Am I Wrong to feel Vindicated by this 'Censorship'?

[Angelblaze]

But I'd ask AngelBlaze a few questions for...I guess clarification and non-locked thread discussion.

A. Lion el'Jonson vs Sanguinius?

B. Is there a level of consumer based critique of Work in Progress that is acceptable? because from what I can tell, its the developer's way or Go fuck yourself you entitled shit, you don't even deserve the dirt on our feet, give us all your money just for standing in the same room as you!

C. Bayonetta? Ya' or Nay?

D. Diet Cherry Coke or Chipotle burrito with chicken, veggies, no cheese, beans, guac for extra and light sour cream?

A. What?
B. What?
C. Yay.
D. Neither.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Here's my answer: They have equal censorship status

Oh, okay. You think that fixing a bug is censorship? I disagree. I think that fixing a bug and removing a butt because it offends people are two completely different things, and the difference is as obvious as the noticeable lack of skin on a ubisoft character's face.

That's not what I said.

But glad we both agree they have the same censorship status, namely none.

So no, I'm not saying "pressure is okay if it's something that bothers you".

I dunno it does seem like pressure is okay only when it's what bothers *you*

 

[EyeReaper]

I still struggle to see this as censorship, considering that they changed it of their own free will.

I can't agree with that. I mean, if willingness determines censorship, then things like 4kids "poison suction cups" or the infamous E.T. Walkie Talkie guns no longer count.

In fact, that's kinda the biggest problem on display here, isn't it? Seems like literally everyone has a different definition of censorship

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I suppose it's technically fallacious to call people hypocrites unless we can name those people and point to them calling, say, Cammy's ass slap getting removed from Street Fighter V then laughing when something gets removed from Steven Universe, but god, it's really hard not to agree with your end assessment.

The problem in calling it fallacious is that were I to name such people, it would likely count as "calling out" and get me warned.

More broadly speaking, however, how much did you hear about the "censorship" of Mevis from that Final Fantasy game? How many cries of "censorship" did you hear over an athletic male in a revealing outfit? In fact, how often do you actually hear an outcry against such things unless it's girls' panties or ass shots? Does it come from the same people?

The "Mevis" thread I could find on here lasted three pages. The Tracer thread is on page eleven. And it's being brought up elsewhere. A lot.

I'll be honest, I think the character design for Mevis was awful, but I've generally hated character designs for FF games since they got detailed enough for me to hate. I thought they were bad in FFVII, and it's like an experiment to see how ridiculous they can get. I mean, censorship is censorship and censorship is bad, right? We've been told just recently that the most disturbing thing about Tracer and Star Ocean is that nobody would have noticed, and here almost nobody did.

The bigger irony is that they made a character whose armour resembles the attire women are frequently stuck in and it made men uncomfortable.

I also had trouble finding a lot of YouTubers or the usual Twitter folks demanding we gets us some hot man-ass. Well, man side-boob.

A search for a thread on KiA brought back nothing. I could find numerous results for Tracer from the last three days, though.

Honestly, is it fallacious at this point? When the response is so pronounced in one instance and the silence is deafening in another?

While I get what you're saying, a lot of what you just said exposes the hypocrisy of both sides, not just one. While it's true there weren't as many people crying censorship when men's clothing becomes less sexualized, how many of the same people who normally complain about sexualization were up in arms over a man being sexualized?

Likewise for the Steven Universe thing, while there is some debate over the why of it since they apparently also censored a hetrosexual kiss, if we're going with the idea many are pushing, that it had to do with removing any gay content, then what's the big deal? After all, gay romance is offensive to some people, and when things are offensive they should apparently be removed to make it a safe space for everyone. But apparently this stopped being a case of "the public using their freedom of speech to get a company to willingly alter some work to make it less offensive", and suddenly became the dreaded censorship, despite the government having no involvement and the company doing it willingly. The reason people laughed at this is because it's a case of others getting a taste of their own medicine and seeing the consequences of pushing this idea that companies should kowtow to pressure and remove offensive content for political purposes.
And back to the previous point, it's not like rubbing it in anyone's face is exclusive to one side either. How many of the same people who would argue in favor of less sexualization were not only apathetic to the sexualization of a male character, but would actively rub it in people's face and shout "ha, now you know how it feels". How is that any different?

