News Article

Child Pornography Law TKOs DOAD Release in Sweden, Denmark and Norway

Posted by Zach Kaplan


Much of the world is currently enjoying the hot new 3DS fighter Dead or Alive: Dimensions, but thanks to a child pornography scare, fans in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are forced to miss out.

Nintendo of Europe's official explanation for not releasing the game in Sweden, made jointly with official distributor Bergsala, is as follows:

Nintendo of Europe have decided not to release the game in Sweden, for various reasons. However, they do not want to list any details regarding their decision. ...We are sorry for how this impacts the Swedish fans of Dead or Alive. Thankfully, it's extremely unusual that these things happen.

This comes after a forum poster published a report discussing the game's Figure Mode, which allows players to view scantily clad 17-year-old characters Kasumi, Koroko and Ayane from any angle. The author did so, in fact, to support the argument that the Swedish pornography law should be changed. Following the scandal over a manga translator's recently being charged with possession of child pornography, however, distributor Bergsala pulled the title from release.

Check out our review to see why it's so unfortunate that so many gamers will go without. What do you make of this decision?


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (115)



citizenerased said:

Hahahahahaha. That's ridiculous. And here I thought Scandinavians had the whole freedom thing down.



Bass_X0 said:

They probably consider certain scenes of the Dragon Ball series to be pornographic just because you see naked baby Goku and Gohan.



MeloMan said:

Some censorship in the world just really baffles me... Do they not rate games in Sweden or something?




why are Europe and Australia always getting the shaft when it comes to video games? there are WAY too many examples of this happening over there!!! DX



edhe said:

Go on Nintendo. Tell us why you're unable to release this game in those territories.



WhiteLayer said:

I'm Swedish, and I really don't get what they're thinking here. And yes, Sylverstone, it is.



Bass_X0 said:

Some censorship in the world just really baffles me... Do they not rate games in Sweden or something?

Some countries have different views on what is illegal and what is not. Even the United States of America does not have a universal law throughout the whole country let alone a universal law throughout the world.

Even the highest rating a country has for games would not make it legal there. I'm sure we all remember Mortal Kombat being banned in Australia recently.



Tails said:

Maybe one day it will be lifted and Nintendo will re think about sending it to them. Otherwise though sorry everyone who isn't getting it though.



madgear said:

I'm more shocked about that manga artist being charged. Drawings arn't actual children and do not have an age. If someone drew Kasumi, for example, her age is whatever age you say it is (she certainly doesn't have the figure of someone who is underage).



Big_Gamer said:

this must be because a guy got convited for owning manga which was considered as child porn. It even was his job to translate them. Was he defendet by his employers? No, in fact they fired him.
Seriously, it wouldnt suprise me if someone gets convicted for playing duke nukem 3D, because I mean hey who can say that they really are 18.



edhe said:


Paedophilia is illegal in every civilised country in the world. But when people start to judge paedophilia as playing a videogame with young, scantily clad characters, things become a bit murky.

People could debate that such content compels such people to abuse children in the real world, but so could TV, magazines or seeing a young girl in the park.

I would say Nintendo are cowards for not releasing it, but I fear they'd probably get brought to court by some lobby group were they to try release it anyway.

But they should be straight and declare why they feel they can't release it (even though it's pretty clear).



Bass_X0 said:

But when people start to judge paedophilia as playing a videogame with young, scantily clad characters, things become a bit murky.

Which is exactly whats going on here. And they're not doing it thinking "America says its okay, lets be different". Censorship laws are quite different in many countries. Its just how things are. Page 3 girls in British newspapers would probably gather countrywide moral outrage in America if the exact same thing was published there with no increase nor decrease in nudity.

I would say Nintendo are cowards for not releasing it,

Its not cowardice to not stick your hand in the fire knowing you'll get burnt.

I also found this quote in regards to the jailed manga translator:

Many are surprised that drawn cartoons, where no child has been involved in the creation process, can be deemed child pornography in Sweden. In its press release, the court explains the aim of the law:

The reason why the law has been extended to include drawn images is that such images are seen as humiliating to children at large, and not only to the child that might have been used as a model.

So basically Sweden is scared that fictional characters may (without proof either way) have been based on actual people.



