Censorship! Vile, disgusting CENSORSHIP!

[MonsterCrit]

Just to be absolutely clear I am somewhat, but not entirely, taking the piss here.

So... Nintendo recently announced a 3DS Metroid game. It's called Metroid Prime Federation Force. Have a trailer [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGu3Xe1uUUg]. It looks very jolly.

It turns out that some Metroid fans are not happy about this. 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.)

In fact, some 12,000 and counting fans have signed one of those awesomely potent online petitions [https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-petition-for-cancelation-of-metroid-prime-federation-force] in which they criticise multiple aspects of the game and demand for it to be cancelled.

Now I have at times engaged in some highly amusing discussions regarding what does and does not constitute censorship and violation of creative free speech in regards to video games. I wish to know from people who feel passionately on the issue whether or not they regard this stalwart effort by customers to be an act of censorship and a violation of Nintendo's right to free speech.

Oh, and before anyone points out that the people behind the petition are merely issuing demands and have no ability to actually enforce their will upon Nintendo, I feel it would be remiss of me not to point out that such actions are sure to lead to Nintendo applying the dreaded self-censorship, which is almost as bad as having their factories burnt down by rioting petitioners.

Discuss.

Yawn. Censorship? When did that word get so distorted.

Making changes to something is not censorship. It's modification, especially when you're making something you want someone to buy, listening to your proposed client base as to what their wants, needs and likes are. If you're going to cook for other people.. you'd be wise to take into account what they want to eat, not what you want to cook.

In the end nintendo will make the decision they feel will make the most money. For as much nobility exists in the starving artist ... no artist wants to bloody well starve.

 

[Zhukov]

People claimed it wasn't censorship when Target Australia chose to stop selling GTA5 after pressure from a group using half truths and outright lies. But would it be censorship if you could legally buy GTA but nobody would sell it to you because every retailer followed Targets example?

Soooo... if I'm trying to buy an obscure Japanese game and there isn't a single retailer selling it in all of Australia, they're censoring the game?

Deciding not to stock an item is not the same as censoring something.

In other news, my local supermarket is censoring pornography. They don't sell it anywhere! I even asked if they'd get some in and they said no. The cheek!

Oh, oh, and my local bakery stopped making my favourite pie. Fucking censorship man!

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Okay... What about a rich man who finds out a journalist is about to run a story that hurts his business interests and he says: "if you run this story I will use my influence and power to blacklist you. You will never get an interview again, my friends will get you fired and I will sue you and drag the case out until you go broke." And the journalist agrees not to run the story. Censorship?

 

[Silvanus]

Heh. The irony of this situation was just spelled out to me and I'm ashamed of myself or not catching it.

The complaints are about a perceived lack of Metroid elements, which given how few those are, and how this isn't something conceptional unfun by gamer standards, really means a visible lack of Samus. Gamers are upset about not just the lack of a female lead presented, but the apparent expulsion of the one that was there.

That really needs repeating: gamers are upset about the removal of a female gaming icon from her franchise.

And their reward for this step away from the woman hating stereotype is to be called Entitled Babies on Destructoid.

I don't know if that's bitterness that gaming fans caught this before the normal SJW crowd, or just that no matter the argument, gamers are always going to be wrong about it.

Well, no, D'toid is presumably criticising them for being purists, or for judging a game before they have any significant experience of it, which are both valid criticisms (not that D'toid chose to voice them in an enlightened manner, of course). D'toid's point is nothing to do with gender, so I don't really see the hypocrisy here.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

I wouldn't say this is censorship because the detractors aren't even taking a position, instead basing their entire case around "This isn't the game we expected!1!!1" This is more of a pointless consumer revolt, "pointless" because they're trying to stop the release of a product that's not even in stores and, therefore, a product that nobody can judge on its own merits.

If these misguided individuals were trying to stop the game's release because it doesn't align with their personal moral compasses, religious convictions, or social standards, then we'd be talking about censorship. What we have instead is a foundation-less kneejerk reaction to a TRAILER, not even the game itself. You can't make a point if you don't HAVE a point.

 

[runic knight]

In fact, some 12,000 and counting fans have signed in which they criticise multiple aspects of the game and demand for it to be cancelled.

Lets cut out the would-be gloating of that post and get to the center point... there we go.

A petition demanding for the game to be canceled? Seems stupid. And yes, would say it is censorship too since it is trying to get the product not created.

Granted the 12,000 signs are likely the customers the game is directed at and Nintendo may do well to acknowledge their title should not generate that much outrage from the fans who they are selling to, and thus might want to add something more to make it look and feel like metroid instead of just slapping the name on it. We all remember what happened last time they did that to a game, I am sure Starfox Adventures should shame them some.

They probably should have built the petition around the changes they wanted and as a voice from fans in a more constructive way and less a "end this now" thing.

 

[RikuoAmero]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

 

[Gorrath]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wouldn't say this is censorship because the detractors aren't even taking a position, instead basing their entire case around "This isn't the game we expected!1!!1" This is more of a pointless consumer revolt, "pointless" because they're trying to stop the release of a product that's not even in stores and, therefore, a product that nobody can judge on its own merits.

