i'm feeling pretty mixed about the face rubbing thing

[Meiyu]

I don't really mind the face-rubbing, I actually think it's hilarious

but I am kinda worried there is going to be way to much fanservice in this game (like the Onsen for example).

[Stage7_4]

I'm thinking lack of information is causing speculation to turn to horror, but I admit that this isn't something I'd want people to see me doing while riding the bus.

That said, I don't really care about weird optional content as long as the core gameplay is intact, so the only way this would hurt me is if it was required for something (like replacing supports or required for them).

I do wish we'd cut down on the blame game though, no need to point fingers at Pokemon, otaku, weeaboo, Persona, or anything else other than the developer.

[Irysa]

Time to commit forum social suicide.

I'm sure you're honest enough to admit this is a minority view. Most people would find the consumption of animated child pornography downright disturbing, and judging those who enjoy such material is plenty reasonable. If this is the case, it follows that judgment for lesser degrees of the same activity is acceptable.

Actively creepy behaviour is very different from creepy preferences. I don't think wider social circles need to be openly accepting of such things, but there's an implict assumption here that anyone with preferences you find creepy behaves like a creep in public spaces. You're correct that if someone admits that they do what you described, then they're basically opening themselves up to free season on people making judgements, and I agree that it's reasonable to do so given taboos. However, I can't agree on principle that there's anything inherantly morally wrong about animated material existing that depicts things that I am uncomfortable with. Of course, we can feel repulsed by it, but it is essentially a branch of thought crime to attempt to actively label it as morally wrong or attack preferences that you dislike.

You may find this post on a related subject interesting.

Now having said that, there is a stark difference between slash fanfic writers and doujin artists creating effectively harmless fap material, and large gaming companies pandering to such inclinations directly in an unabashed way. If is still a long way off from that, but features like this give off an air of the approach that developers such as Compile Heart, Tamsoft and imageepoch take with regards to their target audiences. Whilst it may be what I would call "harmless", I think we can reserve the right to disapprove of designs and features that exist for blatant indulgence, as such things don't really need to be so openly embraced. The problem is the internet has a tendency to create insular communities where people restrict their interactions to a minority of like-minded denizens, and this can warp perceptions of social stigmas. I mean it's even happened to me, as someone who is well versed in Japanese media, I don't find this feature "creepy" (although at least I very much still understand why people find it creepy). As both BrightBow and I have said, our concern is more with the fact that it yet again further reduces character agency by turning them into "pets" that exist to pander to the player, and as a result, reduces the cohesiveness of the game's narrative and any attempt to take it seriously. If the game's purpose is to be pandery pseudo-fetish material shipping simulator 2015 then so be it, but I think it's ridiculous to attempt to have any pretense of a seriously maintained narrative within the same work. I just can't get over the duality of a game that clearly has some pretense to be some Romance of Three Kingdoms esque war drama that simulteanously makes frequent attempts to undermine the human-ness of individuals.

tl;dr, indulgence is fine but I think trying to combine it with anything trying to be a serious product is a massive error. The fact face rubbing exists isn't the problem, it's part of a larger issue wrt design philosophy that is steadily spreading throughout the series, game by game. FE isn't interested in being taken seriously in any capacity at all anymore I feel.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Irysa

[feplus]

I don't think I suggested creepy behaviors and creepy preferences were synonymous.

"Thought crime" is a term that gets thrown around to silence certain types of criticism, but sometimes it's good to thought-police. Surely it's okay to condemn a man who has homicidal thoughts (even if he doesn't act on them). Surely it's okay to condemn a man who has pedophilia on the brain (even if he doesn't act on the impulse). And I'd extend this kind of judgment to include animated child pornography: it doesn't involve the suffering of real kids, but it's a decadent preference that can only be enjoyed if one gets sexual pleasure out of watching the raping of children. Imaginary, but still unsettling.

I agree with the rest of your post.

Edited June 1, 2015 by feplus

[Aekenon]

I'll be honest and say that I'm made uncomfortable by the notion of physically rubbing your screen as some kind of conceit for "bonding with characters." What is that even trying to simulate? This isn't how humans work. It creates a weird kind of dissonance that turns the characters into toys for your amusement, cutting their believability as living, breathing people. I'm not against games having graphic depictions of relationships, even all the way to sexy-times, but that's not what this is. Like, at all. This kind of system isn't showing two characters having an intimate moment -- it's showing one character being a fawning submissive to the player. It's showing an object rather than a personality. Who's it hurting? No one. Sure. Except the potential depth of each and every character who can partake in this little side-game. As someone who's long adored Fire Emblem for its characters and the Support system, it concerns me that this delivery mechanism for thoughtful banter and backstory might be being co-opted for player-fantasy-fulfillment material instead.

