smol Kat wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:12 am
You are conflating choices (drinking, gambling, dick jokes) with a person's (well, cat's, apparently) innate characteristics. And if you want to talk about "within law," see Obergefell
. That's right, folks, kitty can damn well be gay! It's within law!
I wasn't conflating anything, what I listed were just examples of content some parents may find objectionable which were already used by the ESRB. Also, I shouldn't have to say this, but not everything legal is moral.
I am nobody wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:09 am
You objected to the rating, not the lack of descriptors, and furthermore the descriptors you've just suggested (gambling, alcohol, not sure about crude humor) are for T-rated games. How is that not demanding a right for parents to pretend gay characters don't exist? You're asking for them to be forced into a rating that is explicitly not for children. Note the "especially not in media" in that sentence - I didn't say you're trying to make gay people hide, but the effect of your demand is to hide gay characters.
The rating is determined by the content which has descriptors, so obviously if there's a lack of descriptors to take into account then the rating will be less accurate. Also, you're wrong, the random descriptors I grabbed aren't just for T games. Simulated gambling is in E rated games such as Pokemon Gold (slot machines) just from memory, and I guarantee there's ones with references to alcohol consumption as well (probably crude humor but I don't feel like digging up an example).
What parents don't want to pretend gay characters exist? Where are you getting this odd phrasing from? Even the most virulent, genuine homophobes wouldn't pretend gay characters don't exist, they'd just teach their kids to hate them. Waiting until one's children are older to introduce them to certain matters of sexuality is simply basic prudence, you shouldn't have any issue with that even if you personally disagree. Ratings aren't law and companies technically don't even legally need to have their games rated by the ESRB either, so who exactly is "forcing" anything (yes, console manufacturers do require ESRB ratings compliance but that's those companies' own policies they decided to willfully adopt)? And even if a parent were to see Animal Crossing with a T rating they could still read the descriptors and the information on the back of the box to determine it's acceptable content for their kid ("ok its just some gay cats idc"). Plenty of kids were allowed to play Super Smash Bros Melee despite its T rating, I'd be surprised if even one parent objected to it purely due to its rating and not
its actual content, so there's no "hiding" anything.
I am nobody wrote:My other point was one I've brought up in threads like this before: why is this deserving of a label? You have to either take the position that there's something uniquely bad about it - which you haven't in this thread or earlier ones - or that it's just one of many things that gets a label. Once you've taken the latter, where does it end? Meat and religion get to come in, but what else? Does Zelda get a label for depicting fictional religion? Driving games for endorsing unsafe behavior? Some people might object to games having "lives" or the undead, to a game being overly or insufficiently patriotic, to perceived endorsement or condemnation of socialist ideals, to magic, talking back to parents, acknowledging holidays like Halloween or Easter, and on, and on, and on. If you make a label for everyone anyone could possibly be offended by, you get a novel-length descriptor no one will ever read. If you limit the list, someone has to be the arbiter of what offenses are deserving and which aren't.
What do you mean by something "uniquely bad"? Why it deserves a descriptor is why anything deserves one, concern. As for where it ends, common sense should dictate that along with, again, the amount of concern. How many people are actually concerned about games having "lives"? If there were truly a sufficient amount of people who were then I see no reason to deny them a descriptor, but I feel safe in saying that's definitely not the case. I also don't think people use the ESRB as trigger warnings to avoid being "offended", they're to steer parents toward informed purchasing decisions, which they could certainly do a better job of. If descriptor length is an issue then all they need to do is include a QR code to scan or something, it's really not a hurdle.
I am nobody wrote:At the end of the day, the reality is that parents who want to shield their kids from things not broadly accepted as being inappropriate have to be their own morality police. No one is making you buy Animal Crossing for kids, and no one is stopping you from making your own rating system that does warn about gay cats. But by the same token, Nintendo and the ESRB are free to not care what you don't want your kids to see.
You think that every one of the ESRB content descriptors qualifies as something broadly unaccepted by parents? There's probably less people concerned about comic mischief/violence than there are about sexuality issues. I do agree that it's generally a parent's responsibility to ensure that their child's entertainment is acceptable, but that's why it's actually more of a problem when it's brief and tucked away so ingeniously than when something is obvious and promoted directly.
No one is making you not buy Animal Crossing for kids even if it's rated T, so that's not much of a compelling argument. You're right that I can make my own rating system, but then so can those who would feel that gay characters are being "hidden" by the ESRB if these additions were made, so there goes that argument too. Nintendo is free not to care about anything, but the ESRB is supposed to "provide information about what’s in a game or app so parents and consumers can make informed choices about which games are right for their family", so no, they'd have to care. Back when I was a kid this kind of problem didn't exist, but ironically, now that it is there's no way we'd ever get these changes because it's "current year".
Sim Kid wrote: ↑
Fri Mar 27, 2020 11:43 pm
You answered your own question. Negative punishment.
Imagine if Fire emblem incentivized you pairing someone supposed to represent you with a person of the same sex by giving you extra characters to recruit and extra chapters (which include experience and items to obtain) to play. I imagine you might have been up in arms about that... incentivizing you to play in a way that makes you uncomfortable, since it's supposed to represent you.
three Houses changes it by not including a second generation, thus not so much incentivizing you to pair up characters (including the one supposed to be you) but not making romance be an important thing becuase it is wartime after all. And during the first phase... it's just schoolyard crushes and hitting on people, even though some people (Sylvain and Dorothea) are a little more flirty than others.
But we're all born from heterosexual unions so there should be nothing reasonably uncomfortable to that even for non-heterosexuals. It's not really the same to compare a game depicting the means of all of our existence
to homosexual pairings, so I think you have a flawed premise. I can understand wanting such player freedom in an RPG though, that does make sense, but it just shouldn't come as a surprise if heterosexuality is depicted or results in more tangible benefits for players. Developers need to get more creative to find suitable alternatives and workarounds to accommodate every
lifestyle (if they so choose), so they go with the default more often than not for obvious reasons.
Just for the record, I'd prefer if most games just left romance out of them, personally, as I find it a hindrance to gameplay more often than not and distracts from actually interesting storytelling. In fact, Fire Emblem Awakening seems to be where they started this focus on relationships and was where I dropped the series out of disinterest (for that among other reasons).