Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[Fappy]

The only thing that shocks me about this is:

How... just how hard did Other M fail? I mean, I knew it was bad, but even being absolute shit I didn't imagine it botch "4-player co-op with pvp football game" bad.

Nintendo, we still like Samus. Just stop being weird about her.

It's really not about Other M, specifically. Nintendo has a long history of ignoring the Metroid franchise. Huge gaps between entries in the series are nothing new. In fact, IIRC Samus had only been in three total games before she was featured in Super Smash Bros. 64, that last one being several years before the fighter launched.

It's tough being a Metroid fan.

 

[The Jovian]

This isn't censorship because that would imply that there was anything of artistic merit about this game to censor, also this isn't censorship because censorship involves changing a work, not preventing it from existing, games are just as much products as they are pieces of art and as a result people are within their rights to attempt to prevent a product's existence if they feel as if it is going to be of poor quality, and as evidenced by the trailer and the game's premise this will indeed be a terrible game that does nothing but add another nail in the franchise's coffin.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

"Your game will die unless you do X" is just criticism. Sensationalist criticism but just criticism all the same. There is no threat there.

Really? I perceive a threat. So did the half of the forum that violently argued against the ME3 debacle, claiming criticism of the ending was forcing Bioware to self-censor and violating their right to authorial fiat. We had massive, sprawling threads on it.

Boycotts are simply a way of saying "I will not spend my money on this product." Seeing as that is the default state of affairs that is not a threat. Just like "your game will die unless you do X" it's just a sensationalist way of expressing criticism.

Again, I disagree. There were calls on one of our other forums for an organized boycott of Obsidian post poem-edit. The hope was to run them out of business as a testament to what happens when a company "bows to the whims of SJWs". That's not simple criticism.

This literally nothing to do with what I wrote.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Again, this is nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

If I hadn't thought it had anything to do with what you were talking about, I wouldn't have responded as I did. Intentional or not, your post supported certain assertions, most principally that "gamers" were benign with their criticisms. I apologize if you feel I'm off-point, but forum posts are hardly an exacting medium of communication and some level of misapprehension should be assumed. I'm not "trying to derail" the thread. I like the thread, or I wouldn't have participated in it.

...you seem to have made a lot of assumptions about me based on that.
Assumptions that are wrong.

I don't recall making any assumptions or statements about you or your character whatsoever. You said a thing, I interpreted what you said a particular way. Me speaking to the argument you appeared to be making is not me "making assumptions about you".

 

[w23eer]

So I'm guessing they're mostly annoyed with

a) the "chibi" art style...

This whole thing sorta reminds me of the outrage about LoZ: Windwaker back in the day because of its art style - it's one of those things that seem absolutely ridiculous in hindsight.

I mean, this probably won't turn out as good as Windwaker or anything, but I think it's certainly worth a chance.

 

[Quellist]

That game looks so horrible and unlike Metroid Prime that I honestly wondered if Nintendo were trolling gamers. However I don't think I could care enough to sign a petition. Just like that dumbass "Please, please Squeenix give us a remade final fantasy 7 with antiquated game mechanics and zero new content" I'll leave that level of involvement to the diehard fanbois

 

[DEAD34345]

It's (attempted) censorship, and I don't really like it. I'm not really too bothered by it in this case because it's just an attempt to censor something on the basis that they don't like it, I tend to consider trying to censor things because of their political views (or something) much more obnoxious and harmful.

Also it's kind of petty and pointless and will almost certainly have no effect, so that kind of limits my ability to be outraged by it too. I don't think they have the power to actually do anything to Nintendo or their game. If they did I'd find it very worrying, and probably be pretty pissed off.

 

[Erttheking]

As much as I dislike this game, yes, the fans demanding its cancellation are practicing censorship in my eyes.

I posted a thread here recently asking whether a game can ever make you say "This game should not exist!", and I said "No". I practice what I preach.

Or, you know, Nintendo can just say no. The petition doesn't have any real power and nothing has been changed. Petition's =/= censorship.

People really throw around the word censorship freely nowadays don't they. And even if it is censorship, is it really morally wrong? Gorrath has a point, censorship happens all the time, it isn't the always morally abhorrent thing the internet makes it out to be.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

There's very little room for interpretation in what I wrote and the only way I can imagine you thinking those last three paragraphs were relevant to what I'm saying is if you made assumptions about me and placed me in the "keep politics out of our games"/gamergate stereotype.

