Goodbye Kickstarter

I'd like to hear you flatly state the connection. Because I don't understand how someone blatantly making up stuff that's not there and using their medical credentials to try to drive it equates to this. All I can see is red because I feel like you're accusing me of making stuff up.

Yes, it's a trick-taking card game. The context that trick is taken is the setup for feeling up an unwilling juvenile and to take it you've symbolically succeeded in that. Then it's used to count coup and gain you more power to do it repeatedly to win the game.

The problem is not that there are hidden panty shots in the art or whatever or even a perception that there might be. The game mechanics themselves are the problem I'm talking about. Otherwise, you could say that playing Solitaire with a deck of cards with pinup girls on the back was wrong and it's really not. Tasteless IMHO, but not wrong.

The cards aren't porn - that's another red herring here. Watch High School of the Dead or Starblazer and you'll see as bad all over the place.

Use of the word "rape" here is confusing the issue. Rape is a very specific sort of sexual assault, and I don't see that anywhere in the game that I've been able to see or hear about from reputable sources. You're right. But what is in the game, groping, is a sexual assault. And one that does quite a bit of damage to it's victims when perpetrated against a real person. Again, that's not in the art. That's the mechanics of the game itself.

Do I think that playing it damages anyone. NO. I never said that I thought anyone should be prevented from making or playing this game.

But I believe the fact that people don't see a problem with this action being cast as "just a game" is one more datapoint towards the fact that many people minimize the scale of the action when it's taken against someone, and minimize the scope of the damage it causes. And doing so has effects in how people deal in their daily lives.

I mean, listen to yourselves. Read through this thread and really think about it. Think about what you've said would seem like if you were someone who has to be careful where and how they take the bus or go to the grocery store. You don't even have to be young and cute to get this kind of flack. Enough of you have seen me to know I'm no prize and I regularly have to deal with unwanted physical attentions in public.

And for the record, had I known about that kitty-blender game I'd have been mad about it in the same way I am about this. It has the same effect - minimizing and trivializing animal cruelty. I am now.

momgamer, I'm not sure who you're addressing, because Lobster and I were both talking very specifically about MrDevil's assertion that the game is dangerous, a claim he admits to making before he even read what the game was.

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

momgamer, I'm not sure who you're addressing, because Lobster and I were both talking very specifically about MrDevil's assertion that the game is dangerous, a claim he admits to making before he even read what the game was.

I'm addressing you and Lobster, because there's nothing in that post that somehow separates it from the discussion I've been having with Malor and you and others and I thought you were commenting on that.

Particularly, I was addressing your question about how the card game mechanic fits into the assertions people have been making about the game, and what I percieve as Lobster's accusation that I also didn't read about the game (which I did) and that I'm just making up my objections.

Since I do respect all of you, that's why I asked that the actual point be made in text rather than implied through the picture, in case I'm seeing it wrong due to my own lens of experience on this. I'm trying my best to keep the crazy on my side of the keyboard here and not muddy the waters even farther by misinterpreting things.

wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

NathanialG wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

Assuming you played it for a while, you did some terrible, terrible things. I personally played FC2 as well as Super Columbine RPG, and, while I certainly don't think that everyone is mature enough to play and understand them, I also feel that they were worthwhile things to play. Same goes with Brathwaite's board games, for that matter. I don't know that children should play a game in which it is their goal to cram as many victims into the trains to Nazi camps, or to do things like poison the water supply to a refugee village, or kill high schoolers. I'd like to think that such games are best reserved for those who can and will think about what they're doing, but only restricted to that extent.

Sexual assault in a game sure seems different, though.

Is it?

wordsmythe wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

Assuming you played it for a while, you did some terrible, terrible things. I personally played FC2 as well as Super Columbine RPG, and, while I certainly don't think that everyone is mature enough to play and understand them, I also feel that they were worthwhile things to play. Same goes with Brathwaite's board games, for that matter. I don't know that children should play a game in which it is their goal to cram as many victims into the trains to Nazi camps, or to do things like poison the water supply to a refugee village, or kill high schoolers. I'd like to think that such games are best reserved for those who can and will think about what they're doing, but only restricted to that extent.