There's a little bit of doom-saying there, but suffice to say I don't care for the direction one bit. I'm also hoping this isn't an indication that the team's become susceptible to corporate wankery and decision-making.

The rest of the stuff they were showing in the My Castle segment looked friggin' rad though. Hopefully I can just safely ignore this 'rubbing feature'. I hate that I want to say that about something in Fire Emblem though.

YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS, FIRE EMBLEM. YOU'RE BETTER THAN THIS.

DRAAAAAMAAAAA

[Irysa]

I don't think I suggested creepy behaviors and creepy preferences were synonymous.

I wouldn't call someone who doesn't behave like a creep a creep. I don't think you made this distinction clear. People often have internal prejudices that they recognise and try to act against. Having a prejudiced thought is not a problem if you do not actualise that thought into reality. The mind is too complex to be made into a binary machine. f.ex I know I definitely still have some prejudices against certain social groups, but I try to act fairly to them regardless of what I may think, because I believe it is important and fair that I do so.

"Thought crime" is a term that gets thrown around to silence certain types of criticism, but sometimes it's good to thought-police. Surely it's okay to condemn a man who has homicidal thoughts (even if he doesn't act on them). Surely it's okay to condemn a man who has pedophilia on the brain (even if he doesn't act on the impulse). And I'd extend this kind of judgment to include animated child pornography: it doesn't involve the suffering of real kids, but it's a decadent preference that can only be enjoyed if one gets sexual pleasure out of watching the raping of children. Imaginary, but still unsettling.

You're being a bit misrepresentative. I am not attempting to silence your criticism, I am making an objection on the basis that beliefs that I disagree with are simply that, beliefs. Nobody should be condemned by what they may think, only by what they do and say. Thoughts are free, and should always be free, no matter how much we may disagree with different thoughts. That comes down to an inherant belief in the value of the individual and liberalism. Repressing "socially unacceptable" urges is different from trying to argue such thoughts are morally unacceptable. We all constantly suppress things that we may be inclined to do or say based on our subconscious/instinct, because we have to work within societial frameworks. The thought is not wrong, and people are not inherantly bad for having such urges.

The physical manefestation of fictional material (with no involvement of real individuals) that indulges those thoughts is I think, perfectly fine, as long as it is not a large definitive aspect of a person's experiences. Heavy indulgence in such material is like eating junk food all the time, it's unhealthy. If you sat around jerking off to porn all day it would be the same, regardless of whether or not you were fantasising about two consenting adults in a heterosexual missionary position or something "less vanilla".

Edited June 1, 2015 by Irysa

[capmalachi]

it's good to thought-police.

... Are you trolling?

By the way, this may confuse you slightly, but a minor face rubbing minigame involving characters in a video game is slightly different to raping children.

[feplus]

People use the word "creep" to describe behaviors and thoughts, and that's what I had in mind. If that wasn't clear before, hopefully it's clear now.

Everyone deals with imperfect thoughts, but some deviances are severe enough to warrant judgment. I've argued that animated child pornography qualifies: enjoying it means enjoying watching children get raped. This isn't some grey area case. This is deeply unsettling, wrong, and should be condemned.

Your sanctity-of-the-mind mentality is common, but I'd want to ask why you feel that way. Are we in control of our thoughts, like we our with behaviors? If so, why shouldn't we be held accountable for things we do voluntarily?

By the way, this may confuse you slightly, but a minor face rubbing minigame involving characters in a video game is slightly different to raping children.

I'm wondering if I'm out of the loop here and making posts demonstrating dreadful reading comprehension is a secret game users here like to play when they're bored.

I did not compare face-rubbing to animated child pornography. I used the latter as an extreme example illustrating that judging preferences is often quite normal. I then went on to argue that unironically enjoying face-rubbing is another, less extreme, example of creepiness warranting judgment.

[goodperson707]

^ so what if there was a culture out there that didn't find anything wrong with face-touching in some or all circumstances. would you consider that creepiness warranting judgement?

[Irysa]

Your sanctity-of-the-mind mentality is common, but I'd want to ask why you feel that way. Are we in control of our thoughts, like we our with behaviors? If so, why shouldn't we be held accountable for things we do voluntarily?