It is not my intention to shoehorn you into a camp. I was just addressing what you're saying. I was also speaking to the thread at large, so there were some generalities about statements and arguments made elsewhere on the same topic.

You're going to have to go back and re-read my posts like I suggested. My posts dealt with nothing to do with the nature of criticisms (aside from a single sentence that detailed that my post had nothing to do with the nature of the criticism), only how those criticisms are used.

Alright, I'm going to go back and show you specifically what I was responding to in your post.

As far as I'm aware nobody flooded Ready at Dawn's twitter or email with the criticism of QTEs and demanded it be changed or else. People just made their criticism and let it out into the world for the developer to act on should they wish. This is more akin to the "listen to what I have to say and if I persuade you to change your opinions your art will change to reflect that" approach I referenced above. Like I said, I don't feel like this approach could be considered by anyone to be self-censorship.

This, to me, reads as a blanket defense/dismissal of criticism directed at game play/mechanics. "Can't be considered by anyone to be self-censorship". I assume you meant "provoke self-censorship"? If not I'm a bit confused but it was probably a typo. It's characterized as "people just made their criticism and let it out into the world". It sounds positively genteel. I don't know if that was your intent, but as I said, I found the suggestion somewhat risible.

But in reaction to the potentially transphobic joke in Pillars of Eternity, people did flood Obsidian's twitter and email demanding that it be changed. People didn't just put their criticism out there but forced Obsidian (more specifically, the contributer of that particular joke) to change their art according to the criticism in order to end the negative PR campaign that was labeling them transphobic, sexist and regressive amongst other things. The replacement joke even illustrates that the contributer did not want to change the joke but ended up having to under pressure.

So now in contrast, you raise the specter of the PoE poem debate. These people, unlike the first batch, didn't just "put their criticism out there", they FORCED Obsidian into a change in order to "end a negative PR campaign". Why does one form of "change it or else" constitute a "negative PR campaign", and the other does not? How did they "force" them exactly? You've created a dichotomy between two forms of criticism, suggested one is harmful and the other innocent, but provided no substantiation as to why this is the case. Is PR only negative when it's politicized? Would you not characterize the ME3 debacle as "bad PR"? You state the game was not under any pressure as the copies were already sold, but it was an ongoing IP...their most successful and high selling IP, and one that likely stood to gain a great deal of money from post-launch DLC if the "The game is over, BUY DLC!" ending disclaimer was anything to go by.

See there's a big difference between just making criticism (the former) and demanding your criticism be acted upon or else (the latter). And it's entirely understandable that some people would be concerned by the latter and not the former.

What is it? What is the difference? You hand wave one and suggest the other is pernicious, but beyond your stated attitude towards them, what is it I am to understand makes these two forms of otherwise identical behavior so different?

 

[Redd the Sock]

**sigh**

Censorship is something with a lot of knee-jerk reactions to it with very little understanding of why we generally see it as a bad thing, but often do it and justify it. But at the same time there are variations to the world that say sometimes it's good, and sometimes it's bad. Few would argue you shouldn't insult you boss if you want to stay employed, but fewer would say you should never under any circumstances contradict your boss and you should be fired for not agreeing at all times. The former a level of respect that should be afforded to people in stations above you is fairly reasonable reasons to self censor especially in the heat of the moment. The latter, the reaction of an egotistical narcissist afraid of any ideas not their own or the idea of being wrong, can actually be very harmful to the company.

As it stands, While hyperbolic, the backlash against the new metroid is based in an old complaint about trying to slip new IPs into an old brand. That you shouldn't, say, call your movie Catwoman if isn't about a female cat burglar, or that it's lazy to slap mario or pokemon onto your puzzle game to boost sales. I'm honestly mixed in that area as I have been burned by a few "in name only" sequels and spin offs, but then think Metroid fans of all people should have learned from Prime that someone not to our expectations can still be completely awesome. Still, I think my only problem with that is the calls to cancel, not just rebrand the game.

Compared to what normally gets caught in the self censorship debate it seems more benign because I don't think anyone is really trying to stop an idea, while the pulling of that Pillars of Eternity poem, GTA from a couple of targets, Hatred from Steam, stopping a few comic covers, or even comedian's jokes have roots in being fearful of certain ideas. This idea can not proliferate so it must e stopped before it can. I realize some people are about to try and defend that mindset, but I've lived too long to have not seen it applied by others. Too many periods where you couldn't include gay people or have anything anti religion lest you bring down the church on you, or political periods were it was okay to get someone fired if they went against the political norm. Hell, I've seen things like games and comics fight hard for the right to go against the moral majority or the religious right to o long to see it replaced by moral majority of the hyper sensitive left.

