This whole article sounds prudish.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with there being nc-17 or M rated voice acted scenes in appropriately rated games. If you don’t want to act them out, then simply don’t. You have a union to back you up.
That being said, these sort of scenes definitely need to be negotiated and talked about long before minutes before acting it out. I fully agree with such a sentiment.
You should read the article. It’s not just voice actors. Mocap performers, wearing fitted Lycra suits, have to act out graphic scenes without prior notice so the scripts can remain confidential until the day of the shoot.
Ms Jefferies told the BBC she was once asked to act out a scene with a male performer involving a sexual assault with no prior warning.
“I turned up and was told what I would be filming would be a graphic rape scene,” she said.
Ah. Yeah. That’s a problem. If I went into work one day and my client said “now, pretend to rape and hurt this woman” I think I’d be uncomfortable too. I wonder if they even know the subject matter going in, even if the scripts are confidential. At the very least, a trigger warning.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with there being nc-17 or M rated voice acted scenes in appropriately rated games
Nobody’s arguing that. This is about the right to informed consent, not censorship.
If you don’t want to act them out, then simply don’t. You have a union to back you up
That’s not always the case in the moment.
That being said, these sort of scenes definitely need to be negotiated and talked about long before minutes before acting it out. I fully agree with such a sentiment
…so you actually agree with what they’re trying to do but still felt like misrepresenting it for a few sentences before saying so?
Weird choice, but at least you reached the right conclusion at the end 🤷
Misrepresenting? Please elaborate how I’m doing such a thing, there are two issues here: the subject of the scenes, and the not being told about the subject.
I have my two cents on each subject, you can agree or disagree with what I say, but saying I was Misrepresenting anything is flat out lying about my comment.
I feel like sometimes people comment, then read the article, and then try to backpedal when you point out that they missed the point of the article. Thanks for calling it out though
Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of going off on an irrelevant tangent about prudishness and then in the same comment support what it’s ACTUALLY about.
As did I. Using strawmen like injecting an irrelevant argument about censorship matters. It’s dishonest and misleading and that’s what I was commenting on.
I’ll continue to love love, hate hate, and outsmug the smuglords. I don’t mind the apparent hypocrisy of using my enemy’s tools on them, when I find it applicable.
The article is not about mature content in games. It’s about people in mocap suits being told to act out graphic scenes without prior notice, because the scripts are kept confidential until the day of shooting.
Do you mean the title? You didn’t read the article. They just want to make sure the process is right and that the actors know that they are going to act in sexual scenes in advance.
Obviously you either didn’t read the article or don’t care about actors being forced to enact sexual assault scenes. I’d rather think it’s the first, because from your response I’d assume that you simply don’t care about the actors’ well-being and just want your fap material.
Please pay more attention the next time, and at least pretend that you care. This is about informing the actors and getting their consent.
And don’t come with that crap about unions; in the game industry unions are practically non existent.
So read the article, twice if necessary; you might learn a thing or two.
This whole article sounds prudish. There’s nothing particularly wrong with there being nc-17 or M rated voice acted scenes in appropriately rated games. If you don’t want to act them out, then simply don’t. You have a union to back you up. That being said, these sort of scenes definitely need to be negotiated and talked about long before minutes before acting it out. I fully agree with such a sentiment.
You should read the article. It’s not just voice actors. Mocap performers, wearing fitted Lycra suits, have to act out graphic scenes without prior notice so the scripts can remain confidential until the day of the shoot.
Ah. Yeah. That’s a problem. If I went into work one day and my client said “now, pretend to rape and hurt this woman” I think I’d be uncomfortable too. I wonder if they even know the subject matter going in, even if the scripts are confidential. At the very least, a trigger warning.
Ad hoc rate just quadrupled
Nobody’s arguing that. This is about the right to informed consent, not censorship.
That’s not always the case in the moment.
…so you actually agree with what they’re trying to do but still felt like misrepresenting it for a few sentences before saying so?
Weird choice, but at least you reached the right conclusion at the end 🤷
Misrepresenting? Please elaborate how I’m doing such a thing, there are two issues here: the subject of the scenes, and the not being told about the subject.
I have my two cents on each subject, you can agree or disagree with what I say, but saying I was Misrepresenting anything is flat out lying about my comment.
That’s how. By inventing the first issue. Nobody’s arguing for censorship. It’s only about the right to informed consent.
Nope. You were inserting a strawman argument about censorship. That’s by definition misrepresenting.
I feel like sometimes people comment, then read the article, and then try to backpedal when you point out that they missed the point of the article. Thanks for calling it out though
What an empty comment, smuglord.
Just pointing out the logical inconsistency of going off on an irrelevant tangent about prudishness and then in the same comment support what it’s ACTUALLY about.
That’s not empty. Unlike your comment, hypocrite.
My comment was concise, clear, and accurate, and I stand by it.
I also don’t agree with the OP you responded to, but they at least had thoughts - and, more to the point, weren’t a total smuglord.
Well, you’re right that it was concise, at least…
As did I. Using strawmen like injecting an irrelevant argument about censorship matters. It’s dishonest and misleading and that’s what I was commenting on.
That’s just your hypocritical opinion 🤷
Not really expecting you to see it, anyways.
I’ll continue to love love, hate hate, and outsmug the smuglords. I don’t mind the apparent hypocrisy of using my enemy’s tools on them, when I find it applicable.
try not to cut yourself on all that edge.
Ok, l’ll be more careful.
I agree, 100% there is nothing wrong with mature content in games as long as there is consent by all parties involved.
The article is not about mature content in games. It’s about people in mocap suits being told to act out graphic scenes without prior notice, because the scripts are kept confidential until the day of shooting.
Do you mean the title? You didn’t read the article. They just want to make sure the process is right and that the actors know that they are going to act in sexual scenes in advance.
Obviously you either didn’t read the article or don’t care about actors being forced to enact sexual assault scenes. I’d rather think it’s the first, because from your response I’d assume that you simply don’t care about the actors’ well-being and just want your fap material.
Please pay more attention the next time, and at least pretend that you care. This is about informing the actors and getting their consent.
And don’t come with that crap about unions; in the game industry unions are practically non existent.
So read the article, twice if necessary; you might learn a thing or two.