Sexual assault in a game sure seems different, though.

Is it?

Not really. We as a society are just incredibly desensitized to murder and the like as opposed to sexual assault.

Dr.Ghastly wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

Assuming you played it for a while, you did some terrible, terrible things. I personally played FC2 as well as Super Columbine RPG, and, while I certainly don't think that everyone is mature enough to play and understand them, I also feel that they were worthwhile things to play. Same goes with Brathwaite's board games, for that matter. I don't know that children should play a game in which it is their goal to cram as many victims into the trains to Nazi camps, or to do things like poison the water supply to a refugee village, or kill high schoolers. I'd like to think that such games are best reserved for those who can and will think about what they're doing, but only restricted to that extent.

Sexual assault in a game sure seems different, though.

Is it?

Not really. We as a society are just incredibly desensitized to murder and the like as opposed to sexual assault.

Don't get me wrong, though. FC2 and Super Columbine were both incredibly difficult to push through. I had to convince myself to go on, and I think that was a valuable experience.

wordsmythe wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

Assuming you played it for a while, you did some terrible, terrible things. I personally played FC2 as well as Super Columbine RPG, and, while I certainly don't think that everyone is mature enough to play and understand them, I also feel that they were worthwhile things to play. Same goes with Brathwaite's board games, for that matter. I don't know that children should play a game in which it is their goal to cram as many victims into the trains to Nazi camps, or to do things like poison the water supply to a refugee village, or kill high schoolers. I'd like to think that such games are best reserved for those who can and will think about what they're doing, but only restricted to that extent.

Sexual assault in a game sure seems different, though.

Is it?

Not really. We as a society are just incredibly desensitized to murder and the like as opposed to sexual assault.

Don't get me wrong, though. FC2 and Super Columbine were both incredibly difficult to push through. I had to convince myself to go on, and I think that was a valuable experience.

I think, possibly the difference between these scenarios is that FC2, SC are worthwhile endeavours that can (though may not) force you to evaluate your thoughts and positions on difficult issues..... Bento tentacle whatsitsface, however, sounds like a happy-go-lucky Mario spin-off that is as deep as Super Mario Bros. was upon release...

It seems like the pulled game is akin to Postal if we're going to compare sexual violence to killing violence. And my feeling on those is pretty much the same: I don't think they're in good taste, I wouldn't willingly play them, and I respect various companies for choosing to not be associated with them. But I don't think they should be banned from being created or sold.

wordsmythe wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

Tricky questions!

Who here has played Far Cry 2?

Me!

Assuming you played it for a while, you did some terrible, terrible things. I personally played FC2 as well as Super Columbine RPG, and, while I certainly don't think that everyone is mature enough to play and understand them, I also feel that they were worthwhile things to play. Same goes with Brathwaite's board games, for that matter. I don't know that children should play a game in which it is their goal to cram as many victims into the trains to Nazi camps, or to do things like poison the water supply to a refugee village, or kill high schoolers. I'd like to think that such games are best reserved for those who can and will think about what they're doing, but only restricted to that extent.

Sexual assault in a game sure seems different, though.

Is it?

For me the big difference is that while you are the perpetrator of terrible things this is never presented in a positive light. It is never funny or cutesy, you are clearly engaging in bad behavior and you are quite literally sick.

bnpederson wrote:

It seems like the pulled game is akin to Postal if we're going to compare sexual violence to killing violence. And my feeling on those is pretty much the same: I don't think they're in good taste, I wouldn't willingly play them, and I respect various companies for choosing to not be associated with them. But I don't think they should be banned from being created or sold.

This.

