Yeah, not sure about the "entirely" there. But maturity is pretty polysemic anyway, and that's always a source of (sometimes convenient) confusion. There is the "maturity" we refer to in "yeah, real mature, dude". Which is related to wisdom, enlightenment, experience-fueled understanding, or whatever. And there's the "maturity" as in "rated M more Mature", which is more about stuff that we consider children shouldn't (have to) be exposed to yet. Becuse we deem them, rightly or wrongly, too shocking or disturbing to be able to be processed healthily by kids.

But this creates a taboo, a barrier between two identities, and the desire to transgress it, to peek over it, or to identify oneself with the category deemed able to cope with it. So, you've got the whole array of smuggling devices, from uttered naughty words giggly giggly, to horror movies, and glimpses of tits or blood here and there. A side effect of all this is that "Mature" becomes a value in itself. Like a status associated with a free-pass badge. So, sticking in your product any bit of material that is deemed taboo-for-kids makes your material look more "advanced", "daring", "real-lifey", and desirable, especially to kids.

So, you get the most immature (in the first sense) products, filled with the most "mature" (in the second sense) material. And it tends to look embarrassingly dumb, trying too hard, showing its immaturity in fetishizing the "mature" element in a way that jaded people don't. And it becomes a bit cringeworthy in the way that it claims "maturity" because of this content which tends to demonstrate the opposite of it.

A typical exemple is the first season of Torchwood, which tried ridiculously hard to be the "mature" version of Doctor Who, by shoehorning sex and violence in it, and ended up all the more transparently juvenile for it (and an easy target for parody). It was Doctor Who for teens who want to distinguish themselves from kids, while adults were mostly enjoying Doctor Who itself. Another, slightly most subtle, illustration of the term's ambiguity, is Moore's contempt for the attempts to makes James Bond movies more gritty, dramatic and "realistic". He considered there was more maturity in accepting and embracing how silly James Bond's world was, than in taking it seriously and pretending to realism. In a way, I consider Saints Row as slightly more mature than GTA, because of its self-awareness (although there is the trap of expecting self-awareness to be always worn on one's sleeve, which would make everything look perpetually super redundantly postmodern and all). I consider assumed immaturity -in its many contradictory forms- more mature than wonky attempts at "maturity" (for the label's sake).

Because the main trap is to value "maturity" in itself. I don't like C.W. Lewis much, but I appreciate a lot his oft-quoted rant about grown ups being the ones who don't really care about their adult identity - the ones who aren't embarrassed anymore by fairy tales. I feel this a lot when I see people trying to justify their videogames, their superhero comics, their cheesy scifi series, as "mature". Often by stressing the elements in them that "would not be suitable for kids" (which is often their only function : serving as markers to allow the consumer to prove that this product is distinct from a kid's product). And I'd argue that the videogame format, its obligatory structure, is childish in itself - without it being a bad thing. They are games, they are power fantasies, they are empty passtimes, they are most often pretty lowbrow (even when they are cerebral puzzles), and a tit won't change that. Even if it makes it less suitable for kids, having a quest for XP and levelling up framed by some gory rape revenge against a drug lord doesn't make the gameplay more "mature", nor the story (Tarantino is no Scola). At least not in all the implied (non-bureaucratic) senses. In front of our computers, we're still kids playing kid toys in our kiddy hobby. And if anyone feels disturbed by that thought (to the point of hiding it behind unsuited-for-kids taboos), well, all the more then.

Underlying this is the idea that videogames are to movies what movies are to books, in the sense that they trim and dilute a content to fit their format, and lose much of its depth in the process. The Brothers Karamazov book is richer than the Brothers Karamazov film that is richer than the Brothers Karamazov action platformer. Videogames are a very limited media to develop mature themes, and when they try to, they get decried as non-games (walking simulators, interactive documentaries, etc). Because gameplay gameplay. Because toy toy toy. What I'm saying is that "toy toy toy" + "maturity maturity" = awkward. "Toy toy toy" + "tits tits tits" = easy. But it's not the same thing. And the (complaisant) confusion is a tad embarrassing.