Bass_X0 said:

Kasumi has been 17 for the past fifteen years. Theres no passage of time in the DOA series.



edhe said:


The issue isn't about young kids playing this game, rather it's about the potential child molesters who might buy it, get ideas and commit child abuse. Or as Bass cited, children may be indirectly (or directly) humiliated as a result of this game being released (although in this case, not directly).



Mange said:

As I see it they don´t want to release it before the supreme court is done with the case. If the "translater" get convicted then the material in DOAD might be considered child porn. Nintendo don´t want to sell that and anyone owning an import could theoratically be convicted as well. On the other hand... if the translater is free to go then it´s ok to own it and ok for Bergsala/Nintendo to sell it.
Personally I don´t mind, Bergsala suck and always have, I don´t buy games from them, I import all my games, mostly from UK.



Incognito_D said:

quite ridiculous. Imagine if the developers open up the rom, change a single figure in the game to "18" - now it can be released!? It's not like they're real people ffs!



theblackdragon said:

@Incognito_D: what's ridiculous to me is why the devs don't do that in the first place, lol. it'd certainly save gamers in some parts of the world a lot of disappointment, y'know :3



RadioShadow said:

It's not like Kasumi, Koroke and Ayane start taking their underwear off in the game. It would be a nice feature however.

Seriously however, there is no porn in this game Sweeden. <_<



Glade said:

No porn at all. Yet there seem to be no problem with 10yr olds playing games like GOW at all. LOL. I don't see what is wrong here. Is there a costume named Birthday suit? no then they should stop whining



Stine said:

Meh, I'd just import if I wanted it. Which I don't. And couldn't they just have made the characters 18 in the first place? Would save them some controversy.



DarkKirby said:

I don't know when Sweden became America.

But that aside.

Dumb donkeys that encourage censorship need to learn that most people understand the difference between fiction and reality. Because someone enjoys something in fiction form does not mean they would ever attempt the same thing in reality. When the GTA series got popular the media was all over how it would encourage people to become violent gangsters and thieves because that's what was done in the game for enjoyment. Did that happen? No. Seeing animated girls in thongs that are said to be 17 isn't going to encourage anyone of average intelligence to go out and rape someone under 18 in the real world (because that's apparently better). If you're going to pander all laws for idiots then every sharp object should be banned from society. If someone commits a crime, you punish them for the crime the commented. Don't go looking for excuses for why he committed said crime and try to ban things that people of average intelligence enjoy responsibly because some idiot is stupid.



rjejr said:

The age of consent is 15 but the age for visual materials for "child porn" is 18? That's idiotic. {I know that sounds hypocritical coming from an American but I didn't make our laws. Plus every state has it's own age of consent and the child porn stuff is federal so you're bound to get inconsistencies.} Is the game really pornographic or could any decent lawyer walk in with a swimsuit catalog of teens in bikinis (not necessarily the push-up top ones) and get the case immediately dismissed? (I don't want to promote child porn but I'm not a big fan of stupidity either.)



LztheQuack said:

Why is America just as bad? The game got released here in case you didn't notice



Nintendude92 said:

which allows players to view thong-clad 17-year-old characters Kasumi, Koroke and Ayane from any angle.

Oh, I thought these were cut from the game altogether. Alot of the reviews have been saying that costumes are watered down. Or just avoiding talking about the women; or should I say girls in general



StarDust4Ever said:

Murder is a crime, even a capitol offense in some jurisdictions. Depictions of murder in movies and video games is very common and perfectly legal. Anyone who has played an online FPS for more than a few minutes is guilty of virtually murdering fellow gamers. Is it a crime to murder people in a video game? No.

Drugs, violence, etc are illegal, but simulated depictions of violence and drug use, are totally acceptable, even when the actors are children.

Child Pornography laws were created for one reason alone: to protect kids and prevent the exploitation of children. For this reason is is a felony to create, posess, or distribute such paraphernalia. But graphical depictions of juvenile "promiscuity" which in some jurisdictions are still legal between consenting people, are suddenly considered obscene and punishable felony offense, even when no juveniles were involved at all with the production of such virtual depictions. Health books on puberty show graphical depictions of minors, why not make it a felony to possess those as well?