No side of this debate can claim to have clean hands in this department; all will object to the removal of content they want, be apathetic to the removal of content they don't care about, and support the removal of content they don't like.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

Snip

Ok, look. A media review is never objective, no matter the language being used. Objectivism is only possible through empirical means, and thus only achievable (and important) in science. Being objective means not being influenced by any bias or personal feelings. Of course a reviewer has to dial back his preconcieved notions, but only so that they don't influence his opinions on the subject matter at hand. A single human neither can nor should give an objective review of any piece of media.

I still struggle to see this as censorship, considering that they changed it of their own free will.

I can't agree with that. I mean, if willingness determines censorship, then things like 4kids "poison suction cups" or the infamous E.T. Walkie Talkie guns no longer count.

In fact, that's kinda the biggest problem on display here, isn't it? Seems like literally everyone has a different definition of censorship

Yes, but they don't need to. Censorship is done (or enforced) by someone else, usually with some kind of power over the field the censored work is appearing in. Even Self-Censorship is meant to relate to that, it occurs when a creator alters their own work in accordance to guidelines that are already in place and being enforced. That is the basic definition of the word at least.

 

[Ryotknife]

To be fair, though. I recall there was a bit of an "outcry" when Blizzard added the Blood Elves as a playable race in World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade. People claimed they weren't "masculine" enough, and it was apparently enough to dissuade some people from playing them. I guess that's the other end of the spectrum entirely, though; people were pissed that the male characters weren't oversexualised.

I could be remembering wrong, but weren't the cries of them not being masculine enough coming from people who didn't want them sexualized? As in, they wanted them to be typical male-friendly he-men rather than female-pandering sexy men? Many of the female WoW players I have known over the years think male belfs are sexy.

I thought it was because the Horde didnt want a sexy race. Horde races were "hardcore, ugly badasses"

To be honest, I'm still tickled by the fact that people genuinely believe that Blizzard just did this because one person voiced a very polite criticism. Blizzard wouldn't be doing shit if it didn't already line up with what they wanted.
I bought it up in the news thread about this but it was overlooked- me and plenty others moaned our collective asses off when the female worgen were made to look like Chihuahuas being stepped on. But Blizzard kept the derphounds. Because Blizzard does what Blizzard wants to do.

Spoiler: I will never stop being bitter about this

But yes I also remember the FF Mobius thing and I remember nobody giving a crap then but hey apparently ladies asses in video games are sacred because... ethics?

are we talking about the same company, because Blizzard is quite famous for knee-jerking the eff out if there is any sort of public outlash. They have broken entire specs/classes for whole expansions in WoW due to it.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

snip

snip

I just had moment of reflection, and realized that this is stupid, and I really have no desire to discuss anything who disagrees with me about the following statement: "Thinking that something is terrible and should be improved, or broken and should be fixed, is not the same thing as thinking that something is offensive and should be removed."

...Um, ok, with you so far. I only wanted to point out that you were using the word "objective" wrong. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Callate]

I think I will just say this.

I get an unnerved feeling when those whose issues of choice swing around the lynchpin of others finding new reserves of empathy and sympathy start displaying a lack of empathy and sympathy towards those they'd like to start finding it in themselves.

Anger and frustration are very natural feelings, and I'm sorry to say that, however it's couched, hatred is probably also a perfectly natural human emotion.

But if all one side can find in common with the other is their mutual animosity, progress becomes a pipe dream.

I'm far from incapable of indulging in schadenfreude myself, but I try (for whatever it's worth) to limit it to individuals. I can permit myself a twinge of guilty pleasure when a BP multi-millionaire whines publicly about how everyone's so mean to him after his company leaks oil all over the Gulf or Mexico, or a Senator condemns video game violence and then is implicated in real-world illegal arms trade.

But when you get to the level of condemning some vaguely-constructed, impersonal "they"... That's sharing ground with some bad company.