To you. Not objectively. Shows or films that introduce sex and violence are not inherently becoming juvenile. The real fault lies with the audience of folks like you who are looking SO hard to paint everything as too "edgy" for your liking, perhaps in a bid towards reinforcing status as "normal". In any case, it is the tyranny of the majority that is (supposedly) why shows like Torchwood are seen as "transparently juvenile" and why DC superhero movies are viewed so negatively. People just don't want to abandon that memetic chain they stumbled upon. Anything to keep appearing normal and part of the herd. Ok. Let's say you're right. When someone walks down the toy aisle in the store, there is a whole variety of different toys, catering to different interests. Some toys do go towards the darker, edgier end of the spectrum. Why is that a bad thing? Why is there SUCH a push against "edgy, grimdark, 'try-hard'" stuff that is constantly being railed on? If everything is a toy, then it only makes sense to have different varieties instead of one-size-fits-all. Someone is not necessarily "ashamed of playing a toy", just because they prefer their toy-in-question have certain attributes and marketing that other toys do not have. Books, film, and videogames are 3 distinct mediums, each with their accompanying advantages and disadvantages. There isn't a hierachy of which is "better" or "worse" overall. You can do things with the videogame medium that you can't do with the others, and vice versa. For example, with a videogame, actions you take as a character can directly affect the gameworld whereas film and book (other than gamebook I suppose) are "static". I won't go into spoilers, but there is no way that the ending of the first Nier is even a fraction as effective and haunting, without the player input only provided through the videogaming medium.

This is why we have games that give us very cartoonish fantasies like 4somes (the witcher 1) and barbie doll babes (pretty much everything, even without sex scenes). And lesbians usually don't just let random guys watch, and even a bisexual with a significant other is going to want to risk relationship issues by "letting them watch" or "inviting someone else to the party." But, this is why it's all infantile: because fantasies are seldom as cool in reality. Wow, it'd be cool to throw a fireball, but what about the first few times where you burn your own hand or accidentally shoot something (such as yourself) because the fireball took off before you were ready? Magically inate fireball throwing abilities don't come with safety courses like guns usually do. That which is in video games exists because it's rare or difficult in real life. What i find strange is that polygamy and other fantasies are rare in games. Usually you have to go to a middle-east asian or south-east asian country to get your hands on that.

EDIT: And some studies have shown that, while normalizing behaviors can be a problematic output of games, for behavior that's already accepted by an individual, games can help vent that fantasy or behavior without actual commission of it (such as violence). So a game where you can do horrible things might help lower frequency of real life occurrences.

IMO the people trying to justify things as mature is a consequence of others arguing that those things lack maturity in the first place,when, as you stated, ''maturity'' is too subjective to be considered as a virtue. I'm referring to people who are always on about how the industry needs to ''grow up'' by talking about more mature themes.

As buffchix said, the three mediums aren't really comparable because all three are too inherently different and to compare them on one aspect is unfair because may be preferred by the people who enjoy them for their other aspects. Ie books are good for detailed focus and best ability to convey good writing, movies for ease of access and time efficiency and games for interactivity and potential for multi-sensory experience. Their superiority or inferiority purely depends on what you're looking to experience and how you want to experience it.

Games trying to appear mature because maturity is perceived as having some kind of value is embarrassing but IMO its ok to not be ''mature'' whether aware of it or not (but preferably self-aware as Saint's Row is). What I'm saying is that there should be no maturity bar when it comes to games and their themes / subject matter.

Didn't know complacent cold be spelt like that(''complaisant''). Is it the American or UK spelling?
Somehow I doubt people who go on killing sprees in games for fun aren't doing it because they want to do it real life but the only thing stopping them is its illegality. But hey, doing something in a game is the same as doing something in real life, right? What do those studies say about that?

There's been countless studies done, supposedly, but the basic jist seems to be that people can vent better. Ever want to beat the ever loving crap out of someone who who just irks you and you have trouble controlling the anger they build in you? Often times people will take out that aggression on a teddybear or something. They're finding out that games work, too. There are also studies that go the other way, but just look at who funds the studies, too. On one hand, people who normally wouldn't do something might act it out in the video game to begin with (i have my own opinions on why this is, but my opinions and ideas are not science, so i'll keep my mouth shut [until the end of the post]), however people who seem to be prone to bad behavior find it easier to vent in a video game. Studies on porn seem to go the same way: on one hand, people raise their expectations based on the porn they see, but on the other, some people manage to substitute meaningful relationships with porn and dating sims. Whether this (in response to violence and porn) is a net benefit or detriment, i'll let everyone else decide for themselves.