But it is my personal opinion that the governing law bodies across the globe should treat graphical depictions of illegal acts the same way: either ban all graphical depictions of illegal acts, (including murder, drug use, etc), or allow all graphical depictions of illegal acts (provided no illegal acts are committed or persons harmed during production).

It has also been demonstrated time and again that depictions of violence on television are just as damaging to children if not more so than depictions of sex or any other such filth that is in general produced and consumed by adults: If it is a felony to provide a juvenile with a cop of playboy magazine (depictions of sex, which is not illegal between consenting adults), than it should also be a felony to show a war or horror movie as well (depictions of murder, which is always illegal in any circumstance).

Maybe society's widespread acceptance of violence on TV may have something to do with the problems society has with violent crimes. Besides, the bright, colorful, cheery worlds of Mario, Zelda games make them so much funner than dark, gory FPS games anyway



koops330 said:

must suck for them if I owned a 3DS and lived there I would of found a way around that because the game looks amazing



dizzy_boy said:

why would anybody animate a girl in a thong in the first place, regardless of age?
it`s probably for guys who can`t get real girlfriends.
besides, you`ve got to be a bit wrong in the head to find an animated girl attractive anyway.
s, it`s all a pathetic really, imo.



jimmoon said:

why would they pass the characters off as 17? why not early 20s? they are just plan sick for creating little girls in these video games.



MeloMan said:

I hear ya Bass, but the lack of actually nudity in the game, and it being considered porn, as in the most you see is a leg or a jiggle? C'mon! Yeah, if that's how Sweden gets down, so be it, I don't live there, but I'm sure there's actual full on frontal nudity and "acts" in movies and other stuff that are truly considered porn even for Swedish standards that make DOA look like a Saturday morning cartoon. I'm just saying what's the point of going this far to ban it when there's far worse? Sweden, can you clarify that point if I'm missing something? Our own Supreme Court might rule certain things as well, but that doesn't mean it's "right". Just my opinion...



Bankai said:

@46 Age of consent and pornography laws are entirely different. Yes, even in precious little America. Regardless of the age of consent in an individual state, the age in which people can legally appear in pornography is 18. (or is it 21 in the US? Either way).

Same deal in Australia. 16 age of consent, 18 mininum for porn. So yes, it's possible to legally be able to have sex, but be involved in (legal definition of) child pornography at the same time.



kevohki said:

I could make an obvious joke about Japan but I shall refrain from doing so.



Expa0 said:

This is annoying, but not too bad because they can just order the game from UK or something.



Aviator said:

When I get some hard proof that they banned it solely on the basis of child porn, I'll believe it.

In the meantime, a forum post?? No thank you.



retro_player_22 said:

I don't get how DOA could be an example of child pornographic. None of the DOA fighters are kids, they are all either in their late teenage or early-adult age.



jkgatling said:

lol im swedish and we seem to accept culture where children gets brutally murdered by psychopaths just fine, also in swedish law the age of consent is 15... we r , anyways if I were gonna get it I would order it from amazon anyway



jkgatling said:

oh yeah AND THE OTHER DOA games were released here, we even had big advertisements for the extreme volleyball game!



daznsaz said:

can they order online from other countries or is it not allowed to be shipped to them either



iaoth said:

I never noticed that DoA:D wasn't released here — I bought it at a local store on day one. I guess they decided to import it themselves.



zeeroid said:

Because arbitrarily aged drawings are clearly the same thing as exploitative pornography of minor human beings.



Ichiban said:

Well it does kinda suck for them. But all in all, they arent missing that much.
DOA is a great game, but its no big loss.
If they missed out on say Ocarina Of Time3D or Res Evil Revelations for some reason, then it would be a major upset.
Unfortunate for those looking forward to the game over there though...



Mange said:

Where does it say "Sweden" has either banned or cencored this game? Isn´t it Nintendo/Bergsala that choose themselves not to distribute this game? If you want this tits´n A55 game so bad... buy it whereever on the internet.
Did post 68 just got cencored
Edit: LOL!! my (this) post got cencored as well.



madgear said:

"The issue isn't about young kids playing this game, rather it's about the potential child molesters who might buy it, get ideas and commit child abuse."

