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.
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.
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.
Well, you're right that it was concise, at least..
they at least had thoughts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand the logic. Why would you choose this path? Disclosing the nature of the scenes during hiring would only attract exactly the people who are already comfortable with performing the content.
The only reason to hide it would be to attach more popular names to your title, but think that through. So you've trapped your talent, and sprung a spicy scene on them last minute, now what?
They'll:
a) flat out refuse
b) maybe sue you
c) give an uncomfortable, lackluster performance
d) happen to be cool with it and also give a good performance
D is both the only really good outcome, and by far the least probable, 10% chance tops.
C isn't great, but at least their name is on the box, and they do the other parts well. I'd say about 40% probability.
A means more complications any way you slice it, either editing scenes or hiring additional talent, probably about 30%, .
B is about 15%, leaving 5% for the lizardmen.
If the content is that crucial to the product, find a performer who is willing and able to do it well.
Edit: To clarify, not only is throwing adult scenes at performers last minute unethical, it's also stupid.
So your fine with traumatizing individuals who arent ready for such work???
No, that's uncomfortably stupid. They can be told a generic summary of what they will be doing. "There will be a scene involving SA, in the script. You will have to be okay with this in order to voice on this project. "
Also, please God, what the hell is that formatting. You list a, b, c, d then go on to expand D, C, A, B. My formatting sucks but yours almost sent me in a dyslexic rage.
Worst of all I don't even know if your for this or against it. I may be stupid but it feel like you said both, the first paragraph and last paragraph seem to contradict each other.