175 réponses à ce sujet

[Ezlo86]

Babi_Siha wrote...

Well, I played The Witcher 2 and didn't think the scenes could be compared to porn or were offensive, if anything I find the scene from The Rose of Remembrance very well done.

I'm not saying BioWare should have added nudity, all I'm saying is that it can be tasteful without being considered porn and it seems as the only reason why nudity wasn't explored more in the ME games was because of the backlash BioWare received from Fox News when the first game launched.

I don't think they really care about what Fox News have to say. About anything, really.

[Taboo]

LOL @ Fox News.

They get mad when people show skin.

But I haven't played The Witcher so I don't know. I HAVE seen some of the images though.

Brave souls those Poles. No wonder Americans have to get patches to see everything. The ESRB gets a stick up their ass if someone takes their pants off.

Not porn. Just a naked woman.

[Zazzerka]

Nipples not necessary.

[Ezlo86]

That's one the reasons why I never liked Jack's design in the first place, I have no idea why they went with it. I guess it was for the sake of the "badassery" of it. But in the end, you still have a 5 ft. bald girl half nude fighting alongside people with heavy armor in space stations. That just looks.. silly to me.

They did gave more clothes in 3... but you can still see her nipples through her shirt. Which is why I still don't know why they gave most LI a fade to black love scene.

[Ghost Lightning]

Two words:

Uncanny Valley

[Taboo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I didn't have to get through any patch. Came standard in TW1 on Steam.

And how exactly are they "brave souls?"

And, it's porn.

You did originally. A lot of things were censored when it first came out.

Pornography is meant to arose. If the images do not do that it is not pornography. Simple as that.

I don't consider it pornogrpahy. I consider Hustler magazine pornography.

But the line depends on who you're talking to. Americans are very uptight about nudity which is why we don't see it in the media very much but we DO see a lot of violence.

[Ezlo86]

Those are much better, IMO. Minus the last one tho.

Modifié par Ezlo86, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[Han Shot First]

I don't see nudity as a necessity. Probably the best romance scene in the series was Liara's in ME3, and there isn't any nudity in that scene.

A scene can be either good or bad both with or without nudity. If a game developer is going to include nudity in a sex scene it should be tasteful and not gratuitous, and the sex scene itself should be relevent to the story. Mass Effect 1 is a good example of a game that included nudity in a tasteful way, and where the sex scenes were relevent to the story. (unlike for example, Geralt screwing random hookers in The Witcher 2)
 
If a developer isn't going to include nudity in a sex scene, it should be done in such a way that it doesn't kill suspension of disbelief. Have the characters naughty bits be obscured or blocked by objects in the scene, rather than having have them sex or shower seemingly fully clothed.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 04 septembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[Taboo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You did originally. A lot of things were censored when it first came out.

Pornography is meant to arose. If the images do not do that it is not pornography. Simple as that.

I don't consider it pornogrpahy. I consider Hustler magazine pornography.

But the line depends on who you're talking to. Americans are very uptight about nudity which is why we don't see it in the media very much but we DO see a lot of violence.

The images ARE meant to arouse. They have no other purpose.

You can't prove that. It varies from person to person. That's an age old debate that will never be resolved.

I don't go nuts everytime I see a naked woman. Why is this such an issue?

[Taboo]

I'm not aroused no. I'm a straight man too.

This assumption that every man gets a hard on every time a woman sits a certain way is absurd.

The intent is clear but that does not make it pornography. That image is not explicit in the slightest.

[Taboo]

Being explicit =/= Pornography

They are not the same.

I am not aroused. I do not consider it Pornography. That is my opinion of said art piece.

What is and isn't pornography differs from person to person. There is no one definition.

[fiendishchicken]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

I'm not aroused no. I'm a straight man too.

This assumption that every man gets a hard on every time a woman sits a certain way is absurd.

The intent is clear but that does not make it pornography. That image is not explicit in the slightest.

I never asked about you.

It was established, you said it yourself, that pornography is meant to arouse.

Meant.

That has nothing to do with whether it does or not.

And, pornography has nothing to do with how explicit it is. Pornography is trying to make you think a certain way. A romance novel can be pornography, because it's trying to make you think about two people in bed getting it on.

And, you'll note that right after the picture I note that this is the censored version. The original is quite explicit.

I don't think you understand pornography.

[Bowie Hawkins]

krukow wrote...

The Traynor scene was pretty rediculous...

With FemShep it's even moreso, because then both of them are in their underwear.

[Taboo]

There is no one definition of what constitutes pornography. That's why it can be challenged in court. No one person has the same concept behind the notion.

I do not consider every explicit image I see to be pornographic.

[Nicsienieda]

I like pornography though.

[Taboo]

What arouses depends on person to person. Big deal that she's in that position.

And just because something gets you thinking on sexual lines doesn't make it pornography either. That's absurd.

[Nicsienieda]

Is it bad that I like porn?