Yes but look at Kasumi - do you honestly think she looks like a child? She resembles an exaggerated adult woman - the only reason she's considered under age is because the developers wrote "17" on her character profile.

It kind of reminds me of the video game Snatcher - in one scene you catch a girl in the shower who, in the Japanese version, is 14 but her age was changed to 18 in the west. The scene is still exactly the same in both, the only difference being an age stated earlier in the game. So, by this reasoning, would the Japanese version be considered child porn and the US version not, despite being exactly the same?

Also, I'd just like to point out, I hate the idea of people thinking we'll "get ideas" like the population is just a bunch of mindless drones who can't think for ourselves. I think the majority of the population is more intelligent than the people making the censorship decisions.



Bankai said:

"I think the majority of the population is more intelligent than the people making the censorship decisions."

The majority of the population is not why laws are made. The majority of the population has no interest in murder, either. That doesn't mean it should be legal.



Incognito_D said:

@theblackdragon yeah, I don't see why they couldn't have released a version of the game in Sweden with the ages changed to 18.
The thing is though, it's a fighting game, not a porno movie. They may be wearing skimpy costumes, but so do swimmers and gymnasts at the Olympics. Say there was an athlete who was 17 years old? Would that be classed as child pornography?



Omenapoika said:

Haha, reminds me of the issue in Australia that flat chested chicks can't appear in pornographic content That was considered child pornography -related material, I don't know if they really passed any laws about it.

But that makes you think about the people who relate A-cup boobs with children (or the contents of this game, depicting more than curvy ladies...). I really think they have problems.



jayjay99 said:

y dont they just order it fromm anotha country?? and thats just plain ridiculous!



zeeroid said:

Has there ever even been any credible scientific evidence to show that sexualized depictions of animated characters have an effect on an individual's likelihood of committing acts of sexual assault against minors? I haven't done the research, but I would highly doubt this claim. For eff's sake, the lawmakers should use some common sense once in a while. If a person were going to commit rape against a minor, whether he did or did not happen to watch lolita hentai beforehand would not have had a causative role in the actual crime.

I just don't understand this widespread criminalization of drawings that may or may not show minors (whose age is largely arbitrary in the first place). It's completely victimless. Even more than something like drug abuse, which may have a detrimental effect on the user.

This is what happens when laws are made not based on rational thought and evidence, but rather how "creepy" something is.



Bankai said:

@78 that's crap. I'm Australian, and I've never heard of that.

@80 there's probably no scientific evidence that snuff films make people more likely to go murder someone either. That doesn't mean the creation of such material isn't harmful.

Lawmakers (rightfully) have a great problem with condoning the creation and distribution of undersage sexual media, and (rightfully) don't differentiate between real life and animated material - it's the intent that's the concern.

Possession of such material is less of a concern when it comes to 'grey' area stuff, such as this game. That's why you wouldn't be prosecuted for owning the game, if indeed the story is true.



Ren said:

Unfortunately a lot of the consumer populace are "mindless drones". especially in the case of children who are underage we have laws to protect them because before a certain age not everyone is capable of handling certain decisions on their own.
I agree this is a pretty silly case (especially if it's about an arbitrary age stated in the game), it's just Nintendo and the distro covering their bases just in case.
What's more unfortunate is actually the immature adult developers who are still a long way from depicting women as normal human beings in video games. Men/Boys in games run the gamut from playful kids on adventures to strange, chubby, skinny, dirty, stylish; But women? Besides the obvious rare exceptions that people will hold up they are still mostly like in this game, wearing thongs to a street fight, or even in adventures they are curvy, slight, dopey, or otherwise sexualized in some way or obbsesed with shopping or serving men in some stupid way (i.e. princess or male fantasy of sexualized toughness).
This kind of silly law and action wouldn't happen in the first place if men could take responsibility for the backwards way they depict and think of women in general. If the developers of games like this weren't "mindless drones" then this would never even be a question at all.



FonistofCruxis said:

@jkgatling DOA extreme beach volleyball was released there? If that can be released there, why not this? At least they can still import from other countries that got this great game.



