Could I just ask how you (and others here arguing along the same lines) actually *know* this? How do you know it's "objectionable" material - and on what scale are you judging this objectionable nature?
I'm assuming that you, and others, have not in fact played the game.
The game is rated 16+ in the UK.
I would fully endorse an adult rating of 16 or 18+. But not a ban.
Young girls are not being protected by this ban. All that a ban is saying is "this game will turn young men into potential molesters and paedophiles".
It's similar to arguing that an 18+ rated highly violent game will, in itself, turn young men into rampaging gun-wielding aggressors.
It usually takes a community of like-minded people to turn each other into something that's anti-social and reprehensible.
To be fair Woolly the nature of that post is bouncing off the aggression of the one Ludez is responding to.
I can understand both sides. I could believe someone who is attracted to children playing a game of that nature (based on what we have read) may be motivated to look at more pictures of said attraction which is a crime.
Just like I could believe someone playing GTA may get their adrenalin up for awesome action and watch an action movie.
I don't think anyone reasonably thinks it will cause the disorder of paedophilia. But think there is a reasonable discussion to be had about if someone with said disorder but suppresses it, could potentially find themselves tantalised by the game and that may start a reaction.
The flip side is it may have no effect or even a positive one.
I don't know, I'm not a psychiatrist, I don't know if anyone here is and if they are if they have done extensive peer reviewed research on the matter.
Please be respectful to each other. I've left forums permanently because of the twisted nature of this discussion when both sides become unreasonable.
People can discuss things without getting too aggressive (I've fallen for that).
E.g. This review doesn't overturn it. It just makes the chief censor re-evaluate it. Its possible he comes to the same conclusion again.
Edited by drunk_monk, 15 February 2017 - 04:57 PM.