Ground Zeroes Rape Apologists Baffle Me

[CloudAtlas]

so a 20 year old woman could not pass as a 19 year old woman (the age where high school usually ends)?

A 20 year old? Sure, she can.
That kid from OP's post? The only thing she can pass is... a KID.

well, if you bothered to actually read other poster resposnes, you would have known that the woman in OPs post is actually 20.

What matters is how old she appears to be, not the age that is written in some codex or something.

...I honestly can't tell if you're serious. It doesn't matter what her actual age is? The fuck?

The "actual" age is not a real age, is made up by the devs just like everything else. By your logic, you could stuff your game full with pornographic drawings of little kids, write in some codex that every character involved is over 18, and everything's cool.

No, it does not. because not all women appear identically at same age. there ARE real life women that look like her at 20. There are short women. Just because you dont like the look it is no reason to insult all women that look like that.

No, I'm not insulting anyone. As much as I'm not insulting any real big-chested woman who likes to dress provocatively when I'm critizing a game stuffed with characters who look like that.
If a designer is drawing a female character that looks like 14-year-old, then that character should be considered as a 14-year -ld, regardless of whoever might look much younger than they actually are in the real world, and regardless of what some dev has written in some codex or something.


Also, I'm not sure what being short has to do with anything.

 

[CloudAtlas]

You don't get what the Codex is in Metal Gear games don't you? It's always provided necessary intel on a lot of the games events and characters and it does factor into the game. The age of the character is an actual thing, not just their appearance. To think that what the developers specifically say is irrelevant is just a stupid way to look at it.

Honestly, it is pretty naive to think that developers don't do that on purpose. They want to include sexualized very young girls in order to pander to that share of the audience who is into that stuff, but they don't want to own up to that. Or get their games banned. So they just claim that some female character who totally looks and behaves like a teen is actually 200 years old. And everything's cool. Right? No.

It's no different to other sexualization really. There always some lame, contrived justification for why this or that character is half naked, but believe me, the justification usually comes after the sexualization.
written after the fact.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You can't be serious? Fictional characters can't possibly have ages even though the game itself specifically gives you an age? That's some pretty retarded logic.

No. Because they're fictional. Which means they aren't real. They weren't actually born, therefore there is no period of time from which they were born, therefore they do not have an age in the sense that a real person would. If you cannot tell the difference between fictional and real people, then that is a problem and you might want to go and talk to someone about it.

How a fictional character is represented in a piece of media is not based on who they actually are or on characteristics they actually possess because they do not exist. They do not have an age. They do not have a hair colour. They do not have a body type. Any experiences which happen to them did not actually happen. If they look a particular way, it's because an artist chose to draw them that way, or the casting director chose an actor/actress who looked like that. If they act in a particular way or particular things happen, it's because a writer chose that, or an actor chose to ad lib their shit. Everything about a fictional character is a product of choice, because they are made-up purposefully, they are not real people.

Now let's say a movie opens with a fictional character called Bob having his birthday party. One of Bob's friends comes up to him and says "happy 18th birthday, Bob" and Bob is like "thanks!" From this, we can infer that Bob is meant to have just turned 18. Now imagine that Bob in this scene is played by an actor who is clearly well into their 60s. The question would be why did the people who produced this film make those choices? You couldn't just get someone to go and ask Bob what age he is because Bob doesn't exist. This interaction was written by the scriptwriter. The actor to play Bob was chosen by the casting director who picked as 60 year old man. Those are the choices which matter and the choices we can question.. not the "actual age" of a person who isn't real.

 

[Terminal Blue]

doublepost

 

[Terminal Blue]

I'm not saying she's real. I never once said she was. However to not factor in the age that the game clearly states is just being ignorant and grasping at some pretty thin straws for a stupid argument in the first place, not to mention your other example is completely off the mark as well. 18 year olds that look like 60 year old is impossible, if not incredibly rare. Whereas there are plenty of women out there in their 20's that look like they're still in school.

Again. Missing the point. It doesn't matter if it's "possible". None of this is "possible". It is fictional. The way the character looks is fictional. The codex saying she is 20 is fictional. Please realise what that word means.

