• Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Do I believe that a studio that has existed for a while that makes weird games made a weird games and not a fetish game for pedophiles? Yes that seems pretty plausible.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        If you need to use child sexual material to make a point, find another way, which they clearly did after getting slapped. 1% or 100% makes no difference, and we know the whole game isn’t fetish for pedos, it was one scene. But they also had to adjust the other characters ages, so the rest wouldn’t get caught up in the same thing after getting caught once.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            Just labeled, if you decided to read my comments instead of just espousing about a different build of the game isn’t pedo sexualism.

            The prebuild of the game had that content, if you’re JUST viewing what’s in the game now, you’re willing ignorant of context. Yes they changed it, does that mean they should be allowed to re-submit the game after fixing the issues? Well that depends on how you address them. Which they did by being shady, and saying valve didn’t tell them. There’s plenty of sources saying that it was the pedo parts.

            Being able to release the fixed game is its own issue, which can only be addressed with the context of the early build THAT HAD THE OFFENDING CONTENT.

            • Feyd@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 days ago

              And now you edit the post saying you blocked me hahaha

              you’re willing ignorant of context.

              This is rich since you’re the one willfully ignoring context.

              1. The content they described was not sexual content. The entire point of the game is to be unnerving by having a set up where you are transparently treating humans the same way and as if they were horses. You can screech all day that it’s a “fetish farm”, but that really says more about you than it does about the game.

              2. We don’t even know what the offending content was. Steam hasn’t publicly said and the scenario we’re discussing (where a girl and parent treated a horse man exactly like a horse would be treated in real life, which is NOT sexual no matter how much you want it to be) is the supposed best guess of the developer.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                15 days ago
                1. The content they described was not sexual content. The entire point of the game is to be unnerving by having a set up where you are transparently treating humans the same way and as if they were horses. You can screech all day that it’s a “fetish farm”, but that really says more about you than it does about the game.

                That’s the build that you’re playing…. Not the one that had the offended content. I already explained this…

                1. We don’t even know what the offending content was. Steam hasn’t publicly said and the scenario we’re discussing (where a girl and parent treated a horse man exactly like a horse would be treated in real life, which is NOT sexual no matter how much you want it to be) is the supposed best guess of the developer.

                Absolutely false. This is the playing dumb part.

                The studio stated that Steam provided an automated response following an initial review that the game would not be distributed as it, in Valve’s words, “appears, in our judgment, to depict sexual conduct involving a minor”

                Stop defending pedo material.

                  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    15 days ago

                    I was proven wrong, so I’m going to be a child.

                    Yeah that tracks, I guess if you’re a child yourself it’s not pedo material… but that doesn’t change the moral of the story.

                    You don’t ever have a need to use child sexual material to make a point. This is the part you’ve never addressed, and why yours defending pedo by not addressing it. You are saying it’s okay, it never is, and there’s no justification. Which you’re doing here, very badly I might add.