I hit on it earlier, but maybe I should be a bit clearer: The difference between something like Far Cry 2 and this is entirely in how it's handled. If you sincerely don't think that games can handle atrocities in a mature and thought-provoking manner, and it's all equal, there's really not a common ground, here.

So, how would everyone feel about the first Postal getting kicked off of Kickstarter? I'd... more or less have the same reaction. I'd just probably have to defend it a lot less.

the difference - for me - is that sexual assault is not a subject we should be exploiting for entertainment in any format. I don't watch rape entertainment like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Last House on the Left, because the content nauseates me. For me it is an order of magnitude worse to take such subject matter and make it into a cutesy game.

Rape is worse than murder.

Seth wrote:

the difference - for me - is that sexual assault is not a subject we should be exploiting for entertainment in any format. I don't watch rape entertainment like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Last House on the Left, because the content nauseates me. For me it is an order of magnitude worse to take such subject matter and make it into a cutesy game.

Rape is worse than murder.

Now, see, generally, I agree. Like many things, it can be handled well, though. I think the Millennium series handled it well. (For me it's less nauseating than drives me into a blind fury.). Nothing "should" be outside the realm of art. But some things require tasteful handling.

mudbunny wrote:

Of course, the fact that Kickstarter (and the community) had no problems with Kittens in a Blender - The Card Game, as well as the many other kickstarters which feature killing and murder just shows the slight hypocrisy in things like this.

There's a difference between material that simply shocks the viewer and material that draws from and reinforces oppression. The problem people have with rape in games - or more specifically with exploitative uses of it - is that we already live in a culture that trivializes, excuses and laughs at rape. We live in a culture where the majority of rapes (75 to 95% of them!) go unreported because the victims are ashamed or afraid. We live in a culture where rape is most often though not always perpetrated by men against women, where if you know at least 5 women then statistically you probably already know a victim and may not realize it. There is a difference between art that provokes or challenges or startles the viewer with a sense of transgression or breaking the rules and art that draws off of and reinforces subjugation.

That art can oppress is a given. That art may oppress is a given. That good people can and may and should object to oppression in any form when they see it should be a given.

momgamer wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

momgamer, I'm not sure who you're addressing, because Lobster and I were both talking very specifically about MrDevil's assertion that the game is dangerous, a claim he admits to making before he even read what the game was.

I'm addressing you and Lobster, because there's nothing in that post that somehow separates it from the discussion I've been having with Malor and you and others and I thought you were commenting on that.

Particularly, I was addressing your question about how the card game mechanic fits into the assertions people have been making about the game, and what I percieve as Lobster's accusation that I also didn't read about the game (which I did) and that I'm just making up my objections.

Since I do respect all of you, that's why I asked that the actual point be made in text rather than implied through the picture, in case I'm seeing it wrong due to my own lens of experience on this. I'm trying my best to keep the crazy on my side of the keyboard here and not muddy the waters even farther by misinterpreting things.

But right above the picture, you can see my very specific quote of MrDevil909. I put it there so it would be very clear what I was responding to.

Since the game mechanics don't have anything to do rape, would the game seem any different if the cards, art, mechanics, everything all stayed the same but the rules text said that the tentacle aliens were trying to get the girls alone in order to form healthy, consensual, and loving relationships?

Actually, I don't know what the rules say. Are they available to read anywhere online?

IMAGE(http://lparchive.org/Day-of-the-Tentacle/Images/3-Dott01.png)

WE ONLY WANT A HUG!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

What about GTA games? Exceedingly popular, far more than Postal. The GTA series is kind of a touchstone.

The crazy thing about this to me is the insistence that Tentacle Bento is some kind of rape simulator. It's a trick taking game and I haven't seen any talk about the game doing anything with the cards after you collect them. Is there a copy of the rules available somewhere? If it's a rape simulator, what are the rape mechanics and how do they work? At worst you might call it a child abduction simulator. Based on bridge.