Seriously, this kind of logic is the absolute bane of these discussions.

 

[Terminal Blue]

And the rape itself is fictional. So why is it an issue?

The rape isn't an issue. It never happened. There is no victim. The representation of rape is the issue, because that's all we're dealing with here. Representation. What people actually see and hear and what someone else chose to show them, what it suggests, what affect it has.

You'd think this would be obvious from the beginning, it's really weird how it isn't.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So the problem is how it is represented? Which is a subjective call. In the end, it is just a game. Made by a guy with a history of bad writing but great game design.

Wax and wane about you want about how X is represented and what that means, in the end it is just an opinion.

Hypothetically, if Hideo Kojima actually did go out and rape someone the decision as to whether and how he should be punished would also be a 'subjective call'. Such a decision which would also have serious, demonstrable consequences for him possibly including spending much of his life in prison.

The fact that this game exists relies on a vast number of opinions. The fact that it was made the way it was relies on an even more vast number of opinions. Virtually everything that happens in the human world happens because of opinions. An opinion is only "just an opinion" when you're implying from context that it doesn't mean anything, something which in this case you don't get to decide. Let's face it, if thousands of people who "just had opinions" complain Konami are going to have to listen, because that's how corporate PR works. Opinion -> measurable effect.

So wax and wane all you want about how it's "just an opinion", in the end it is just an opinion.

 

[Terminal Blue]

when comparing numbers here those "thousands" mean jack-shit. The game is a success, implied rape and all.

You haven't worked in a creative industry, have you?

We live in an age where one negative comment can be read by millions of people and effectively undo millions of dollars in marketing in a second. That is why companies, heck charities spend hundreds of thousands (possibly millions in the case of Konami) employing digital communications and social media teams to manage their online presence, and right now, some executive somewhere is shitting out their own intestines in blind terror.

I mean, we've seen a few threads on this here on this site already. Now, what if the editorial team picks up on that and decides to run an article on it? Other gaming journalism outlets read this article and decide that "wow, this is clearly a thing" and they need to be in on the debate too, so they post even more stuff about it and suddenly what was a few people arguing on the internet is now into fucking Tomb Raider land and people are going to lose their jobs. I am not kidding. People will lose their jobs because some other people said negative things on the internet.

Creative industries are not a bunch of idealistic dreamers committed to the pursuit of "twoo art" at all costs. They are 90% composed of men in suits who want to sell you a product because that is how they justify their salaries. There is no "Well, maybe we lost a few people because of that rape thing, but I think it was really key to the vision we were trying to realise, you know?" There is only "Okay, we shifted a million copies. Why didn't we shift 2 million, and what can we do to make that happen?"

But by all means, you argumentum ad populum. See how long it works out for you.

 

[rasta111]

At least the first post clarified that it's not pretending anyone is a 'rape apologist' as if we're debating something that REALLY HAPPENED... That wouldn't be very nice would it... Oh wait we're still acting as if a rape in a video game, no matter how graphic, is even comparable to people being 'rape apologists' in REAL LIFE...

... I'm sorry I'm still getting over the idea that 'rape apologists' actually exist.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Fiction is fiction no matter how questionable, at the end of the day what do you want everything to be happy, cheery and bright? Or just censor the stuff just because someone is offend. If you want things treated fairly with reason you are living in the wrong universe.

By all means complain and show your ignorance of humanity.

Just an FYI I hate rape its about the only thing that I get a bit sick over, torture is a close 2nd.

 

[Wizardly-K9]

God.
Fucking.
Dammit.

I took some time away from the Escapist and I come back to more of this shit.

Controversy for controversy's sake.
No good reason. Just because.
I wish so hard that this could just stop. I really do.

snip

Look. I'm coming in here way late but here's my two cents.
Rape happens.
It happens to normal people and you can sure as hell bet that it happens to prisoners.
It's ugly.
If the implied rape in Ground Zeroes made you uncomfortable, then it did its job.

