Sex and video games

[Pidesco]

Anyway there are plenty of sex scenes in movies that aren't meant to be just titillating. Irr

[random n00b]

I haven't seen sex inserted meaningfully into any narrative. Book, movie, or game, it's generally only there to be titilating.

 

You mean an actual sex scene or sexuality?

The distinction goes both ways.

Yes. Because stuff like Basic Instinct and Disclosure can do without the sex just the same.

 

edited for accuracy

Edited May 28, 2008 by random n00b

[Tale]

Perhaps my comment attempted to be too 'definitive." My argument isn't that it's impossible. It's that it's nothing to do with games or game writing. People just use sex 19/20 times just to titilate. I would have thought the word "generally" might have given it away. Movie is just a far more populous medium to have more exceptions. Movies have existed for over a century, games merely 3 1/2 decades, half that time period with visuals that could only be called abstract. If movies didn't outnumber games in just about every regard, there'd be something to worry about.

 

Yes. Because stuff like Basic Instinct and Disclosure can do without the sex just the same.

 

edited for accuracy

 

Basic Instinct seemed to do fine in the US theatrical cut.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Tale

[random n00b]

Basic Instinct seemed to do fine in the US theatrical cut.

Yeah, so? Cut scenes or not, sex is fundamental to the plot there. And the uncut version is better overall.

 

Indecent Proposal?

 

What, want to discuss every example case-by-case?

Edited May 28, 2008 by random n00b

[Tale]

Basic Instinct seemed to do fine in the US theatrical cut.

Yeah, so? Cut scenes or not, sex is fundamental to the plot there. And the uncut version is better overall.

Sex being fundamental to the plot doesn't mean sex scenes are critical to it. Which I do believe is the implication of what I said. Sexuality is fine, even in games. When it becomes sex scenes it's usually unecessary and meant largely to titilate.

 

The plot would have been served the same with fade to dark. Your enjoyment of the uncut version does not contest my point, either.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Tale

[random n00b]

Sex being fundamental to the plot doesn't mean sex scenes are critical to it.

Yes. Because you can cut sex scenes out of a movie in which sex is pivotal, just like you can cut battle scenes out of Letters from Iwo Jima.

 

Eh, if you say so.

 

 

The plot would have been served the same with fade to dark.

Yes, the plot would have been served the same if instead of going to the movies, you just read the screenplay, too.

 

 

Your enjoyment of the uncut version does not contest my point, either.

But it does, since that's the whole point of watching movies. Unless you do that to achieve some measure of higher enlightenment or something, in which case I'd recommend a different medium. Edited May 28, 2008 by random n00b

[Sand]

It all depends onthe story. If the sex and sexuality enhances the story, integrel to the characters, and the events that unfolds then I say let there be sex. May this be depicted in books, television,movies, or even video games.

[Tale]

Yes. Because you can cut sex scenes out of a movie in which sex is pivotal, just like you can cut battle scenes out of Letters from Iwo Jima.

 

Eh, if you say so.

This goes both ways. The same can be said of video games. Lara's breasts are pivotal to tomb raider. You're not arguing against my point.

 

But it does, since that's the whole point of watching movies. Unless you do that to achieve some measure of higher enlightenment or something, in which case I'd recommend a different medium.

And if a person enjoys some h-game, then where exactly is the contest to my point?

 

I'm talking about sex being "meaningful." Not simply entertaining. Unless you want to qualify entertainment as meaning. That I'll gladly concede. But I was under the impression from Pidesco's use of meaning that we're talking about some elitist definition that requires it to be used only to enlighten or teach.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Tale

[Sand]

Lara's breasts are pivotal to Tomb Raider? What does she have down there? Nipple missiles to take out T. Rexes?

[Tale]

Lara's breasts are pivotal to Tomb Raider? What does she have down there? Nipple missiles to take out T. Rexes?

Her nipple missles are set only to stun and hypnotize.

[random n00b]

This goes both ways. The same can be said of video games. Lara's breasts are pivotal to tomb raider. You're not arguing against my point.

I was not speaking about video games specifically, as I was just addressing your blanket statement earlier, and your nitpicking of Basic Instinct's box office performance and DVD uncut versions, between which, incidentally, you cannot establish a correlation.

 

 

And if a person enjoys some h-game, then where exactly is the contest to my point?

In a h-game, sex is not an important part of the plot, it is THE plot, gameplay object, and selling point. H-games are pornography, which is out of the scope of the discussion.

 

 

I'm talking about sex being "meaningful." Not simply entertaining. Unless you want to qualify entertainment as meaning. That I'll gladly concede.

Again, you could just read some movie's script and be done with it. But movies are eminently visual (wow!), and what is shown on screen is what counts. You can leave some parts to the imagination, but some, you just can't. Once more, it depends on how and to what extent the details are rooted into the plot.

[Tale]

This goes both ways. The same can be said of video games. Lara's breasts are pivotal to tomb raider. You're not arguing against my point.