DrDaisy said:

I thought Sweden was supposed to be liberal.
Maybe Tecmo should just advance the age of it's underage characters to ... uh, whatever the the highest global legal age is. I mean, the DOA universe isn't stuck in Neverland, is it? Kasumi and Ayane should be older now anyway.

The ages of the characters under 18 were not disclosed in that game. If you look at the ages of Kasumi and Ayane (and maybe Kokoro) in DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball and DOAX2, you'll see question marks.



FonistofCruxis said:

@DrDaisy That must be how those games got released in Sweden then. Also, the article says Koroke, which isn't the name of a DOA character. It should be Kokoro.



bezerker99 said:

This game is banned in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway...yet they still have internet access!?!?! I'm confused.



StarDust4Ever said:

@triforceofcourage: (90) Thank you for the complement. I mainly wanted to illustrate a point of how backwards and hypocritical the censors really are. Regardless of which side of the pond we live, it really is a backwards society.



Fearnavigatr said:

Let's clarify what this actually means. The game has not in any way been "banned" in these countries, the only thing that's happened is that Nintendo of Europe have made the choice to not hand out any copies to the regional distributor. This doesn't stop any retailers from stocking up on the game by importing it themselves, meaning Scandinavians can still easily get their copy even without having to order it online.



DarkKirby said:

No, "50" or StarDust is incorrect. I would like a source for where you got the idea that actions done in video games heavily influence people to take the same or similar actions in real life. The only studies that "prove" that violent video games cause people to be violent are the ones made by or paid for by the people trying to prove that point and it's fear mongering spread by the media which makes its fortune spreading fear (because nobody would listen to news if it was talking about how most of the population acts rationally). Proven time ant time again? That's a real joke. If anything the "studies" have been disproven as it's been brought up time and time again, usually ending in the conclusion that it can't be proved that violence in video games can be directly linked to violent actions in real life. Most studies that "prove" games cause you you be violent judge it's conclusions based on how said person if feeling as they play a violent game, not what actions that same person chooses to take while not playing said violent games. Let's not forget that the crime rate as steadily been falling, despite how video game popularity, violent video games included, have been steadily on on the rise. As said before, most people know the difference between fiction and reality. If some kid doesn't, it's the parents fault. It's like that same crap a while back where people demanded things removed from television because "kids might see it" despite said program not being meant for kids and was mentioned as such. Because you're an irresponsible parent don't ask for the world to be able parent your kid for you, without you.



Bankai said:

Oh lord, where to start.

1) did it not pass your mind that perhaps the studies disproving that media can influence people were also biased? No, of course not, whatever suits your own agenda must be correct, right?

2) Once again laws are not made for the majority. They are made for the minority that don't want to conform to social morality. Not many people wish to murder other people, and yet there's a law against that.

3) child pornography laws are a line in the sand that is more concerned with the creation and distribution of such material; less so with the possession. It had nothing to do with "parents not wanting their kids to see such materials" or other such silliness.



Bankai said:

Also, for what it's worth, 93, there are plenty of studies out there that playing violent video games raises the aggression levels of people. This does not me 'inspire to do the same thing,' that's just stupid. The fact you're quoting that (if such a report even exists) and not the more rational debate suggests your understanding of the topic is limited.



Bankai said:

sex is rarely necessary in entertainment. But it sells more. So from a business perspective? Yes.



BulbasaurusRex said:

Well, I got the game today (t the third store I tried.

First of all, those 17 year old girls have "N/A" listed for their ages in their profiles.

Second, when taking photos of the figurines, upskirt shots are impossible, because the camera can't be moved in that direction (something Smash Bros. could learn from).

Third, Kasumi and Ayane have the same mother but different fathers, they're both 17, and Kasumi was born in February and Ayane in August?! Can someone explain this to me?