Metal Gear Solid V is not going to be like previous Metal Gears. Y'know, the sort of spy-action story sprinkled with cooky characters and a dash of the supernatural. I mean, maybe that'll still be there. But at the core, it's the story of a once-great soldier falling to rock bottom, only to rise up again as a completely different man. A villain. It's not something that's going to make you feel good.
It's going to be a rough ride and this is just the first stretch.

People like you, kicking up a shitstorm over stuff like this... I don't understand. Are video games not allowed to touch rape? Is that some kind of... is there something wrong with that? Why?

And the real kicker: it was only ever alluded to. No graphic displays in a cutscene. No straight-up "they're raping me!" It's just muffled noises and suggestive language on an audio tape that you might not even pick up.

That's nothing. Nothing. Ground Zeroes barely even touches the concept of rape, and already people are up in arms over it.

People keep wanting games to move forward, to become art, to be taken seriously. Whatever the case may be. But nobody's letting it happen because of shit like this.

Yes I mad.

I love you far too much right now.

See this guy everyone? Read what he's posted, re-read it then go over it one more time. Everyone needs to fuck all this nontroversy bullshit off.

How well put, good work the Echo, very, very sensible. This ridiculous SJW lead attempt to stir up "outrage" when an adult media represents adult themes is bizarre and annoying, frankly. Sick of a vocal minority believing they have some right to dictate what can and can't be show in a damn game. Buy it, don't buy it - your choices.

Exactly. It's like when people trash comedians that use rape jokes. What other jokes can't be used if rape jokes are put in exile? If people start censoring things because of what THEY feel is immoral, then eventually the black bar is going to stretch over anything else even slightly inappropriate, and everyone is going to end up walking on eggshells.

Either everything is allowed or nothing is.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's a Kojima game and Kojima fans are making excuses. Where's the surprise? Fans of a bad writer defending bad writing.

Murder is a pretty damn sensitive topic too, and yet people never seem to have a problem with the mass murdering that almost every game has you do throughout its running time.

Cultural norms. If murder was as rarified as rape in the public mind, or if murder was routinely blamed on the victim or targeted only a specific group or was downplayed to "nonconsensual death" or : surprise end of life," or any number of other things, murder would be treated very differently.

Hell, people tend to be more forgiving of murderers than child rapists. You don't even need to look to games for that.

Expecting similar outcomes from different starting positions seems like it's the same as repeating the same steps and expecting different results.

 

[rasta111]

Surely 'rape apologists' just means rapists? I mean if you're willing to make excuses for a rapist that's just like condoning the act isn't it? Also surely no one would apologise for a rapist (that's like saying the actual rapist could apologise let alone someone on their behalf, would you accept that?), what's happening is they are either ignorant or in the worst case have been psychologically damaged by one or more rapists in the past.

If you're trying to argue that a video game or anything else that would simulate the scenarios involved strengthens their fundamentally damaged resolve toward being a rapist... Well I think you're missing the forest for the trees. You're saying that anyone who defends even a simulated rape must therefore habour similar feelings themselves effectively. They are indifferent to the act because they don't believe it's rape and in the case of this video game it is merely a simulation meant to shock, disturb and emotionally inform the player about the subject the game is presenting. Here the subject is war. The format is a satirically cheesy video game which has been known to have all the subtlety of a sledgehammer in the past.

In any case if a fantasy, no matter how disturbing the subject matter or formatting (and in this case it's a video game about war which is about as disturbing as can be), can constitute rape not a single person here is innocent. It's muddy water indeed. Most rapists use guilt as a way to justify their feelings and actions. They make their victims actually feel guilty for resisting which is the part that does the real psychological damage. In most cases this can allow them to continue for extended periods, perhaps indefinitely. If the victim ceases to believe it is rape they may even in turn defend their rapist if discovered or interrupted by outside forces.

This is never a fantasy. This is why I say it's laughable to compare the real with the fantasy. The only exception is exploitation which I think it's safe to say is not the case here, these are actors and it's an audio recording, the line is blurry but it's there... At least it is here, mainly because I don't want to be sued for libel by Konami and I'm fairly certain those actors were under a fair contract which prevents any such accusation, not to mention protects Konami from things like this thread. Legally at least for the time being.