Any pressure to see an idea reformed but kept true to its intent is not censorship. Pressure to stop an idea at all is. You might think you're justified, but so do bible thumpers, activists groups like PETA or One Million Moms (yes they're still around) or right wing pundants upset when a movie message is too liberal.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've noticed something about gaming. Its hard to accurately gauge the real pulse of the community at times. Sometimes the loud voices are in unison and honestly throngs of people truly against something that is being done somewhere in the industry. Conversely sometimes there are times where the voices shouting are few but are so loud because the ones who've no issue with it remain silent.
Silent majorities who've no issue tend to be more prevalent than a solid vocal majority against, at least in my experience.
That being said I don't feel I can gleam enough information from a teaser or trailer to accurately gauge if a game contains content I agree or disagree with, and usually if I disagree I'll say my piece but I'm not going to actively try to force the developer to do what I want.
I may not buy the game, as I did with Hatred. I didn't speak out about it, nor for it. I saw what it was, decided it wasn't something I was interested in and moved on. I played Other M, and found it to be a poor entry in the series, only because of terrible decisions amongst the writers. Again though I voted with my wallet and didn't buy it, just borrowed it to see what the fuss was about.
When I finished Mass Effect 3, I was only slightly disappointed but I never understood the loud outrage over the ending. I tried to stay out of that fight too but I did end up defending BioWare's decision.
I may be able to judge whether I like another person's (or team's) work or not but I'm also not about to go rage at them for not doing what I wanted.
That being said, protest away if you will. But really the change can't come from the audience unless the audience sticks to their convictions when they say they won't buy this game. Remember MW2's player "strike" on PC? Yeah, that was a lot of bluster and no substance and since then I've not really seen the gaming community ever actually agree to do something and follow through with it. There's no real solidarity in the gamer niche because we're diverse in tastes, subjectivity and the like.
I'm reasonably sure that most of us want more diversity in gaming, but I don't think everyone will ever agree on what defines true diversity in gaming.
I don't exactly know what my post is supposed to convey except that I feel that the gamer community is better equated with the phrase once used by President Lincoln: "A house divided cannot stand." We are extremely divided on so many lines, there can be no battle with a clear victory, only what would equate to a Phyrric victory.
I don't have answers for everything, how to solve these issues. All I know is that the real change has to come from people passionate about making the industry more diverse by working from within. One does not attack a tank with toothpick, but one can stop a tank with a well placed grenade in the hatch... or just getting inside it.
So my call is to fledgling developers and marketeers, go out there and really make the change in the industry that won't happen from without.
Agree or disagree with me I don't care so much.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Compared to what normally gets caught in the self censorship debate it seems more benign because I don't think anyone is really trying to stop an idea, while the pulling of that Pillars of Eternity poem, GTA from a couple of targets, Hatred from Steam, stopping a few comic covers, or even comedian's jokes have roots in being fearful of certain ideas. This idea can not proliferate so it must e stopped before it can. I realize some people are about to try and defend that mindset, but I've lived too long to have not seen it applied by others. Too many periods where you couldn't include gay people or have anything anti religion lest you bring down the church on you, or political periods were it was okay to get someone fired if they went against the political norm. Hell, I've seen things like games and comics fight hard for the right to go against the moral majority or the religious right to o long to see it replaced by moral majority of the hyper sensitive left.

I know what you're trying to say, Redd, and I object (powerfully) to said forms of overt censorship as well. However, there is a very tangible line between saying "This is horrible" and "This must be removed from existence". And too often I see people arguing here and elsewhere that this line does not exist, and simply by criticizing something you are creating an atmosphere of "self censorship" which is perilous, has a chilling effect on art, etc, etc.

For example, I have no problem with the argument "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!". I don't AGREE with it. But I don't find it to be a "problematic argument", or a call for an idea to be killed.

What I *am* seeing quite frequently is statements that arguments such as "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!" represent a pernicious and dangerous ideology that must be drummed from the industry if it has any hope of survival. That, to me, registers as the "let's kill this idea" moral panic you are describing. I have heard quite literal arguments along the lines of "We must stop these people, lest their crazy values influence our hobby/way of life".

 

[Olas]

The game looks fine, it just shouldn't wear the Metroid brand. From what I can tell it has approximately nothing in common with the lonely, exploration based, single player games that have popularized the series.