Glade said:

@98 I wouldn't wanna talk about the reason here but check the storyline for DOA. Also I think its in the game lolz



Mach-X said:

Whenever this type of thing comes up, people get all up in arms 'what they're doing is ridiculous, blah blah blah'. Nintendo chose not to release the game in those countries because they were concerned about breaking laws in those nations regarding how children are portrayed in media. Which means Nintendo are doing what a large company is SUPPOSED to do, which is obey the law. Those laws were established for a reason, whether you like them or not. We are all subject to laws in our various nations, some good some not. We all have different ratings and classification systems. For example, in Canada, age of sexual consent is as low as 14 provided the two people are between 14 and 16. However just because a 14 year old can have sex, it is still illegal for that person to be in any pornographic material until the age of 18. Of course that is an extreme example, as obviously the game isn't pronographic in nature, nor are the characters real, just saying in some way nintendo feels that the portrayal could be illegal in those nations. And they can't simply breach those laws because gamers feel it's unfair. That is up to the people in those nations to pressure their political representatives to have the law amended to better represent public values.



Fearnavigatr said:

@100 The Swedish laws on child pornography aren't necessarily more strict than other European countries, what actually caused NoE's concern was isolated incidents of arrests related to lolicon possession along with, supposedly, some random person making threats against Nintendo should they have released the game. Despite this person's reports being completely ignored by Swedish police, it was enough to make NoE paranoid. Also consider Nintendo's family-friendly image coupled with the nature of a franchise like Dead or Alive.

If law was the actual concern as opposed to "fear of getting caught", this game would be undistributed in the UK as well. Personally, I severely doubt that Nintendo would have faced any consequences had they chosen to distribute the game over here, despite the unnecessary discussion around it that caused these concerns in the first place. After all, the game is still being sold by retailers, perfectly legally.



jimmoon said:

@ WaltzElf It's thinking like that that makes this world such a crappy place. sex most likely doesnt sell. mario has no sex and those are the best selling games and if you stuck sex into mario i surely wouldnt buy.

but thats hardly the point, what matters most in gaming is if the game is good... not if it sells and those idiots who make video games strictly for money will see this sooner than latter.

also... if you buy a game for the sexual content it sounds to me like youre a LOSER



Bass_X0 said:

what matters most in gaming is if the game is good... not if it sells

If a game is good but doesn't sell well, then its not good for the publisher. even if the people that do buy it have a great time playing it. its why shovelware and movie licenses do well despite usually being bad games - because people don't look past the packaging when buying games. they may not enjoy it later but they've been suckered into buying it and thats all that counts as far as the publisher is concerned. although too many games like this hurts the companies reputation.

if you buy a game for the sexual content it sounds to me like youre a LOSER

They still sell well though. Hentai games are quite popular in Japan. Okay, so its mainly single male adult geeks that play them but they do sell.



jimmoon said:

Its funny that you're trying to convince me that a game that sells is better than a great game that doesn't. Apparently you are blinded by the business side of it all and god only knows when you'll snap back to reality from that bs.

It's one thing to make a pornographic video game for a mainstream console that's popular among young people and its another thing to straight out make pornography. Shame on these "video game" developers and developers alike.



Bankai said:

@102: Come back to me when you learn something about marketing and are ready to have a halfway rational debate. It's scientifically proven that sex sells. That's why there is the marketing saying/ joke "sex sells." That's why there are entire markets around selling sex - fashion, men's magazines, pornography, music, film and yes, games. All of which make extensive use of sex in marketing.

That doesn't mean EVERYTHING needs to include sex to sell. Bringing up Mario is a ridiculous and childish counter argument.

Adult games sell obscene numbers in Japan. They're a proven market. Just like hypervoilent games (which you're a LOSER if you buy a game because it has guns OLOLOL) are popular in the west.

Who the hell are you to dictate what games people should and shouldn't enjoy?



DarkKirby said:


As I said before, you can't ban something that most people use reasonably and responsibly because a tiny number of people are stupid and use it stupidly and irresponsibly. If that applied to everything, knives should be illegal to own, cars should be illegal to drive, baseball bats should be illegal to own, because they have to potential to cause harm if misused or used irresponsibly. But you know what? Most of time with most people these common items are used beneficially without causing harm to anyone, in fact I can bet more people are killed or hurt per year because of knives, cars, and baseball bats are being misused then anyone can prove video games directly caused any crime to happen.



