, you sexy hunk. Let's get going."
"aww hells yeah"
repeat for 1 000 000 years and here we are
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Ford Prefect on April 10, 2006, 03:35:47 pm
Has anyone figured out a logical explanation for why boobs are so attractive?  :nervous:
*runs*
OMG UR GHEY!!!!!111

On a more serious note, has anyone else considered the (admittedly twisted) notion that America actually gets off on suppressing its own sexuality?
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Flipside on April 10, 2006, 03:46:18 pm
Worked in the UK for decades, apparently, behind closed doors, Victorian society was incredibly debauched....
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Ford Prefect on April 10, 2006, 03:50:49 pm
Yeah that's one of the things that brought it to mind. America's puritanical traditions bear some similarities to that situation. (Although Victorian society existed in the US as well as the UK.)
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 04:15:34 pm
Worked in the UK for decades, apparently, behind closed doors, Victorian society was incredibly debauched....

:lol:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 04:46:18 pm
I bet sometime in the future they will start censoring real life.

Equilibrium?  :shaking:

Well, at least with the texture removed there won't be any lawyers out there that can use it as ammo against the video game industry.

Has anyone figured out a logical explanation for why boobs are so attractive?  :nervous:
*runs*

Yes.  Several reasons spring to mind; firstly, they indicate fertility and the ability to succesfully rear children.  Secondly, they are a good fitness (i.e. attractiveness) indicator; they are a good (and hard to fake in evolving man) sign of youth and thus virility (sag in later life).  This is something that is somewhat counteracted by modern plastic surgery, although on the other hand sexual selection theory would also apply as big shows of expenditure can be of benefit (namely in the sense of "look how fit I am, that I can afford to give/spend this on frivolity!"). 

For reference, expensive 'shows' like this or, for example, the peacocks tail are good for mating because they are expensive 'luxuries', and thus hard to fake (i.e. they are indicative of fitness 'energy', to paraphrase the concept, because they are both expensive and maintained). 

Sexual selection is (again for ref) the other selection involved in evolution/Darwinism; it refers to the excercising of females in choosing their mates and how features that are advantageous in sexual terms but neutral or not in survival terms are selected (as well as how animals with beneficial survival mutations may not see that propagate if they are sexually unattractive).  Sexual selection remains somewhat obscure in comparison to natural selection because the idea of female mate choice is rather...distasteful to many male scientists and a male-orientated society (especially in the 1800s and first 3 quarters or so of the 1900s).  Ignorance of this is usually a key feature of any creationist/ID arguement, interestingly.  But then those types usually are sexually repressed.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Flipside on April 10, 2006, 04:48:43 pm
My own opinion is........

MMmmm....Boobies :)
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 04:50:51 pm
My own opinion is........

MMmmm....Boobies :)

and that, yeah.

Mmm.  Boobies.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Nuclear1 on April 10, 2006, 04:56:23 pm
Yes.  Several reasons spring to mind; firstly, they indicate fertility and the ability to succesfully rear children.  Secondly, they are a good fitness (i.e. attractiveness) indicator; they are a good (and hard to fake in evolving man) sign of youth and thus virility (sag in later life).  This is something that is somewhat counteracted by modern plastic surgery, although on the other hand sexual selection theory would also apply as big shows of expenditure can be of benefit (namely in the sense of "look how fit I am, that I can afford to give/spend this on frivolity!"). 

For reference, expensive 'shows' like this or, for example, the peacocks tail are good for mating because they are expensive 'luxuries', and thus hard to fake (i.e. they are indicative of fitness 'energy', to paraphrase the concept, because they are both expensive and maintained). 

Sexual selection is (again for ref) the other selection involved in evolution/Darwinism; it refers to the excercising of females in choosing their mates and how features that are advantageous in sexual terms but neutral or not in survival terms are selected (as well as how animals with beneficial survival mutations may not see that propagate if they are sexually unattractive).  Sexual selection remains somewhat obscure in comparison to natural selection because the idea of female mate choice is rather...distasteful to many male scientists and a male-orientated society (especially in the 1800s and first 3 quarters or so of the 1900s).  Ignorance of this is usually a key feature of any creationist/ID arguement, interestingly.  But then those types usually are sexually repressed.