Sorry I got to this late, but it's a good question worth responding too, even if it's already been answered better by others. It's a question of tone and respect for the subject matter. Far Cry 2 does make you do distasteful things, but it's clear that it's not endorsing them and wants to make you think a bit deeper about the nasty crap it's making you do.

GTA is an interesting one, in that the developers can't even seem to make up their mind if they're serious or not. When I've played them, I've always appreciated the serious side of the GTA games more than the silly jokes and euphemisms (I might be on my own here, it's why all the stories I've heard about Saints Row make it sound like it'd hold no appeal for me). And it's clear that they do have a message, even if the message isn't as clear or well put as in Far Cry 2.

I honestly haven't read up enough on Tentacle Bento to know the intimate details, but the execution matters little when the subject matter is the problem. I don't care if it's a simulation, a card game or an RTS. It's a matter of consent, if the tentacles and girls are happy to get it on with one another, who am I to judge?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Since the game mechanics don't have anything to do rape, would the game seem any different if the cards, art, mechanics, everything all stayed the same but the rules text said that the tentacle aliens were trying to get the girls alone in order to form healthy, consensual, and loving relationships?

IMAGE(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110804230327/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/7/78/Ice_King.png)

If it's not okay because it treats the subject matter humorously, what about Tom and Jerry, that trivializes violence? Three Stooges could be argued to be doing the same thing: trivializing lethal physical attacks for the sake of humor.

Christ-- people keep bringing up the "what about violence" argument. The big difference is that physical violence has real-world consequences for the perpetrators-- there are strong laws and morals in place within our society that demonize violent acts. Thus, cartoon violence and depictions of violence are purely fantasy that are largely kept within the realm of fantasy. This is largely because we have a moral and social structure that teaches people early on how such behavior is not socially acceptable, so when people see such acts in fictitious media, they're able to make the distinction that such actions would not be tolerated in real life.

Rape, however, does not yet have such stark consequences in American society. This is a society where, more often than not, the victims receive the majority of the blame for an act committed against them. We don't have a strong moral/social/educational system in place yet to teach people the logical right & wrong of rape, and to top it off, with sex so completely fetishized in almost all aspects of American culture, our society is in fact perpetuating rape culture simply by generally writing the topic off ("yeah, it's wrong, whatever-- she was probably asking for it anyway, look at how short her skirt is.").

So in the case of Tentacle Bento, it might not be some sort of rape simulator, but it is definitely trivializing rape culture and thus continuing to underrate the seriousness of such crimes through bad jokes and innuendo.

tl;dr

It's too soon to make fun of rape. Our society isn't yet equipped to correctly deal with it, because our society doesn't yet take it as seriously as murder.

It seems to me that the two are linked. Of course, I'm not really fully conversant with American culture. I don't know why Tom and Jerry are acceptable in any way. I get horrified just watching it.

LarryC wrote:

It seems to me that the two are linked. Of course, I'm not really fully conversant with American culture. I don't know why Tom and Jerry are acceptable in any way. I get horrified just watching it.

See, you would think that, but being the United States of America, we glorify violence and consider sex the taboo-est of the taboo. People here (generalizing) simply aren't comfortable enough with talking about sex publicly to really have any productive conversation on the matters concerning it, though we're getting better about it (see: same-sex marriages). Hell, it was only in the-- what, last 10 years?-- that the APA deemed homosexuality as neither a choice nor a disease. We don't discuss sex in public-- it's not "Christian". Thus, the fervor over abortion rights, sexual education, etc.

momgamer wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

momgamer, I'm not sure who you're addressing, because Lobster and I were both talking very specifically about MrDevil's assertion that the game is dangerous, a claim he admits to making before he even read what the game was.

I'm addressing you and Lobster, because there's nothing in that post that somehow separates it from the discussion I've been having with Malor and you and others and I thought you were commenting on that.

Particularly, I was addressing your question about how the card game mechanic fits into the assertions people have been making about the game, and what I percieve as Lobster's accusation that I also didn't read about the game (which I did) and that I'm just making up my objections.

