A "In my opinion" is missing somewhere there. An conclusion and/or interpretation can never be a fact. A truth maybe, but not a fact. Not even if they declared that by writing it on the screen when the game starts it'd be a fact. That would make it a statement, but it could stil lbe a lie. You may or may not be right with your opinion, but it's far from being a fact.
Personally I don't think anyone says "I want to objectify women - Let's make a game!" or "Let's make a game with objectifying women as main content". In my opinion the games are designed to sell.

You don't. The banners for these game are no worse than the covers of normal mangas in a comic store and even if you go past the disclaimer you don't see anything. You need to buy and play the game before seeing anything explicit.
And if by 'that' you mean that type of games ... well, it's a game site.

I would like to filter the manga style games as well. If we ever get a filter, I am good. A filter would also help you not to see them anymore.

And even if I have a hard time to call a visual novel a game, there are other game types with adult content as well. And having adult content doesn't change that it's still games. This is a game site. These are games. It's ok for them to be here.

On topic:
I personally don't care if they do or don't provide toggles that are perma-saved to the user account. But it should be opt-in only, not the default store setting.

I actually am a fan of the current "warning page for games with impending adult content, but nothing naughty shown on the site" method. Simple and to the point. :)

--
That would be me! :D

--
I wasn't going to comment on the off-topic stuff initially, but your post really bothered me, so I wanted to say something:
I hit your two major checkboxes there*, and I have no issue with any of this kind of fictional content. Yeah, even the extreme stuff.

No one person speaks for anyone else but themselves.
You and FrodoBaggins don't speak for me. Or for other women like me. And neither of you speak for all women, or all abuse victims, and so on.

Fonzer provided some excellent articles in their post, and other users have already pointed out many good points.

* I shouldn't need to list out all the checkboxes that make my opinion "more valid" than others'. I don't like my statuses being used as a soapbox for people's agendas. =_=

[edit: shortened because I don't want to carry on the drama that was in this thread]

Did JuWalk saing "There are games that objectify men, but we do not make a problem out of this. And many girls are absolutely calm about the existence of porn games." bother you just as much? Or is that fine because he agrees with you? He was not only speaking for all men but also a whole lot of women. I said there are people who have issues with things but don't speak about it. At no point did I say I speak for all women, or even most. Is it not true that people don't speak about abuse due to the things I mentioned?

You don't because it's not.

I'm curious what you think my agenda is?

Objectification can happen in many ways. Should romantic comedies be forbidden, because they reduce men to styled whimps? The men there look and behave like the target audience whants their men to look and behave. Why not protest against that? Because the target audience likes it and men ... they don't care as long as they don't have to watch that shit (there are some romantic comedies which I like), and if they do have to watch it with their girlfriend, they smile and endure it.
Face it, men and women (generally speaking, of course not speaking for everyone) have different tastes. You can't make men want what women want and as long as they want, someone will create and offer. Same goes for women. If enough women want something, someone will offer.

It's really up to GOG to decide what sort of store it wants to be, regarding the visibility of AO content and what sort of restrictions are appropriate.

If they want to be viewed as 'family friendly' and they intend for kids to be browsing the store, then AO games should be hidden away by default, unless users opt in to being able to view them. If they want to be
classed as an 'adult store' that has mature content openly visible and 'on the front page', then they will have to accept that parents are not going to want young kids browsing the store, and they may get flagged by 'child safe' internet browsing utilities. They can't have it both ways.

I also think that all users have a right to voice their opinion on the matter either way.

Yes, if it's having enough negative effect on people. I do hope milkyhighway is going to pop along in a minute to tell you off for speaking for all men though.

I'd have to disagree. Evenicle and the sequel are pretty much in the same caliber as the Trails/Ys series.

You never respond to me, I guess because you're afraid to do so, but listen. First of all, the male feminist that you are should be well aware that many women (just open up Twitter, Instagram and TikTok) objectify themselves. Notice I didn't mention any porn sites. Because you don't need to go to porn sites to see women showing off all their body parts, masturbating, participating in sexual acts - it's right there on Twitter. In their official pages under the "click here for more on my only fans." Even pregnant women have only fans links because they are sexualizing their baby bumps. I've seen a bunch of women on Twitter alone posting pictures of their pregnancies with only fans links.

What porn site did I mention where women were against their will posting objectifying images of themselves? None. Not one. None of these women were forced to post these selfies or to join only fans. And there's a new site all the time for this material. None of these adult games could ever sexualize women more than they already do themselves. Remember, there is a video where Russian soldiers invaded Ukraine and busted down the doors to find many young women voluntarily, completely of their own will with no man forcing them to do so - creating sexual content on only fans. Young women voluntarily sexualizing themselves and making sex videos. It was a large number of them in the video and they were all young women. There were actually women trying to go to Only Fans while on the battlefield, which told Russia their location and resulted in a middle being launched in that area, ultimately ending their lives and the lives of others too. Women are sexualizing themselves to a point in real life where they have put other people's lives in danger. And you're worried about fictional computer games? Walk outside, it's 2022. I could understand if this was the 90's, but it isn't. Women voluntarily objectify themselves now more than ever before recorded in human history.