If these misguided individuals were trying to stop the game's release because it doesn't align with their personal moral compasses, religious convictions, or social standards, then we'd be talking about censorship. What we have instead is a foundation-less kneejerk reaction to a TRAILER, not even the game itself. You can't make a point if you don't HAVE a point.

At the same time, not meeting the literal criteria of censorship is something that's true of a lot of gamers' cries of CENSORSHIP!!!!!!! that have gone around. I can't help but guess that the intent here is to compare apples to apples.

 

[Noblemartel]

I think my scissors broke from snipping this wall of text.

You have just perfectly explained what I have been unable to properly articulate throughout the past year. And most impressive of all you did it in a perfectly calm, concise(relatively), and polite fashion. I give all of my internets to you.

 

[RikuoAmero]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of it in terms of talking to/demanding from the game studio alone. I didn't think of getting the law involved with getting a game banned.

 

[Gorrath]

It seems to me that the problem with the self-censorship debate is that hardliners tend to treat any and all censorship as an inherently bad thing. I self-censor while I"m at my job, as do many people and this isn't a bad thing. So, is circulating an online petition to have a game cancelled an attempt at creating pressure to censor the game? Sure. Is it ethically or morally wrong? Nope. People seem to do this all the time, where they take an idea like censorship, or various -isms and decry any and all incarnation of them regardless of context.

Context gives us a framework where we can make some sense of whether a bit of censorship is immoral or unethical or not. Threatening to punch someone in the face to get them to self-censor is immoral. Asking for changes in a game that's coming out is not immoral or unethical. Asking for a game to be outright banned because you don't like its content is unethical. Asking a developer to consider the feelings of a group of people is not immoral or unethical. Threatening or attempting to bury a company because you don't think they listened to the feelings of a group of people is unethical.

I could go on but I don't think it's all that hard to figure out in many cases. Some context might have grey areas and some are pretty clear. What we need not do is pretend as if this is a zero sum game where any and all censorship = bad or that government censorship is the only kind that should count or is worth discussing. We have the ability to make judgments on a case-by-case basis, so let's just do that instead. It's a lot more work but it's also far more fair and more worthy of society.

Does anyone else see the contradiction, or is it just me?

As for my opinion...there's a huge difference between saying "I'll boycott your game" and having a petition demanding that the game NOT BE MADE. Case in point - I'm a fan of Devil May Cry. I didn't like the look of Dante in DmC, so I didn't get that game (stupid reason really, but hey, I've lost interest in the series). Some people may have even started boycotting the company over this reason (I honestly don't know or care), and called for boycotts, but as far as I know, no-one actually demanded to Capcom "Don't make this game...or else!"
There's scanning for market interest into exactly what kind of games your customers want you to buy and then making decisions accordingly...and then there's having a metaphorical gun held to your head and being told not to make certain games.

Well I can't speak to whether anyone else would call that a contradiction but it isn't one regardless. Asking a company to not make something is not at all the same as asking for that something to be banned. The first involves asking a company for self-censorship, the second is asking the government to take action and censor the company. While the final result in terms of the game are the same, the legal and and ethical concerns are leagues apart. There are myriad reasons why someone might not want a specific piece of media to be made and they are not doing anything ethically wrong by voicing those reasons and asking that a company not make it. In turn, a company is doing nothing ethically wrong by listening or not listening to that request.

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of it in terms of talking to/demanding from the game studio alone. I didn't think of getting the law involved with getting a game banned.

Thanks for bringing it up so I could clarify; I can see why someone might equate the two and I'm always happy to elaborate. I should also note that a ban might not only come from the government. Different organizations who control different venues might also heed the requests for the banning of certain media. This is also not unethical since it doesn't stop the media from being circulated elsewhere and the organization or individual who controls a venue has the right to restrict what's shown in that venue.

I would also like to take a moment to illustrate the difference between an ethical way of asking for change and an unethical way.

If a feminist would like to see a different interpretation of Peach and asks Nintendo make her the playable protagonist of the next Mario game that's perfectly fine. If said feminist's arguments, essays, petitions get Nintendo to do just that, that's also perfectly fine. If Nintendo decides they don't care and makes the game about Mario rescuing Peach, totally fine. If said feminist organizes a boycott of the next Mario game because Nintendo didn't listen to their ideas, also fine.

Where it gets into unethical territory is if the feminist claims that that Nintendo has an ethical obligation to portray Peach the way the feminist says she should be portrayed. This claim that any content creator owes anyone a specific representation that they like is asinine. This is where I take umbrage with many of my fellow progressives who think that companies should feel obligated to represent their views on race, gender, sex ect. It's not unethical to tell Nintendo you want a strong princess Peach who don't need no Mario, but it is unethical to claim that Nintendo owes anyone that representation of Peach. Hopefully that further clarifies my position!

Thanks for engaging with me!