Bankai said:

Quote: knives should be illegal to own cars should be illegal to drive, baseball bats should be illegal to own

In Australia there are laws against buying certain knives and driving, for people under a certain age. We also are smart enough to make guns very hard to obtain. I know America likes to play the "freedom" card, but it's a silly concept that is exclusive of a healthy society.

Yes, you can and should moderate certain behaviours because of a minority. Because, the fallout from that minority having access to the behaviour is more dangerous than the majority not having access to that behaviour. A crazy dude that goes and shoots 100 people because he was having a really bad day and hyperviolent movies desensitised him to violence is a hell of a lot worse than a normal person not killing anyone and missing out on a hyperviolent video game because it got banned.

Restrictions are an important part of belonging to a healthy society, as they dictate a behaviour appropriate for the majority. This means a minority need to accept that they will miss out on some things. If a business decides it doesn't want to distribute a game in a country for fear of running afoul of some well-meaning laws around child pornography then I don't think an Australian or an American have any right to criticise them for doing so.



MiiMiiMii said:

Not one commenter I've seen has asked the question, 'why does a game feel the need to include a scantilly clad 17 year old?'.

Its not about under 18s playing the game - would you say child porn was ok if they only let over 18s see it? No.

Its not about saying she isn't real. She is drawn to be 17. 17 people. Designers are sat in a dank room deciding hown big to make the norks and how much pants you are going to see on a 17 year old character.

It's also not so much about potential monsters playing it.

Its just about designing a game to have a titilating 17 year old is just a touch seedy.



MiiMiiMii said:

"knives should be illegal to own, cars should be illegal to drive, baseball bats should be illegal to own, because they have to potential to cause harm if misused or used irresponsibly."

Sorry but this is a rubbish argument. Showing young girls as sexual models (which Dead or Alive makes its living from, you all know it) is not right. Ok so in many countrys the age of consent is under 18 - but the laws on showing women (and men, but its never men is it) in certain situations which are sexually revealing say they should be 18.

Personally I find Dead or Alive and other games which just puff boobs up like ballons are silly and childish. But hey, if there's a market for it who am I to judge. But come on, at least keep the women in it women, not kids!



Bankai said:

I'm not sure you actually read my comments, or understood what they were about before making that comment, MiiMiiMii.

Then again, given you just took a moralistic "high ground" over an entire other culture, I'm not surprised. Come back and join in the conversation when you realise that Japanese game designers come from a different culture from your own, and the sexualisation of seventeen year olds is neither unusual not taboo in Japan.

And no, you're not in a position to categorically say who is right and who is wrong. You're not a social psychologist.



jimmoon said:

The Japanese need to keep their you know what in their pants and their eyes on the prize.

Speaking of puffed up boobs.... remember the Dead or Alive volleyball games? Purely tasteless.



Bass_X0 said:

Its funny that you're trying to convince me that a game that sells is better than a great game that doesn't. Apparently you are blinded by the business side of it all and god only knows when you'll snap back to reality from that bs.

Its not about good vs. bad but about appealing vs. unappealing. Naturally, appealing games sell more than unappealing games regardless of quality. Yes, people are that dumb. Bad games can sell well.



DarkKirby said:

Australia is a very poor example for a place which imposes fair bans and as such a poor use for comparison, as they ban tons of things that are legal in other modernized countries which don't have problems with them.

How is my example poor? The point of the ban on child pornography is to protect real children from being forced, tricked, convinced into doing pornography because they possibly don't know how to decide for themselves. The point of the ban on Dead or Alive is because idiots believe that a significant amount of people are going to play the game and it will convince them to rape a child in real life due to the fact that there are characters in the game said to be below 18. They believe it has the potential for that, despite that's not what it was made for, and similar content in the past never causing such a problem. As someone else said these are fictitious characters, which could have been any age their creator pleased. He could have said they were 3, he could have said they were 200. If you think such a ban is fair, then all females in any form of media should then be required to be 18+ or at least claim to be 18+, because there is the potential some person is going to watch Dawson's Creek and decided to go rape a child as the characters they portray in the show are below 18 as they are in high school (despite them not being below 18 in real life, they are characters of fiction). If you believe that, then you are an idiot. Most males and females in media are made or chosen to be attractive (by the standards of the place they were made) because it sells better, or is what the author wanted. It has never been proven that experiencing media with characters of any age has convinced any person who wouldn't rape someone in the 1st place that it would be acceptable to rape someone of similar age to the character in said media in real life.