It's the internet. Very hard to tell these days. Also just got an obscure DM from someone, I'm not really sure what they were trying to say. Something got lost in translation, I guess?

Nice try! Actually - no, not at all.
He was not only speaking for all men - for many years on the Internet, I have NEVER met complaints about things like objectification from guys. In real life, even more so. So if there are those for whom this is a problem, there are not so many of them.

but also a whole lot of women - yes. About those who play these games. It would be rather strange if someone voluntarily played something that makes them suffer.


Firstly, there should be no children on GoG at all. Their presence here is against the license agreement. We will not approve and encourage illegal activities, right? Because from childhood to teach people that rules and laws can be violated is what is really harmful and dangerous. Both for themselves and for all of us as a society.

Second, let's be honest. The vast majority of games (especially Japanese ones) have banners and names that are neutral enough so that it is nearly impossible to understand from them alone whether the game in front of you is an ordinary one or an erotic one. That is, the chances of seeing something at least somewhat indecent, just by looking at the main page, are scanty. They are much less than when watching films with a non-adult rating or clips that are played on TV)

Therefore, the best option is a personal "blacklist" in each user's account, that allows uninteresting games or entire genres to be hidden, perhaps developers/publishers too. Everyone will be able to protect themselves from what causes them discomfort, while not disturbing others at all. It'll be a win-win situation

"I've never seen it so it doesn't exist."

Same can be said about everything else that has been said about games, for example making people stupid or violent, criminal. They learn how to shoow people when playing games, they get lower morale, bad driving habbits, lose respect for pedestrians. People become fat and sick because all they do is eating potato chips (well, on that one I agree).
The only possible solution is to forbid computer games alltogether.

But it's not about if or if not adult games change people, if they make lose them respect for any gender or if they are just dirty and despicable. It's about the matter if their banners should be hidden by default from the homepage. There are good reason for wanting that, but there are also good reasons for many other game categories. Therefore my answer is no. Do not treat them differently from other game categories.

Even when it comes to a "opt in" filter ... I would be ok with that, as long as all other game categories get that as well. but it ain't gonna happen since that would mean that no games are shown on the GOG homepage when you come to it first time. So "opt out" it is.

"I saw one or two dissatisfied, so everyone is dissatisfied. And there are no happy ones". You see, two people can play this.
By the way, why didn't you resent the fact that in her first message FrodoBaggins also spoke for everyone? How did you say it? "Or is that fine because she agrees with you?")

You stubbornly defended a person who:
1) Provoked a controversy by starting a conversation with insults
2) Unreasonably accused people of very serious and bad things. Putting words like "It's okay to treat women like objects because I like it" (literally) into your opponent's mouth is no joke
3) Spoke for all women
4) Tried to pass off her personal opinion as a fact
5) Tried on the basis of personal opinion (the fallacy of which is supported by studies, the link to which was given here) to dictate to all people what they can and can't do
6) Put in one row game characters and real women
7) Did not give any arguments in favor of her opinion, just repeating the same thing in an accusatory tone
8) Tried to mislead people. Even in such small things as "these games are not games at all, so they do not belong here" From the fact that naked boobs appeared in the shooter, it does not cease to be a shooter, for example. And a jrpg will be a jrpg whether it has sex scenes or not
9) Declared some kind of crusade against people who, in general, just play games and don’t touch anyone until they get attacked first
10) Being unable to answer with arguments, tried to play the card "I'm a girl, and therefore they offend me" when the reason was solely in her words and behavior, and not in belonging to any sex/gender

Is such a one-sided approach reasonable behavior? Well... Let everyone answer this question for themselves.

---

Once again, in short: If something is not pleasant or, moreover, causes discomfort to someone, he should be able to fence himself off from it. With this, I think, few will argue. But no one has the right to demand to take away from everyone something that causes discomfort to him. The rights of one person should not trample on the rights of another person. After all, the fact that there are people with lactose intolerance in the world is not a reason to ban all of humanity from eating dairy products in general, is it?
So the requirement to add the ability to filter content according to the user's taste is a sure "yes", the requirement to delete something is a firm "no"


UPD:
In general, there is an example that is much easier to understand... I can't stand the smell and look of raw meat very well. Here are two solutions to this problem:
1) Demand to stop selling meat in the supermarket I go to
2) To demand the ability to visit other parts of the store without having to go through the meat department each time
The difference is obvious, right?

I had started writing a big long reply but then I realised I can't be arsed. It is ironic that you're anti-ban arguments are prompting me to respond in a pro-ban kind of way though.