 

[Erttheking]

I still struggle to see this as censorship, considering that they changed it of their own free will.

I can't agree with that. I mean, if willingness determines censorship, then things like 4kids "poison suction cups" or the infamous E.T. Walkie Talkie guns no longer count.

In fact, that's kinda the biggest problem on display here, isn't it? Seems like literally everyone has a different definition of censorship

Then there's a whole lot of censorship in the world. Every time I edit something out of my story because I didn't like it or thought it wouldn't go down that well, it was censorship. Every time decides against cussing because they're near children that's censorship. I think the problem is mainly that people, myself included are stuck in the mindset of "Censorship = bad".

 

[omega 616]

Honestly at this point with games and women looking like pole dancers in these games, I just think "*sigh* again? Really?".

I'm honestly getting sick of seeing sexually dressed women and as a straight guy that's saying something! Can't even look on facebook without seeing "kim kardashian posts another naked pic". I like to use 9gag ... Laying in bed and can't sleep? scroll for a little bit and then try to sleep again or on a bus or train and scroll while listening to a podcast etc and jesus christ, every 10 posts is a barely dressed woman with her name and either "yes she does" or "no she doesn't" as in "do porn" and every time I think "yeah, it's one of those people with boobs and a vagina, so what?". They say sex sells and EVERY company knows it!

I have no idea what kind of game this character is from, I don't know anything about the game or the character, which I also haven't seen the chracter BUT I will make two assumptions ... 1) she is wearing a 4th layer of skin. 2) a picture of her will be of her booty like she is Miranda in mass effect 2.

So when a game company says "we took a little of the sexy out", I think "yeah but I bet there is plenty left". I'm just sick of seeing women haha I am also sick of guys being the unstoppable lead but that's a different conversation.

The last good female character I saw was the girl in "the last of us" and I bet if she was 18 I wouldn't like her 'cos then you can have her be sexy. I'd rather a girl turn my mind on, rather than ... Richard, if you know what I mean.

When it comes to "creative freedom" all I hear is a good sounding excuse to be a perv 'cos why are so many of these games share this creative vision? Near fucking all of them! Maybe I am under qualified to say but it sounds like these creative teams are sexually frustrated or something and the only way they can control women or be close to women or whatever is to make their ideal woman in games.

Just wild allegations and insults to add some flavour to this conversation haha

 

[JimB]

Why is it always ME3 with you people?

Because it is a fair example of the principle being illustrated. When the complaint is about people who beat their breasts and gnash their teeth at any form of pressure ever being exerted over a created choice, even if that pressure is as mild as voicing an extremely light criticism or exercising the choice not to purchase a game which doesn't appeal because that is censorship (stances I wish I could believe are satire but are ones that have been argued at me passionately and at length), but who will not wail and moan at the overt and direct pressure exerted over the Mass Effect 3 ending, then there is a deep hypocrisy on display. Without an equal amount of outrage devoted to the latter act of "censorship," one must give the lie to anyone who claims to be offended by the censorship of making an imaginary person wear more pants, because the actions on display do not back up the stated principle. The stated principle seems to be less accurate than something rather more like, "I should always have what I want," or perhaps, "My enemies must never have what they want."

If you, MC1980, are not someone who has ever claimed that any form of pressure on a creator is censorship and therefore inherently wrong, then no one making the comparison between this case and that is talking about you, and you may rest secure in the knowledge that you have nothing to defend. If you have asserted in the past the hypocritical belief I described, though, then all I can do is shrug and hope you have fun insulting your enemies, because the shoe seems to fit.

 

[Bombiz]

Why is it always ME3 with you people?

Because it is a fair example of the principle being illustrated. When the complaint is about people who beat their breasts and gnash their teeth at any form of pressure ever being exerted over a created choice, even if that pressure is as mild as voicing an extremely light criticism or exercising the choice not to purchase a game which doesn't appeal because that is censorship (stances I wish I could believe are satire but are ones that have been argued at me passionately and at length), but who will not wail and moan at the overt and direct pressure exerted over the Mass Effect 3 ending, then there is a deep hypocrisy on display. Without an equal amount of outrage devoted to the latter act of "censorship," one must give the lie to anyone who claims to be offended by the censorship of making an imaginary person wear more pants, because the actions on display do not back up the stated principle. The stated principle seems to be less accurate than something rather more like, "I should always have what I want," or perhaps, "My enemies must never have what they want."