Since I do respect all of you, that's why I asked that the actual point be made in text rather than implied through the picture, in case I'm seeing it wrong due to my own lens of experience on this. I'm trying my best to keep the crazy on my side of the keyboard here and not muddy the waters even farther by misinterpreting things.

I was also addressing DeVil, specifically regarding his quick (and unsupported) dismissal of a comparison between the position that the game is harmful and the Comic Code Authority, which lead to an extensive and quite damaging censorship of comic books under the same premise.

I respect you too, momgamer, and let's be clear here: I am open to the idea that comics, games, cartoons, and other intellectual exercises can be damaging, either through trivialization of the subject material or otherwise. However I have not seen any compelling evidence that they are. Until I've seen that, the argument still amounts to, "but it's gross" to me. And it is gross. But again, I'm not comfortable censoring something just because I personally find it reprehensible.

Freedom of speech is not about protecting the speech we like, it's about protecting the speech we hate. And again, I don't think Kickstarter was outside of its rights to do this, I just don't think that the alternative would be indefensible.

I don't believe all publicity is good publicity, but here it fits. Even though the outcry eventually got it kicked off Kickstarter, it backfired by helping the game get funded both before and after that happened.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Freedom of speech is not about protecting the speech we like, it's about protecting the speech we hate. And again, I don't think Kickstarter was outside of its rights to do this, I just don't think that the alternative would be indefensible.

Freedom of speech is not about turning off any part of you that is capable of critical thought. If the government were banning this game it would be a freedom of speech issue. People getting together saying "this oppresses people, I dislike it and I dislike anyone who supports it" is not a question of free speech, it's a question of the right to criticize the dominant forces in our culture.

Yep, as long as no coercion is involved, whether from the government or from citizens, it's not a free speech issue. Those guys have the right to make their game, and these guys and gals have the right to be upset about it, and to say so.

Switchbreak wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

Freedom of speech is not about protecting the speech we like, it's about protecting the speech we hate. And again, I don't think Kickstarter was outside of its rights to do this, I just don't think that the alternative would be indefensible.

Freedom of speech is not about turning off any part of you that is capable of critical thought. If the government were banning this game it would be a freedom of speech issue. People getting together saying "this oppresses people, I dislike it and I dislike anyone who supports it" is not a question of free speech, it's a question of the right to criticize the dominant forces in our culture.

Yes, and people have the right to do that, too. I didn't think that was the conversation we were having. I thought we were discussing whether or not stuff like this should be banned, not whether people have the right to call for it to be (they do) or whether or not Kickstarter had the right to ban it (they did).

Besides, allowing something to exist doesn't imply support for it. I think critically and I agree that tentacle rape of minors is all kinds of gross. If this game were out there, I would not purchase it. I still don't think that means no one should be allowed to make or purchase it if they want to.

WipEout:

Given that background, is it reasonable to suppose that some fraction of the movement against Tentacle Bento is just a facet of the American sqeamishness for sex and specifically, about its distaste for the iconography (tentacles and young-looking models)?

It would be reasonable, yes-- and perhaps that is part of what people find "icky" about tentacle sex imagery, but here's the thing: How many instances of tentacle-sex imagery and media depict the women as willing parties? In pretty much any instance I've seen (very few, as it's not my thing, but some anime certainly try to sneak at least some innuendo in there when they can-- hell, my first exposure to the act was in the original Evil Dead), the ladies do not consent, and thus it is rape. So when any author/director/designer bases their visuals on tentacle sex, how can they not expect the greater majority of people to link it to rape?

Look at it like this: If, say, 95% of a social group's exposure to tentacle sex imagery is tentacle rape, then the strongest association that society as a whole is going to make is "tentacle sex = rape". So when any person creates an IP based on tentacle sex, they better have a pretty convincing argument against the association with rape when trying to explain their own IP as NOT being associated with it.