I definitely do not believe I am in control of all my impulses, as I outlined in edits (sorry, I do that a lot). I actively repress many thoughts I have and things I may feel out of respect and knowledge of social ettiquete and integration into society. Of course, I make errors sometimes, but I definitely know I'm not alone in this. To be human is to struggle with attempting to craft oneself into your own ideal self, to self-actualise what you want to be and do into reality. One of my own problems is that in terms of ideas and beliefs, I'm a passionate romanticist, but I have a very strong grounded pragmatic side that chides this and attempts to overrule it constantly. Thoughts are innate and tied to many things beyond our own control, and we have enough automatic responses and schematical, predictable behavioural patterns as a species that this can't be denied.

However, we have a choice as to whether we entertain or indulge those thoughts. I do believe light indulgence in such things is fine, as pure repression tends to have negative effects as well. The problem is all out indulgence. To repeat myself

The physical manefestation of fictional material (with no involvement of real individuals) that indulges those thoughts is I think, perfectly fine, as long as it is not a large definitive aspect of a person's experiences. Heavy indulgence in such material is like eating junk food all the time, it's unhealthy. If you sat around jerking off to porn all day it would be the same, regardless of whether or not you were fantasising about two consenting adults in a heterosexual missionary position or something "less vanilla".

Edited June 1, 2015 by Irysa

[feplus]

@goodperson707: I'm not a cultural relativist. Some cultures get things right and some get things wrong. If, for example, a culture believed it was socially acceptable (and not creepy) to grope female strangers as a kind of greeting, it would still be creepy regardless of that culture's thoughts on the matter. It's not appropriate to treat women's bodies as objects made for the pleasure of men.

@Irysa: Then we simply differ about the nature of thought. While some thoughts, particularly small ones, are impulsive and seem to drift in and out of our consciousness, major ones are within our control. And we are also in control of whether we entertain unhealthy thoughts. By "entertain" I do not mean act upon; I mean allow to keep at the forefront, indulge. If a person enjoys something as awful as animated child pornography, there is something wrong with that person and in most cases that "something wrong" is voluntary.

Not all cases. Some people are psychologically ill and cannot control what they think and whether they indulge unhealthy thoughts. But these are rare.

Since this is a heavy topic and a major tangent, maybe best to leave it at an agree-to-disagree.

[ENS]

No Irysa. No. Don't try to use the excuse of the harmless fetish material. Because feplus and the other aren't pointing the finger at the generalized fetish niche. Don't.

They are talking about child pornography.

Fucking. Child. PORNOGRAPHY.

I see this kind of taste not only creepy, but abominable. And if you are trying to convince us that there's nothing wrong in infant pornography, well, I think we can just end the discussion here, because will not reach a compromise.

Edited June 1, 2015 by ENS

[capmalachi]

I'd like to once again remind people that this discussion is supposed to be about a face rubbing minigame in a video game.

[Irysa]

@ENS

Actually, he was talking about animated/drawn child pornography, and so was I. Actual child pornography has victims. Of course that's morally wrong, and I never said otherwise. I don't believe the existance of a drawn image depicting that is morally wrong, even if I dislike it.

@Irysa: Then we simply differ about the nature of thought. While some thoughts, particularly small ones, are impulsive and seem to drift in and out of our consciousness, major ones are within our control. And we are also in control of whether we entertain unhealthy thoughts. By "entertain" I do not mean act upon; I mean allow to keep at the forefront, indulge. If a person enjoys something as awful as animated child pornography, there is something wrong with that person and in most cases that "something wrong" is voluntary.

Not all cases. Some people are psychologically ill and cannot control what they think and whether they indulge unhealthy thoughts. But these are rare.

I suppose you'd prescribe to Peter Hitchen's belief that addiction is all completely fake then? Having done basic studies into basic neuropsychology and the effects chemicals can have on our brains, I can't say I've yet to be convinced of that position - it is shockingly easy to trick the human brain. But to go back to a more personal example, I absoloutely have an instinctual reaction to examine situations in a very irrational, emotional and intense way, and to automatically default to idealistic positions. I believe it's part of my nature that this happens so frequently, because I have to constantly address this part of my mind and evaulate scenarios rationally as a secondary function. Many people I know are simply far better at taking in information in an analytical, detached fashion automatically, without forming instantaneous emotional reactions to it.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Irysa

[ENS]

I'd like to once again remind people that this discussion is supposed to be about a face rubbing minigame in a video game.

