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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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”
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.
You keep repeating that you know what was in the build that was rejected and that it was definitely sexual and involving a child. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. Valve hasn’t said publicly what the content was and we have no way of knowing.
The scene that we do know about from the speculation from the developer, at least as described, was not sexual in nature.
I’m not defending child sexual material. I’m saying that what was described was not child sexual material. It obviously isn’t unless you’re some weirdo Puritan on a crusade.
Anyway, this is my last reply to you. I can’t make this any more clear and you’re obviously more interested in a witch hunt than the truth anyway.
If it wasn’t sexual material, they would have had no reason to change it…
Your entire defence and reasoning falls flat before it starts. If the material wasn’t offending, they wouldn’t have had to change it. Other stores allowed it AFTER changing… so what did they do to piss valve off? That’s a different discussion though. That I’m not getting into.
And yes, what they described is sexual, I’m sorry to inform you that your societal norms aren’t correct.
I’m not defending child sexual material. I’m saying that what was described was not child sexual material. It obviously isn’t unless you’re some weirdo Puritan on a crusade.
But it is. It’s not puritan to not want children in a sexualized or naked setting. The horror or creep aspect doesn’t matter. It’s just not an acceptable narrative. And it’s fucking creepy as shit seeing you defend it so vehemently.
obviously more interested in a witch hunt than the truth anyway.
Says the one ignoring facts and saying “we don’t know” and claiming that’s the truth? What truth is “we don’t know”? Fallacies to hide behind, there’s no truth in not knowing. The facts are, they changed their game, which made it acceptable AFTER. So it had to have been offending before. And that was all storefronts, not just valve. So that argument you’re using doesn’t even work.
It’s not puritan to not want children in a sexualized or naked setting
No, but it’s Puritan to take something that isn’t and assert that it is.
And it’s fucking crappy as shit seeing you defend it so vehemently.
And like every other puritan you accuse and insult reasonable people who don’t want Puritans to misrepresent media and decide what everyone else gets to consume.
LOL weren’t you supposed to block me?
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.
And now you edit the post saying you blocked me hahaha
This is rich since you’re the one willfully ignoring context.
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.
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.
That’s the build that you’re playing…. Not the one that had the offended content. I already explained this…
Absolutely false. This is the playing dumb part.
Stop defending pedo material.
And we’re back to rolling my eyes
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.
You keep repeating that you know what was in the build that was rejected and that it was definitely sexual and involving a child. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. Valve hasn’t said publicly what the content was and we have no way of knowing.
The scene that we do know about from the speculation from the developer, at least as described, was not sexual in nature.
I’m not defending child sexual material. I’m saying that what was described was not child sexual material. It obviously isn’t unless you’re some weirdo Puritan on a crusade.
Anyway, this is my last reply to you. I can’t make this any more clear and you’re obviously more interested in a witch hunt than the truth anyway.
If it wasn’t sexual material, they would have had no reason to change it…
Your entire defence and reasoning falls flat before it starts. If the material wasn’t offending, they wouldn’t have had to change it. Other stores allowed it AFTER changing… so what did they do to piss valve off? That’s a different discussion though. That I’m not getting into.
And yes, what they described is sexual, I’m sorry to inform you that your societal norms aren’t correct.
But it is. It’s not puritan to not want children in a sexualized or naked setting. The horror or creep aspect doesn’t matter. It’s just not an acceptable narrative. And it’s fucking creepy as shit seeing you defend it so vehemently.
Says the one ignoring facts and saying “we don’t know” and claiming that’s the truth? What truth is “we don’t know”? Fallacies to hide behind, there’s no truth in not knowing. The facts are, they changed their game, which made it acceptable AFTER. So it had to have been offending before. And that was all storefronts, not just valve. So that argument you’re using doesn’t even work.
No, but it’s Puritan to take something that isn’t and assert that it is.
And like every other puritan you accuse and insult reasonable people who don’t want Puritans to misrepresent media and decide what everyone else gets to consume.