I was not speaking about video games specifically, as I was just addressing your blanket statement earlier, and your nitpicking of Basic Instinct's box office performance and DVD uncut versions, between which, incidentally, you cannot establish a correlation.

 

And if a person enjoys some h-game, then where exactly is the contest to my point?

In a h-game, sex is not an important part of the plot, it is THE plot, gameplay object, and selling point. H-games are pornography, which is out of the scope of the discussion.

 

 

I'm talking about sex being "meaningful." Not simply entertaining. Unless you want to qualify entertainment as meaning. That I'll gladly concede.

Again, you could just read some movie's script and be done with it. But movies are eminently visual (wow!), and what is shown on screen is what counts. You can leave some parts to the imagination, but some, you just can't. Once more, it depends on how and to what extent the details are rooted into the plot.

 

In other words, you can't argue against my point anymore, so you're going to make multiple comments that have nothing to do with the point itself. Basic Instinct's performance between versions, an H-games status as pornography, and a point about movies I already gave a concession towards that you're still arguing for.

 

Nothing about this addresses the point that this supposed 'meaning' is just as trivial or true in videogames as movies. That was the meaning of the blanket statement. The importance of watching the sex acts in Basic Instinct is not more meaningfully important than staring at Lara's breasts.

[random n00b]

In other words, you can't argue against my point anymore, so you're going to make multiple comments that have nothing to do with the point itself. Basic Instinct's performance between versions, an H-games status as pornography, and a point about movies I already gave a concession towards that you're still arguing for.

You conceded the point? Wow, then what was that comment on Basic Instinct about?

 

 

Nothing about this addresses the point that this supposed 'meaning' is just as trivial or true in videogames as movies. That was the meaning of the blanket statement. The importance of watching the sex acts in Basic Instinct is not more meaningfully important than staring at Lara's breasts.

No Tomb Raider games that I know of feature plots in which Lara's assets are of any consequence. This does not imply that a game cannot be made in which sex is an important part, much in the vein of the movie examples already provided to you.

 

But the plot of Basic Instinct would make no sense if instead of sex, they were having a passionate game of chess.

[Tale]

You conceded the point? Wow, then what was that comment on Basic Instinct about?

My comment about Basic Instinct is that it's still 'meaningful' and it's still Basic Instinct if you edit much of the titilation out and merely allow them as suggestion. I conceded the point that they do enhance the film as entertaining. And that entertainment is the purpose and the true meaning of most films.

 

 

But the plot of Basic Instinct would make no sense if instead of sex, they were having a passionate game of chess.

It maybe could, if written properly enough and with appropriate changes to characters! But this in not a point I have any interest in making or arguing.

[random n00b]

My comment about Basic Instinct is that it's still 'meaningful' and it's still Basic Instinct if you edit much of the titilation out and merely allow them as suggestion.

We're running circles here. Read what I said earlier about Letters from Iwo Jima.

 

 

I conceded the point that they do enhance the film as entertaining. And that entertainment is the purpose and the true meaning of most films.

Yes. And movies are made by people, using tools. But let's stick to the topic.

 

 

It maybe could, if written properly enough and with appropriate changes to characters! But this in not a point I have any interest in making or arguing.

But I do! It's the wonderful game of "let's rewrite a perfectly good plot so that it doesn't need to include certain parts so my argument holds water!".

 

I tried, and this is what I got:

 

Michael Douglas would be the one in the left.

[Slowtrain]

I tend to agree with Tale here, however, I would caution against being to literally tied to the idea that an overt sex act must be directly integral to the narrative in order to have a purpose. Often filmmakers use imagery that is "beyond the narrative" so to speak, which is to say imagery that is not techincally required by the narrative, in order to generate a particular reaction in the viewer. And in some cases that reaction might be one of purposeful titillation, but that does not make the imagery any less valid.

 

 

For example, was the imagery in the opening 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan truly integral to the narrative? Of course not. There have been excellent movies made about Omaha Beach (The Longest Day for example) that did not use such imagery. In fact, it is perfectly reaonable to argue that the openign of SPR is gratutious to an extreme, since the bulk of the narrative has jack all to do with the Omaha Beach landing in the first place. But it is also perfectly reasonable to argue that the imagery is there for a specifc purpose, though not to futher the narrative in and of itself, but rather to engender viewer reaction outside of the narrative. IN fact, the opening of SPR is the only part of the movie that is in any way "different" for a war movie, the actual story that unfolds over the remainder of the film isn't much different from a bazillion war movies ever made.

 

SO my point would be that imagery whether sexual or otherwise does not neccessarily have to be integral to the plot to have a valid place in a film (or a game). And, titillation itself may be a valid enough reason for the extistance of imagery. SO there I guess I somewhat disagree with Tale.

Edited May 28, 2008 by CrashGirl

[Tale]

I conceded the point that they do enhance the film as entertaining. And that entertainment is the purpose and the true meaning of most films.

Yes. And movies are made by people, using tools. But let's stick to the topic.

 

This is the topic.

 

 

It maybe could, if written properly enough and with appropriate changes to characters! But this in not a point I have any interest in making or arguing.