On a similar note, things like rape simulators (especially if done in a way that doesn't educate people on practical methods of pulling it off [maybe make them use pokeballs or something special rather than an actual trap of some kind or drugs?]) or things of some pretty strong foulness of other natures might just curb some of the more vile behavior in society. But, once again, would this curb it more than introduce it? I think it's a discussion worthy of having, if we could get some science on it that isn't funded by special interest groups. The sooner we actually get some hard evidence either way, the sooner we can make a hardline decision that will make things better (either legalizing more stuff like pedo sims if it would presumably curb pedophilia, or banning the rape sims).

What i have observed (remember, anecdotal) from the sexual side of things, people who are more involved with porn and such loose their overall libido when they get away from it from an extended period of time (but this could be also due to why they cut back, rather than cutting back on the porn, dirty jokes, etc itself). Meanwhile, those who have less experience tend to be more risky and jumpy at opportunities. In other words, my idea behind it is that while it can cause an increase of desire, it also pushes that desire towards the more acceptable avenues which help regulate it. But, i have to stress, that this bit is my own personal observation (of myself and others) and not hard science. However, the science out there seems to differ depending on who funds it, which is a real shame, because it's hard to know what the truth is.

It's not the same word, actually. I had never heard "complaisant" in english (it's a common word in french) but when I sought its translation, I found "complaisant" aswell, with a note about not confusing it with "complacent".

The difference is subtle, though. I was acrually about to write "complacent" when I had a doubt and checked online. "Complaisant" is less passive, more deliberate, more willing. It's about agreeing, out of cheerful politeness or personal gain, whereas "complacent" (if I understand it well) is more lazy, more about giving up or not caring.

Apart from that, yeah, most of the confusion comes from the value attached to "maturity" (the identity thing, related to being admitted or not in the "allowed/able" circles). Once you get rid of this as a value (for an item), you ditch the parasitic stakes, and see more clearly whether that label fits or not. As often in life, it' "having something to prove", which distorts visions and discourses.

That said, I still consider that there is a hierarchy in written/visual/gamey medias, when it comes to depth potential. Litterature can be way more flexible and abstract, you can have whole analytical essais stretching a narrative, you can follow more explicitely multiple invisible elements (for the same reason, science books are more thorough than documentaries). And, likewise, movies don't have to be filled with stimulating repetitive gameplay elements and satisfying interactivity (giving a sense of control, achievement, gratification, etc), so you have more "story" in a pure action film than in an action game (which movie equivalent would be one very dull and repetitive shootout - the game gets away with it because you do all the moves, and if it was richer -even to fit an action blockbuster- then people would complain about disjointed gameplay, lack of identity, etc). Narrative and philosophical contents in game are relatively skin-deep, because what matters is the enjoyable gameplay structure (in itself, an abstract play in stimuli, imput and numbers, be it reflex, eye-hand coordination or puzzle-solving), more than how it is framed or what it is wrapped in.

But that's a whole other discussion, that can be deepened to no end. And may also carry implicit values, as if everything should fulfill the same function (and be judged on how they fulfill it). What I am saying is that "maturity" in the sense of "deep thoughtful wise experienced awareness" or whatnot is not a component that can be displayed as well in a videogame than in a book. A videogame's priority (and make-or-break imperative) is to provide satisfaction at a level that is unrelated to that, and is usually an obstacle to it. But it should not matter. Swimming or eating don't claim "maturity" either, and people don't try to justify themselves about that.

Did it ever occur to you that sex is a completely natural thing and if not shown too exploitive could also feel as natural in video games and movies or any media?

I think the question is not whether it could, or (let's be generous here) can. But how many times it is. Also how many times it pretends to be.

Actually, not being is not an issue in itself (why not 'sploit this along with other 'sploitation themes). I do often see it as a 'commercial break' in stories where I'd just want to know what happens next (after the uselessly stretched "and then they had sex" part), but I understand that the voyeurism can be a fun part in the same sense as, say, amusing banters that don't really propel the story. What is annoying is when it claims to be anyting else (anything more "mature") than that. Which it paradoxically isn't, in those cases (but usually, the rest of the movie isn't either, yet it may be enjoyable). Frankly, would the James Bond movies have gained anything with full-length sex scenes ?

