By ''clean'', I meant how free from nudity the industry is compared to other streams of art. I use ''clean'' because while nudity doesn't have to be inherently bad, there are idiots who want to enforce their own views on others' creations and want it censored.

The people who want it censored include many reviewers who want women in games to be covered up and people who want videogame characters to conform to ''realistic body standards'' and in general, people who act like there needs to be an excuse for showing nudity in the game. These are the people who want to keep the industry ''clean'' from the vices of immoral exposure and objectification.

Clear now?

Hopefully.

I think the people who oppose nudity in video games can be roughly divided to two groups:

The old-school conservatives: "Video games are mainly played by kids, hence nudity shouldn't exist in video games because that will make the kids rapists, or pregnant, or both. Most school shooters have played Doom in the past, and Doom has lots of bare titties in it.".

Feminists: "Nudity in video games is usually female nudity targeted to young white hetero males (ie. the evil ones), hence it is demeaning to women and teaches the young boys wrong ideas how women should look like and act. Also young girls seeing the imaginery in video games get wrong ideas how they should look like and feel bad about themselves. We need more strong lesbian female characters which kick patriarchal men right in the balls in video games!"

Me denying or you insisting? What I said then was that an article labelled ''review'' carries with it certain expectations of what it will contain and to call something a ''game review'' entails that expectation to be met if the article is to be properly labelled or not be clickbait. People and journos can write about anything they want, but journalists have a duty of care that comes with their job to not mislead people with their headlines and articles. So if they're writing a piece on how Bayonetta's dress caused the rapes at Nanjing, they shouldn't title it ''review'' but as an opinion piece or editorial or op-ed. How is that censorship?

1. It doesn't matter which medium has more ''gratuitous'' nudity. The creators have the right to create what they want, be it gratuitous to you or not.

2. No.

3. There is a difference between offering opinion and stating something as fact. There have been plenty of reasonable reviews with critiques that criticize the ''gratuitous'' stuff; but what I'm saying should be more properly labelled is stating as fact articles labelled as critique. I thought you'd understand this at least given the concern you showed about the infowars thread.
Yes, that's what I was saying. Whatever archetypes they may seem to fit into, those people do exist, and they may hurt creative freedom in this industry by pushing their pseudoscience.

Can we please stay at least close to on topic here. That debate has been done before and really doesn't need to be rehashed here. I don't think anyone is going to change their minds. And going into all the detail it would take to rehash it, would derail this thread.

The topics being:
1) Australian cultural values regarding nudity and/or homosexuality.
2) How this applies to art.
3) Maybe expanding a little into the causes of prudishness in general.

Regardless, this topic seems focused on Australia and Australian values, so unless one wants to go into specifics that apply to Australian censorship of video games (by the Classification Board - not in general), it's probably a case for another thread.

------------

To get back on topic, how much of that ban on the book do you think had to do with the sexual depictions and how much to do with the fact it was gay men? From what it sounds, Australia is a little prudish in general, just wondering how much that applies and crosses into negativity toward homosexuality?

They are two cheeks on the same ass.

This is quite amusing. I mean Australia is the same country that gave the world "Puppetry of the Penis" (I wish I was kidding) and yet the Aussie authorities do that along with use de facto bans on video games by denying them classification.

Just start an uprising. I suggest using emus since they seemed to have done well against the Aussie military decades ago in the Emu War. I wish I was kidding again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

By the way, I included some illustrations and captions about the Aboriginal Australians (Australoids as they are classified by technically scientific terminology about races of men) so that they won't feel left out. Plus, go big or go home.

Off topic but TPB and 60 other sites banned in Australia yesterday.

Meh, I always preferred Star Wars fans draw the prequels, Karl Marx draws a wallet, and Gog employees draw the Freddi Fish Vol. 1 game page.

No reply htown?

Off topic, but most sites in which books and pdf can be found for free downloading, aren't torrent sites.

Torrent sites specialize in private collections of such books and "large grab-bags".

Single books can be found almost all over the place!

The spectrums are all fucked up these days...

1) Well, you thought wrong. Red fascists, sorry, communists in power, had always been much more inhumane, from the sheer number of people deemed political enemies and naturally, executed, to those banished in godforsaken areas to die from harsh environment, or the gulag-slaves, sorry, i mean, "workers". The left's favorite tool and best ally and asset, is PROPAGANDA, misinformation and sophistry; counting out the delusions and the parallel dimension, from which their fake-ass ideology comes from. As well as regulation of EVERYTHING that isn't approved and inspected first thing by the party. Black fascists used the same methods sometimes when in power as well, but red ones were the real champions undoubtedly; even mere, humble numbers, can prove this fact. The worst fascists and oppressors had always been the red ones. They initially were oppressors of minorities and different ethnicities as well (plus their torturers and killers), so as i expressed once before in random conversation my fleeting notion that they never cease to amaze me and i wonder where, why or how they changed, their original, initial creeds, at what point down the road and all... Unless they are communists like here, this side, a living mutated crossover between chameleon, human and spineless maggot, changing colors daily and blowing where the wind blows, as long as they keep being in power and exploiting the very same people, they promise to save and fight by their side.

2) The only fucked up spectrums who run on complete chaos, hug anarchy behind the stage and flirt with vandals and "molotov-throwers", are liberals, the FAKE variety of democrats (not the real ones, there are those too), the left and far left. As someone once said: "When you hear someone talking about democracy, run far away from them". And as i say: "Where you see others ganging up on someone and accuse them all the time, while the media pan them or exile them, THOSE are the ones you have to be with". Strangely enough, leftists have also a similar mottos, at least locally: "We are those whom your parents told you never to associate with", which adores many walls, graffiti signature spots and other trash-culture "decorations", this side.

Yes,and? What has that got to do with the price of eggs in China?

Sure, but let's be honest. The conservative party isn't what it used to be. The spectrums have slid all over the map like a pack of cars skidding on ice in a blizzard. The liberal party used to be much more reasonable (RE : http://www.goodmaninstitute.org/how-we-think/what-is-classical-liberalism/). When growth of a thing heads off unchecked, eventually it seems to trip head-long into stupid-ville.