Ladies and Gents, I give you the philosophy of boobies![/size] :D
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 10, 2006, 05:00:26 pm
Ladies and Gents, I give you the philosophy of boobies![/size] :D

Should I have just said 'cos they're bouncy'?
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Nuclear1 on April 10, 2006, 05:11:31 pm
That's a very good reason, yes.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 10, 2006, 05:28:04 pm
My own opinion is........

MMmmm....Boobies :)
Hahaha. :nod:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Ford Prefect on April 10, 2006, 06:18:54 pm
Ladies and Gents, I give you the philosophy of boobies![/size] :D
Nah, that was just the science of boobies. The philosophy of boobies would be something like: The individual, in viewing the boobie, inescapably imprints onto the boobie some aspect of him/herself, which thus assigns the boobie its function. The discrepancy between this supposed function of the boobie and the boobie's actual existence as a "thing-in-itself" is denied in such contexts as religion and Platonism, which hold the boobie's function as logically prior to its existence. However, in the German phenomenological movement, we find that the perception of the boobie takes on new signifiance, eventually influencing the formation of existentialism in France with Sartre's declaration that "the boobie's existence preceeds its essence".
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Polpolion on April 10, 2006, 10:25:13 pm
Makes me feel lucky for living in a country where mocking and otherwise undermining any serious attempts at enforcing political correctness is commonplace. I bet in the US, someone would try to make the little mermaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Copenhagen-Mermaid_statue.jpg) wear a bra :lol:

Not before it's raped 3 times...
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Mefustae on April 10, 2006, 10:38:08 pm
Equilibrium?
Best. Movie. Evar.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Ulala on April 11, 2006, 11:49:15 am
Haha, hilarious.

I think I derailed the thread...
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 12, 2006, 02:28:42 am
Haha, hilarious.

I think I derailed the thread...

But it blessed us with goodness. Much goodness.
*tempted to start posting pics*
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: TheCaptain on April 13, 2006, 07:38:21 pm
Haha, hilarious.

I think I derailed the thread...

But it blessed us with goodness. Much goodness.
*tempted to start posting pics*
...of animated mammaries, or the real m'coy? :confused: :p

Anyway, keep the spirit alive, dang'it America! :hopping: What, GTA-style cop-killing, drug trafficking, random street violence and gangland murders are all fine, well and good in videogames, but a bit of boobage will rot all the kiddies' souls? WTH? :)
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 13, 2006, 07:50:23 pm
Get 'im!

:welcome:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: TheCaptain on April 13, 2006, 08:24:35 pm
Get 'im!

:welcome:
Thanks! :D

*kicks in testicles*
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 14, 2006, 04:04:56 am
Get 'im!

:welcome:
Thanks! :D

*kicks in testicles*

Oi!
How ungratefull. I give a welcome and get a kick in the cods. =o
Ban 'im! :p

Good to see we got more Aussie support now, and QLD at that. :D
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: TheCaptain on April 14, 2006, 05:22:19 am
Get 'im!

:welcome:
Thanks! :D

*kicks in testicles*

Oi!
How ungratefull. I give a welcome and get a kick in the cods. =o
Ban 'im! :p

Good to see we got more Aussie support now, and QLD at that. :D
thanks for the welcome thou, Grug, I just couldn't resist :p

what's a kick in the nads here and there between friends? :)
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 14, 2006, 05:25:42 am
Indeed.
So what are you the captain of?
NTF Iceni?
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: TheCaptain on April 14, 2006, 05:55:29 am
Indeed.
So what are you the captain of?
NTF Iceni?
Nah mate, just here for the political discussions, mostly, at least for the time being :p

I'm a Stargate fan mostly, so this is my pride-n-joy, for surez :D
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c303/CaptainZoom85/daedalus_orbit.jpg
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 14, 2006, 06:32:41 am
Quiche is a tasty and healthy alternative for many main dishes at the dinner table. Using a mix often consisting of egg, vegetables, and finly ground or cut chips of meat (often ham) it delivers a sensational taste for only a fraction of the calories.