If you, MC1980, are not someone who has ever claimed that any form of pressure on a creator is censorship and therefore inherently wrong, then no one making the comparison between this case and that is talking about you, and you may rest secure in the knowledge that you have nothing to defend. If you have asserted in the past the hypocritical belief I described, though, then all I can do is shrug and hope you have fun insulting your enemies, because the shoe seems to fit.

I'm still torn on this whole mass effect 3 thing,Mainly because the new endings we got where better than the original. That I thought the reason for the bad endings was that they where rushed by EA.

 

[JimB]

I'm still torn on this whole Mass Effect 3 thing, mainly because the new endings we got were better than the original.

Better and worse are irrelevant, at least in terms of the admittedly fucking goofy but nevertheless real arguments that any form of pressure exerted on a creator is censorship and inherently wicked. It would be like me saying, "I believe murder is wrong...but then again, I really do hate my boss, so the thing I just said is wrong is okay because I dislike the person who suffers from my abandonment of principles."

 

[Ryotknife]

Why is it always ME3 with you people?

Because it is a fair example of the principle being illustrated. When the complaint is about people who beat their breasts and gnash their teeth at any form of pressure ever being exerted over a created choice, even if that pressure is as mild as voicing an extremely light criticism or exercising the choice not to purchase a game which doesn't appeal because that is censorship (stances I wish I could believe are satire but are ones that have been argued at me passionately and at length), but who will not wail and moan at the overt and direct pressure exerted over the Mass Effect 3 ending, then there is a deep hypocrisy on display. Without an equal amount of outrage devoted to the latter act of "censorship," one must give the lie to anyone who claims to be offended by the censorship of making an imaginary person wear more pants, because the actions on display do not back up the stated principle. The stated principle seems to be less accurate than something rather more like, "I should always have what I want," or perhaps, "My enemies must never have what they want."

If you, MC1980, are not someone who has ever claimed that any form of pressure on a creator is censorship and therefore inherently wrong, then no one making the comparison between this case and that is talking about you, and you may rest secure in the knowledge that you have nothing to defend. If you have asserted in the past the hypocritical belief I described, though, then all I can do is shrug and hope you have fun insulting your enemies, because the shoe seems to fit.

Mass effect 3 ending, and endings in general in entertainment, are important part of the game and most of the time not optional. This was a completely optional victory pose they wanted remove. If this victory pose was the only pose you were stuck with, fair game. But I should point out that in many Blizzard games, you usually are stuck with little emotes like /dance that doesnt fit your character either. That poster wanted to REMOVE options from a game. That is something that people are usually adamantly AGAINST.

Lets put it this way, lets take fallout 4. It has multiple difficulty options. It just added the beta for survival mode. Now imagine if they removed all difficulties other than survival mode. People would be pissed, and rightly so. I thought our community was fighting for more options and diversity, not removing them so some Puritan wannabe doesnt get offended.

 

[JimB]

Mass Effect 3's ending, and endings in general in entertainment, are important parts of the game and most of the time not optional. This was a completely optional victory pose they wanted remove. If this victory pose was the only pose you were stuck with, fair game. That poster wanted to remove options from a game. That is something that people are usually adamantly against.

Okay, but none of that addresses anything I said, so I'm not sure why you're quoting me here. Let me summarize my post:

People who have said, "Any form of pressure to change a creator's content is censorship and is inherently wrong," but have not chosen to apply that absolute principle to all situations in which it occurs, are being hypocritical. The argument has no qualifiers about the quality of the change, the necessity, or the purpose, so such conditions are irrelevant. Either a thing is censorship under that paradigm and is therefore wrong, or it is not; and if you do not hold and never have held that paradigm, then I am not talking about you and you have nothing to defend.