If it had a different name nobody would be complaining.

 

[Rad Party God]

Just a bunch of crybabies doing a tantrun for a game they haven't even played.

 

[Mutant1988]

If the only issue is the name of the game then I don't really see it being an issue that's worth Nintendo taking it seriously.

 

[CaitSeith]

Just a bunch of crybabies doing a tantrun for a game they haven't even played.

Isn't like that all the game controversies lately?

 

[Rad Party God]

Just a bunch of crybabies doing a tantrun for a game they haven't even played.

Isn't like that all the game controversies lately?

*Sigh* You're absolutely right :/

 

[Redd the Sock]

Compared to what normally gets caught in the self censorship debate it seems more benign because I don't think anyone is really trying to stop an idea, while the pulling of that Pillars of Eternity poem, GTA from a couple of targets, Hatred from Steam, stopping a few comic covers, or even comedian's jokes have roots in being fearful of certain ideas. This idea can not proliferate so it must e stopped before it can. I realize some people are about to try and defend that mindset, but I've lived too long to have not seen it applied by others. Too many periods where you couldn't include gay people or have anything anti religion lest you bring down the church on you, or political periods were it was okay to get someone fired if they went against the political norm. Hell, I've seen things like games and comics fight hard for the right to go against the moral majority or the religious right to o long to see it replaced by moral majority of the hyper sensitive left.

I know what you're trying to say, Redd, and I object (powerfully) to said forms of overt censorship as well. However, there is a very tangible line between saying "This is horrible" and "This must be removed from existence". And too often I see people arguing here and elsewhere that this line does not exist, and simply by criticizing something you are creating an atmosphere of "self censorship" which is perilous, has a chilling effect on art, etc, etc.

For example, I have no problem with the argument "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!". I don't AGREE with it. But I don't find it to be a "problematic argument", or a call for an idea to be killed.

What I *am* seeing quite frequently is statements that arguments such as "This PoE poem is transphobic! Boo!" represent a pernicious and dangerous ideology that must be drummed from the industry if it has any hope of survival. That, to me, registers as the "let's kill this idea" moral panic you are describing. I have heard quite literal arguments along the lines of "We must stop these people, lest their crazy values influence our hobby/way of life".

I don't have easy answers here either, but a question does run through my mind when this kind of things comes up: if not to try and see it done less or have it undone, why are you criticizing it in the way you are? Take as the opposite side of things: we all rag on Twilight, but how many treat even its existence as some kind of issue. We make a wisecrack and move on to something we enjoy while still acknowledging it having a right to exist. Most of us don't even go that far not giving something clearly not trying to please us specifically any attention. My mother finds South Park offensive (hell she finds Big Bang Theory offensive) but that's where it stops. Compare that to some of the stinks I mentioned above which had language and attitudes more in the "how dare something I find offensive exist, I must let the world know about that."

I don't think it's intentional. But I do think a lot of criticisms get made without though to how they'll be taken by people that have heard too many criticisms of the things they like from outside groups for being too violent, too anti-christian, too left leaning etc. such that sexism and trans issues now become the new morality boogeymen. Just another group of people here to say nothing but how upset they are that others aren't doing what they like and approve of. The tap dancing about the meaning of words while ignoring intent only adds to the problem.

I mean, I'd like to know what I'm missing, but I am at the point of asking (as an example) why complain about Hatred if not that you don't want a game with that message to get out, and to hope that negative backlash will get it stopped? A governmetal ban would at least be honest.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Take note of the likes to dislikes ratio on that video. (I run a browser plugin that hides Youtube comments, but I'm guessing they're not exactly flattering either.)

They're so angry it's almost funny

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Demanding a game be cancelled is fucking stupid.

I don't care if someone makes a game where all you do is stomp on babies heads, it has a right to exist. Period. Purchasing the baby stomp game is optional, if you don't want it you're under no obligation to even look at it.

Same goes here, if you don't want this game, guess what? You don't have to buy it. In fact, if enough people don't buy it Nintendo will probably realize you want an old Metroid just like you used to get.

That being said, making a Metroid without Samus is fucking stupid and what the fuck are you doing, Nintendo? Do you really expect me to give you my money?

 

[Nazulu]

I don't even know how anyone takes Nintendo seriously enough to become aggressive over something so insignificant as this. My personal feelings aside -

They haven't taken direct control over the material so I do not see it as any form of censorship.