Japan is famous (or notorious for people who agree with restrictions on artistic freedom), for it's animated art styles and animated art which often feature young people/children in them, and a culture that doesn't shy away from sex appeal in any media form with age of characters irrelevant, but Japan has one of the lowest rapes per person in the world.

Most rapes in country top 100.

She's over 700.

She's 3.



Mange said:

@DarkKirby: You write...
The point of the ban on child pornography is to protect real children from being forced, tricked, convinced into.... You so has not got what it´s all about!
Most rapes in country link... can´t find sweden in that list! (and I seriously doubt it´s correctness)
Your picture links... I have seen the "alikes" of the pictures that started all this. Found links in an interview with the manga translator. The pictures was not the actual pictures from his hd but similar and picked by himself. Some may claim it´s art but to me it looks like porn, or how would you discribe a very young female child showing off the whole thing in an "oops" style of face? I could repost links but I would most definatly be banned from nintendolife (nl dont need pictures to pick up the scensor scissors, they cut words like f**k and a**).
Japan has one of the lowest rapes per person... Well, call it prejudice.. I think there are countries that have a huge dark figure in reported rapes and I think some asian countries might add to that list.

You could debate if nintendo does the right thing halting the release of the game. I have been looking at screenshots and videos from DOA:D and think that nintendo has nothing to worry about, just release it. Personally I think the game looks like a load of crap with all that sexistic approach to it.



Skogur said:

Well it's not a problem, it's still available in stores. Just that there is no SCN version.



StarDust4Ever said:

@93. DarkKirby: You have misinterpreted what I have said. I never suggested that depictions of illegal acts caused people to want to commit those acts. Apparently some whacko critics seem to think so, which may be true, at least to the extremely limited .01% of the population who have no sanity. The actual percentage of people who knowingly choose to break the law is actually higher than that; just look at the prison crowding situation in California. However, I highly doubt that the majority of those individuals who commit crimes got their motivation solely from movies or video games. There are many reasons, including life's circumstances, a possible predisposition to commit crimes, bad moral upbringing, hatred, etc. Hardcore drugs can often transform an otherwise rational individual into a crazed maniac, which also explains why many narcotics are banned or heavily controlled in most industrialized nations. Oftentimes, the viewing/playing of violent and/or sexual movies/games can in some circumstances satisfy the paranormal cravings of an emotionally unstable individual to the extent that he/she no longer feels the need to commit the aforementioned atrocities in real life. Many paranormal individual know fully well that these urges are wrong, but cannot find an alternative outlet to curb their inhibitions.

Regarding sane majority populace, I believe I know why violent games are so appealing. Please bear in mind this is coming from someone who generally prefers cutesy Mario and Kirby style games over a violent, drab FPS any day of the week. Imagine some rude arrogant person offends you so badly that deep down inside, you just want to grab the nearest blunt object and assault them with it. Being sane, you resist the urge to do so, but the entire day is ruined thanks to this sole negative encounter. your outward demeanor may even change to the point that you unknowingly pass your sour mood onto someone else as well. You get home, fire up Halo your X-Box (assuming it's not RROD), and slaughter the crap out of other people online. Now you feel much better, having vented your frustration, so you go to bed and repeat the same sequence of events the following day. Case-in-point, playing a violent video game has somehow made you less prone to committing violence in real life. I believe the same scenario can be applied to other types of subject matter, including sex. The venting of one's frustration by watching pr0n may equally make an individual less likely to attempt the act in real life with non-consenting partners.

The dilemma is not that certain behaviors are worse than others or should be condoned in any sense, but that various depictions of illegal acts should all be treated and handled the same way, which they are not. It is not fair that a depiction of one illegal act (murder, for instance) should be legal while at the same time, depictions of a legal act (intercourse between two people older than the age of consent) should be illegal, especially when in neither case were any acts (illegal or not) committed during production of the game or movie, which is usually the case with any type of animation or video game.

Yes, some people will surely concur that I am comparing apples to oranges, but that is my point and I am sticking to it.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...