This is of course distinct from the cases where the sex scene has a narrative point (the "type of sex" may be telling of the sort of relationship the characters have), or an artistic value (the old artsy challenge of expressing what is felt beyond words and images). Which would be the "mature" usage of them.

But, so far, in videogames, with 3D barbie dolls as visuals and bioware-like "relationships" as a context ? It's like rubbing keanu reeves and carie-anne moss on each other.

Same thing happened to me, actually. What makes it even more interesting is that this ends up having an overarching negative effect on us as a whole. Thanks to the victorian age, we don't simply see sex as normal, but we've largely (meaning not everyone) branched into two different camps: the group like myself mentioned above, and the group of outright sexual hedonists. I don't have enough data to go on, but i've noticed the hedonists have an easier time with their hedonism (libido seems to be kind of like muscle: the more you use it, the stronger it gets), where as people like me tend to either be appalled by it or just find it completely boring and disinteresting (as i've been repeating in every post i've made in this thread).

To me, from my perspective, the only art in sex is how well or artistically the characters themselves are (in either appearance, dialogue, animation, etc), not the sex itself, so i see no point in having the sex scene if we can have the art dispalyed in simply any other way. However, i've tried to change this view within myself, for personal reasons, but it is really difficult seeing this in a different light from what we were raised to. On one hand, this view gives you a fairly interesting set of advantages (people can't manipulate me with the idea of sex, i'm not particularly tempted to put myself into a situation where i could be blackmailed, etc), but it also comes with it's own problems (I don't enjoy things others enjoy, it can cause problems when interacting with those who do not see things the way i do [either backlash from me being aggressive towards the material, or being disconnected from those who are being entertained by things that do not entertain me when i'm not aggressive towards it], etc). I really couldn't tell you who's better off, really, but the disconnect is real.

Some games seem to use sex scenes, i've noticed, both as fan-service and narrative points, though it's usually more about that things were done, perhaps especially intimate (as some acts are more intimate than others), but then the characters later interact in ways that disregard the intimacy (you see this with Metal Gear, for example). That alone can be valueable for the plot, to suggest that two people are pitted against each other for reasons greater than their own personal desires, but, as i said, this is entirely conveyable without the actual scene itself, but the suggestion of the scene (via words, the obligatory cigarette, seeing the clothes themselves being empty, etc [in it's own way, censorship can be art, and some of the best humor i've seen is satire of censorship]). However, just because it's not necessary doesn't mean we can't have it, either, which is something I wrestle with, mentally. I worry, too, on one hand if Dead or Alive would get any worse, it would be hard for people to see it as a fighting game (which it is absolutely great at being), which can not only hurt it's sales, but can cause problems for players if their girlfriends/boyfriends/family aren't particularly understanding; on the other I can understand that some of this can be important to sales, the "mature" feeling, perhaps part of the plot if there actually is the occasional scene where sex might expose a twist (perhaps that woman geralt sleeps with has a dirty little secret, such as an unexpected body part, which then spirals into foreshadowing of a character's alternative identity?), etc. You just can't blame people with a victorian attitude, either, because they, too, have a point when it comes to the effects on expectations (both of bodily nature [size or appearance of parts] and performance nature [such as the imaginary man who doesn't have a refactory period, the despirately romantic rich male, the super hot and well-mannered virgin woman of age 20, etc]) that pornography may provide if exaggerated to unrealistic scenarios (which there's no incentive not to). It's really hard to pin down a single standard that fits everyone in this scenario, so i think the best thing to do is to expect companies to be upfront about the content (we expect this of things like ESRB, but good luck getting useful information out of those ratings), which is kinda what we already do (it's not hard to find threads on certain sites asking about the frequency, degree, or other questions regarding the sexual content of a given game [ex: "Are the sex scenes optional in game The Witcher 3, and is it just nudity or full blown sex?"]). This standard can be reasonably applied to things like violence or politics as well, but we're pretty fixated on sex, which kinda makes sense when you look at all the potential special interests that go into it (vs violence which is much easier for society to track and control, even if it is "worse").