But I do! It's the wonderful game of "let's rewrite a perfectly good plot so that it doesn't need to include certain parts so my argument holds water!".

 

This is not the topic.

 

Feel free to argue against a side opinion because you feel that's more interesting than the actual topic. But don't expect me to join in further.

 

SO my point would be that imagery whether sexual or otherwise does not neccessarily have to be integral to the plot to have a valid place in a film (or a game). And, titillation itself may be a valid enough reason for the extistance of imagery. SO there I guess I somewhat disagree with Tale.

 

Just, y'know, to note. This is a position I am not at all in disagreement with. I never said titilation had no place. Nor have I ever intended to imply that its presence is forbidden by a lack of meaningful context that can only be achieved by masterful writing.

 

The point is largely the opposite. That the existence of sex, violence, insert outrage of the month in games does not require some elitist definition of meaning to fit within a game. Just like it doesn't need it within movies. Movies regularly and consistently fail that same test. But to much less ado.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Tale

[Slowtrain]

Just, y'know, to note. This is a position I am not at all in disagreement with. I never said titilation had no place. Nor have I ever intended to imply that its presence is forbidden by a lack of meaningful context that can only be achieved by masterful writing.

 

The point is largely the opposite. That the existence of sex, violence, insert outrage of the month in games does not require some elitist definition of meaning to fit within a game. Just like it doesn't need it within movies. Movies regularly and consistently fail that same test. But to much less ado.

 

 

Thank you for you clarification. I tried to read carefully through the posts but there was so much going back and forth that I probably misread something and did not take the fully correct meanign in your posts.

 

ALso, I guess I am used to hearing "its just there for titilation" as a phrase almost always used pejoratively, as if either a) titilation is by defintion a bad thing or that b) pretty much most films don't use technically unnecessary imgaery to get reactions from viewers. Ergo: Saving Private Ryan.

 

We Americans also seem to have a lower tolerance for gratuitous sexual imagery than we do for gratituous violence imagery and tend to be more condeming of the foermer and less so of the latter. For whatever reason.

 

Anyway, so I guess I do pretty much agree with you then.

 

 

Actually I am still confused as to who is arguing what.

[Tale]

Actually I am still confused as to who is arguing what.

 

It took me a while to even remember what I was arguing in this thread. So you're not alone. For a while I got more caught up in arguing than discussing. The discussion gets disrupted and easy to lose when people take to mocking others or using sarcasm instead of clearly illustrating their stance. Something I'm oft guilty of.

 

Anyway, so I guess I do pretty much agree with you then.

 

Excellent. Wanna make out?

Edited May 28, 2008 by Tale

[random n00b]

This is not the topic.

 

Feel free to argue against a side opinion because you feel that's more interesting than the actual topic. But don't expect me to join in further.

I wasn't the one who said that Basic Instinct could be rewritten to revolve around chess. If you make an attempt at diverting the attention away from elements of an argument that you aren't comfortable discussing, don't get all defensive when you get called on it.

 

 

The point is largely the opposite. That the existence of sex, violence, insert outrage of the month in games does not require some elitist definition of meaning to fit within a game. Just like it doesn't need it within movies.

So, let's backtrack a bit. You went from:

"I haven't seen sex inserted meaningfully into any narrative."

to:

"My argument isn't that it's impossible. It's that it's nothing to do with games or game writing. People just use sex 19/20 times just to titilate."

 

And now that last bit. I guess it's sarcasm and mockery that's induced CG's (and my own) confusion. Because your stance was crystal clear from the start, and you haven't changed it a bit. Nope. Not at all.

 

 

Movies regularly and consistently fail that same test.

Most do, some don't, as proven by the examples provided. At the risk of sounding repetitive: the fact that 19/20 fail at meshing it well with the plot does not prove it can't be done. But no, I'm not saying that flawless plot integration is a must, either. Just my personal opinion that when used well it can enhance certain kinds of stories. As with 99% of the rest of plot devices. Edited May 28, 2008 by random n00b

[Humodour]

This is not the topic.

 

Feel free to argue against a side opinion because you feel that's more interesting than the actual topic. But don't expect me to join in further.

I wasn't the one who said that Basic Instinct could be rewritten to revolve around chess. If you make an attempt at diverting the attention away from elements of an argument that you aren't comfortable discussing, don't get all defensive when you get called on it.

 

The problem is man, you tend 'call' people on anything you disagree with slightly, and then seem to feel a need to always get the last word. Half the time you end up focusing on a tangent point to try and show somebody up, 'cause it's not working with the main topic of debate. Not cool.

 

And yeah, I'm fully aware I'll get a scathing one liner response from you or you'll call me a troll, but I reckon you needed to hear it.

[Meshugger]

Make love! Not war!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Before I begin, let me just say that my internet connection has been acting up today and I have no idea what has already been discussed in this topic

[Pidesco]

:happy0203:

[LostStraw]

...it is ironic that a game can be only

Edited May 28, 2008 by LostStraw