I know, but someone brought in the idea of teach us how infant pornography is just misunderstood.

Irysa, on 01 Jun 2015 - 8:01 PM, said:

@ENS

Actually, he was talking about animated/drawn child pornography, and so was I. Actual child pornography has victims. Of course that's morally wrong, and I never said otherwise.

Very well. So remains on this line.

Edited June 1, 2015 by ENS

[arvilino]

I get that, but I think that the audience being targeted by this feature, and a lot of the other features present in "My Castle" is the more casual and, dare I say, largely female crowd. Not "creeper H-game enthusiasts".

Please note that I'm not saying women don't enjoy strategy or other elements of the game, just that features like raising cute pets, dressing-up characters and amie seem to be designed to appeal to that demographic.

I can understand why people would be concerned about that, but the potential issue I see is the game becomming more social/ casual focused, not becomming more dating sim/ eroge.

That's very likely. It's games like Animal Crossing, Tomodachi, Nintendogs+Cats(Nomura revealed Kingdom Hearts 3D copied this with dreameaters. I think the face rubbing with the touch screen and raising Lilith largely stem from this) that are really popular on the 3DS for reasons that parallel some Fire Emblem features(character interactions, supports and character relationship) in a way that Fire Emblem could emulate with the My Castle feature.

I'd see no sense in them targetting H-game enthusiasts because the games that pander to those sort already sell worse than Fire Emblem does, what gain would there be in targetting that audience? But it makes perfect sense to target the players of games that have sold 3-7 million each, especially if it has a greater proportion of female players(Iwata said a little while while back their aim for growing the 3DS sales in Japan was to attract more female players to the games/system).

Edited June 1, 2015 by arvilino

[Trickster]

At this point we might start just posting memes and dongers because people just apparently don't care about the topic anymore.

But in all seriousness, what's worse, the face that we can rub some virtual person's face in-game or the fact that it's generating this much blind rage at optional content that affects a game we still know about 20% at best about?

[goodperson707]

@goodperson707: I'm not a cultural relativist. Some cultures get things right and some get things wrong. If, for example, a culture believed it was socially acceptable (and not creepy) to grope female strangers as a kind of greeting, it would still be creepy regardless of that culture's thoughts on the matter. It's not appropriate to treat women's bodies as objects made for the pleasure of men. .

how does face touching = groping only females by men though.

Also On the creepiness of face rubbing

1 last time i checked we can face rub male and females. And as the green hair ninja has hearts, we might me able to face touch as a dude now they might have a different thing for the same gender people but then they might do that as well for lower support people. We have no confirmation for most of this and we don't know how it works. 2 face touching is in itself hardly taboo it is more the why do they want to face touch at all that makes me not want to use it as that violates my idea of personal space 3 for most characters you have the option to stroke their hair as well as their face, which if they have a high support rating with that character is hardly abnormal or really that creepy.

We don't know enough about this, and even if we did we have no right to pass judgement on it even if we do find it creepy to do ourselves from the content we have now.

Edited June 1, 2015 by goodperson707

[feplus]

@Irysa: Why yes, I adore Peter Hitchens and feel his views on this topic are dead right. Not a huge surprise considering we're of the same political and religious orientation.

If you feel our view's too "radical," you could opt for an Aristotelian approach: our thoughts aren't immediately within our control from birth, but greater control can be acquired through habituation. Mental discipline, in other words. Learning through practice not to indulge unhealthy thoughts.

With that approach, individuals (not including the psychologically impaired) are still accountable for possessing disturbing preferences, just in a more roundabout way. It's a decent compromise.

@goodperson707: I didn't equate those two things.

If everyone could read more carefully before making posts that'd be great.

[goodperson707]

Then

@goodperson707: I didn't equate those two things.

If everyone could read more carefully before making posts that'd be great.

Then tell me why we are allowed to judge the people who are fine with face touching creepy then?

I forgot to add an also Sue Me.

Please work on addressing what they people are saying not nitpicking posts that would be great.

[feplus]

It's not a nitpick. Responding to a post is pointless if you haven't understood what's been argued.

Judgment is not culturally contingent. Some practices are creepy and some are not, and this is true independent of how particular cultures view things.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

what the hell happen to my topic?

alright i'm askin a mod to lock this now, get any discussions done with, wrapped up'd, or make a new thread about them because i refuse to get anymore warning points for this convo that someone devolved into pedophilia and memes, the topic might not get locked, but i'm hoping some form of order gets restored.