Heh, relevance escapes us sometimes. ;)
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Charismatic on April 14, 2006, 07:55:31 pm
I looove boobies.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 14, 2006, 08:00:25 pm
Keish is a tasty and healthy alternative for many main dishes at the dinner table. Using a mix often consisting of egg, vegetables, and finly ground or cut chips of meat (often ham) it delivers a sensational taste for only a fraction of the calories.

Heh, relevance escapes us sometimes. ;)

Quiche.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Grug on April 14, 2006, 08:06:57 pm
Keish is a tasty and healthy alternative for many main dishes at the dinner table. Using a mix often consisting of egg, vegetables, and finly ground or cut chips of meat (often ham) it delivers a sensational taste for only a fraction of the calories.

Heh, relevance escapes us sometimes. ;)

Quiche.

My bad. *fixes*
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Eightball on April 14, 2006, 10:06:49 pm
Aw get off your high horses.  They patched in the EU version, too.

And it's not censorship since they chose to do it to them self.

You can call it "self-censorship", but it's not like the guvamint is making them take it out.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Mefustae on April 14, 2006, 11:44:23 pm
Aw get off your high horses. They patched in the EU version, too.

And it's not censorship since they chose to do it to them self.

You can call it "self-censorship", but it's not like the guvamint is making them take it out. :rolleyes:
In a way, it is. They don't want to create another debacle like Hot Coffee, so they're going to the trouble of taking out a ****ing nipple that consumers would have to disect the program to find. Had they left it in, they would have left themselves liable to be chastised should some politician get wind of the offending nipple and **** themselves like before.

You're naive if you think 'self censorship' is in any way different from 'censorship'.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: vyper on April 15, 2006, 04:18:07 am
Mmmm.... cheese and ham Quiche. *drools*
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 15, 2006, 10:12:01 am
Aw get off your high horses.  They patched in the EU version, too.

And it's not censorship since they chose to do it to them self.

You can call it "self-censorship", but it's not like the guvamint is making them take it out.  :rolleyes:

Um.... let's say you write an article on The Satanic Verses for a magazine, and your magazine wants to begin publishing in the Middle East.  Say that magazine independently decides to remove the article for their Middle East edition.  Does that mean the society and government of those Middle Eastern countries has had absolutely no impact upon that decision?
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: Eightball on April 15, 2006, 10:38:55 am
No, but if you really want that article or those nipples to get out there, you are completely free to do it yourself.  Self-publish.  Capitalism, baby.

The publishers are worried about money, first and foremost.  If they think it will be bad for them (ie, get less sales) to leave the nipples in, then they will want to remove them.  Since it doesn't affect gameplay, I don't understand the clamor to leave them in.  You are free to publish "Boobspace: the Great Wet T-shirt Contest" if you want.  Just make sure you have the money to do so.  If the society or culture in which a product will be made available dislikes a feature of the product, it can hurt sales to leave it in.  Any for-profit venture has to keep this in mind.  If the game industry is trying to make unadultered art (har!) then nobody would buy it.  Many game descisions are made to maximize profits.

The government in this situation is not forcing them to do anything directly.  Currently, the government isn't doing much at all really.  The GTA "Hot Coffee" scandal was mostly confined to the ESRB, not the government.

And I think you're fooling yourself if you think "censorship" and "self-censorship" are identical.  They are related, yes, but not the same at all.
Title: Re: More scary censorship
Post by: aldo_14 on April 15, 2006, 10:45:16 am
Self censorship is a direct consequence of societal attitudes and ergo the censorship seen to be imposed in prior cases.  Take2/Rockstar got sued and attacked by any number of politicians and 'interest' groups for having some mild smut hidden away in inaccessible code (except by breaching the EULA), costing them millions.  financial self-interest will always take precedence over defending freedom of expression (and an errant nipple is freedom of expression, if only because of the consequences and precedent set by removing it), but the trick is not to encourage the latter.