Should video games be able to include non-sexual nudity without it incurring a higher age rating?

Should video games be able to include non-sexual nudity without it incurring a higher age rating?

Attached: 483E001A-73EB-418F-82E2-FC7315355E9C.jpg (3839x2357, 2.3M)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Most games are made in America and Americans don't seem to have a concept of 'non-sexual nudity'

Animal Crossing already has fully modeled penis and it's rates PEGI 3

Attached: 1593384067515.png (524x458, 400.74K)

Jews wont allow it

AAAAAAHHH JEG FALLER OOOOOO JEG FALLER

Why was Renaissance and Early Modern art so detailed and masterful and today it’s almost the opposite?

>the jews are pushing degeneracy!
>the jews are stopping degeneracy!
fuck off

have you looked at the state of the gaming industry, i do not want to see ugly nudes of photoscanned models lol

nudity isn't degenerate, it's when you do it in a pornographic way. The gaming industry is filled with coomers so they can't do it tastefully like Christians in the past did. They will either uglify it to make it look less pornographic or heavily pornographic

Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

The fact that photography didn't exist almost certainly had something to do with it, at least as a motivating factor for artists to actually pursue this level of detail. Still I do agree that a lot of art today is just ugly.

Survivorship bias. If old art sucked nobody would care about it. And plenty of old art sucked, just look at the scribbles monks used to draw in their books, they all look like shit and it's hilarious.
On top of that, the old art you're seeing is stuff commissioned by the wealthy who had both tons of money to blow and patience to wait for the artist to spend months, even years, on a single piece. To use an extreme example, the Sistine Chapel ceiling took four years for Michaelangelo to paint. The prep work alone took two.
And on top of that, a lot of old art was simply portraits, which are redundant because photography exists. You can use a smartphone to take a high quality picture in better detail than any of the Renaissance masters could dream of. Old realism art styles are therefore completely irrelevant when it comes to portraits of real people, so more abstract and outlandish styles (read: drug use) are pushed. Why bother being an artist if you're just going to try and do what someone else did, but worse because you don't have years to work on it and commission fees in the millions of dollars to live on? The idea of the poor starving artist working for passion has always been bullshit: the greatest artists in history usually got paid handsomely.

There was a backlash at realistic art in the late 1800s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressionism

There is no such thing as non-sexual anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Pic related is way more sexual to me than your image despite being incredibly covered and they're in games.

Attached: 1656376830741.jpg (838x611, 229.72K)

Because it's """art"""

>The fact that photography didn't exist almost certainly had something to do with it, at least as a motivating factor for artists to actually pursue this level of detail.
This is basically the key point that needs to be added to the rant from hitchcock people post.

It's not just that they're chasing reality. In certain contexts that is perfectly legitimate. It's that they're chasing it while also chasing money meaning it needs to be done cheaper and easier.

Why spend god knows how long doing a statue when you can just take a picture and spend 20 minutes in photoshop and have something good enough?

Or even more to the point, why spend god knows how long doing a statue or 20 minutes in photoshop when you can drop cardboard boxes on the floor and call it art and everyone applauds because companies have managed to lower everyone's consumer standards that low with their cheap garbage?

Impressionism was a backlash against Realism, but not against realistic art. It's a very important difference, because Realism at the time was pushed by the French Academy of Fine Art, and was more faux-realistic since it relied on defined rules of what the style should be. Impressionism on the other hand actually went outside to paint what was happening in real life, and as a result ended up more realistic than Realism.

The backlash to realistic art was mostly through the rise of Expressionism in the early 20th century. Go figure that's also when commercial photography started to take off.

>tasteful nudity = degeneracy

Attached: 1589991654335.png (1440x1433, 1.71M)

Non-sexual nudity is not degenerate and should be allowed in materials for all ages.

I would go further and argue that even sexual nudity is not necessarily degenerate. There is nothing degenerate about depicting reciprocated male-female love (not lust), and nothing degenerate in depicting men or women in peak physical form. In fact our media (art, games, movies, etc) should be encouraging that. One could argue that depictions of sex should be restricted to post-puberty children to reduce risks of grooming, but I don't think the material itself is inherently harmful.

Degenerate material glorifies degrading/dehumanising/dangerous behaviour and degenerate antisocial lifestyles. This includes for example pickup culture / easy sex, rape, gangbang, racemixing, anonymous sex (eg. gloryholes), gay, fetishes like anal/scat/piss/bukkake/bdsm/facials, etc. I think people can do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but publicising amounts to advertising which is contrary to the wellbeing of our society.

When I was young I thought that all the complaining about media brainwashing children/people was bullshit - I was sure I had unbiased independent thought! - but after 20 years of observing the way sheep behave in response to their media overlords about literally everything since 9/11 I am now 100% convinced that degenerate media is a significant scourge on society.

Literally fuck off, I don't want you shitting up my Spyro thread.

Attached: 1647426406302.jpg (1280x1484, 149.34K)

>the jews are pushing degeneracy!
Correct
>the jews are stopping degeneracy!
Tasteful nudity isn't degeneracy, retard. It may even help to prevent it.

Nevermind I'm retarded. Wrong thread.

because beauty was deemed unnecessary

Yes and they should include lolis.

We've had this thread before.
But I enjoy them so I will take the bait.

As a nudist, I say yes. If there's one thing BotW filled me with a desire to do, it was to run through big open fields naked, and you can only partially do that.

Retard.

This.
The ironic thing is that when you treat nudity as taboo, and sexuality too (they are separate but overlap), then you eventually create a sick society. Look at us. Look at Japan. There you go.

As a nudist, I say yes to that as well.