Fire Emblem Fates Cuts Petting From English Version

[RaikuFA]

Kinda sucks Fire Emblem-Amie is being removed but as long as they do something about the grinding I can live with it removed.

 

[tippy2k2]

What's fun about rubbing someone's face until the plot can progress? It's basically just wrist exercise.

Plus I can think of an even better wrist exercise that involves rubbing with a better payoff!

[small]Thank you! I'll be here all night! Don't forget to tip your waitress![/small]

Sounds like nothing of value was lost. I'm sure there are people heartbroken over the lack of a face rubbing mini-game but I am not one of them.

 

[Foolery]

I'm more annoyed at Nintendo for chopping the game up into 2 1/2 chunks, and announcing DLC before release, honestly. I don't give a damn about some petting game. Nothing of value was lost.

 

[Czann]

Dude! Just do it like Germany and make everyone in the game robots that bleed green slime. Axe the strategy/tactics and make it a shooter filled with american stereotypes and imagery.

Better yet! Just murder the damn game already and put it out of its misery.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Oh no...that was holding the game together. Really, is anyone seriously going to miss this?

I would have liked this to remain, frankly. With how much they're removing, and the fact that they split it into three damn games, I might just not bother with it at all.

How much they're removing? They removed one stupid mini-game and one scene. You make it sound like they're completely butchering the game into something unrecognizable.

Though if you want to skip out on it for it being three games, by all means, that's understandable.

But I would have liked that stupid minigame.

 

[hentropy]

The problem of course is Nintendo. Unlike the Soleil debacle, which was a case of "this was so stupid it shouldn't have even been done in Japan", this appears to be more of a case of "too weirdly sexual for western audiences" and Nintendo wanting to make it at least ostensibly safe for kids/young teens to play.

If it were any other publisher it probably would have stayed in, or even them releasing an "uncut" version with a higher rating.

 

[Bat Vader]

Why not make two separate versions. One where the stuff is cut and one where the game is in its original unaltered state besides English. That way both camps can be happy.

 

[Paragon Fury]

"They're not coming for your games."
- Jim, the Jimquisition

I wish I could edit video, just for that clip so I could use it when needed.

But as for this...I feel like I should screenshot every single page in this thread so that everyone who is in favor of this, or saying that "its fine" can never ever go back or try and dodge their position again.

I'm just not sure I want to make that many enemies at one time.

Because by saying this is fine, you have hereby and forever forfeited your right to EVER, EVER ***** about censorship EVER again. Because you're just proving that you WANT censorship and are okay with it - when you like it. When its okay and doesn't affect something YOU want. Because I'm 100% willing to bet real US dollars that some of the very same people in this thread saying this is acceptable or okay are the same people who if they found out the next Witcher or Fallout or Blizzard game had this kind of censorship (or censorship at all) would be incredibly irate and demanding it be changed or fixed, or at the very least voicing their extreme displeasure.

As for the topic at hand; the SJWs and whatever-the-fuck-wave we're on now feminism have won, or are now very much on the very edge of victory. They have gotten what they wanted - self-censorship in order to avoid the media shitstorm people like Sarkeesian and Chu are capable of kicking up. There are still enough old guard and people my age who aren't buying this shit for there to still be a market, but I'm calling it right now; within one or two generations the SJWs will be in complete control and it will be diversity quotas, games being canned for not being "sensitive" enough or whatever other tripe they use to measure the "correctness" of art at that time.

And lest you not forget and come in try to call "hyperbole" and "overreaction" - we were assured that SJWs and their ilk were "no threat". That nothing would come of them.

And in less than two years we have a major US developer (Blizzard) getting caught trying to sneak through changes on one of their characters, while the lead Dev on another game has expressed a desire to change the designs of major characters to suit "modern" tastes (Metzen, on wanting to change the Dragon Aspects and possibly others).

We have one developer not releasing their newest game in the US and Europe (Team Ninja, DoA) despite the game's predecessor's making the bulk of their profit overseas.

And now we have Nintendo heavily censoring a game because of this.

1 time is an anomaly. 2 times is a coincidence. 3 times is a pattern.

Does it need to be 5 or 6 before you're willing to admit to it?

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

"They" didn't take your games away. Nintendo took a minigame out. I don't see how removing one part of a game counts as taking your games away.

Dude. Stop throwing around the word censorship like that. I didn't want to associate people willingly changing their work with censorship, but people kept insisting that self-censorship was a thing, so fine. Censorship is constantly used as a loaded word, people act like every time it happens is a horrible encroachment on freedom of speech and people who supports it hate freedom. However, self-censorship is also a thing, therefore I cannot stand by censorship being an always evil thing, because doing that would mean I am denying developers the right to change their own. Goddamn. Work. So yeah. Maybe take a step back before you start declaring what other people have the "right" to do. You do not have that authority, you will never have that authority. That'd mean something if developers changing things was a black or white morality thing, a concept I do not and will never buy. The developer changed the game. No one forced them to do it. They changed it in a way that they thought would reach the audience better. You can disagree with it if they want, but they are not in any moral wrong by changing it.

Trust me, if SJWs "Won" there'd be a lot more smug rubbing it in. There's always been self-censorship every time someone releases something to a general public. Developers, writers and artist tweak their work all the time, because most of us don't like pissing people off, and I really don't see what's so terrible about that. The fact that you think this is a recent development reflects a severe lack of understanding on your part on how the creative process works.
Diversity quotas? Either you're being extremely sarcastic or you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Seriously, can you please draw me a map to how we get from "One minigame maybe 10% of the western audience was actually interested in removed" to diversity quotas? Because there's a pretty damn big gap there.

You honestly consider this a threat? The removing of skinshipping? Really? If this wasn't under everyone's microscope, it would've been removed and everyone would've gone on their way being none the wiser.

Developers want to change their characters. Again. I fail to see what's so horrible about this. Maybe it's because I'm a writer who's changed my work on several occasions to avoid pissing people off with no shame about it, but this all comes across as much ado about nothing.

Yeah, making the bulk of its profits overseas. Because it was an xbox exclusive (A console that has absolutely no support base in Japan) for the first game and stopped being that afterwards, whereupon the majority of sales were in its home region.

Taking out one mini-game and changing one scene = heavily censoring? That's barely any changes made. What's the qualification for censorship to be "heavy"?

Admit what? That localization is a thing? Nintendo described this as business as usual. Just because it took sensationalist news for people to realize this was a thing doesn't mean it wasn't a thing before now. Hell, people were more than happy with it when it was done in a way they liked. Or do Ace Attorney fans not realize that the original Japanese Maya didn't talk about how she wanted to eat hamburgers all the time?

Bottom line, I really don't see the removal of one of the dumbest video games I've ever seen as a violation of any kind of freedoms, nor do I see how it's supposed to lead to anything worse.

 

[Erttheking]

Why not make two separate versions. One where the stuff is cut and one where the game is in its original unaltered state besides English. That way both camps can be happy.

Would it be worth it? I mean how many people outside of the current internet flame wars even know that this thing exists and care about it in the slightest? And out of those how many would be interested in actually buying it? In physical format they might not even break even on the amount of copies they would need to make.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

You know. I remember petting my pokemon. But other human beings, weird.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-snip-

It's kind of weak that your only major western example was trying to do something really minor in quiet fashion...

Anyways:

1: Nintendo of America is well known for this kind of censorship, really well known for it, it's a surprise that something like this didn't come up sooner. Nintendo, especially in the US, banks on it's family friendly image. This means that this edit along with others are freaking no-brainers where Nintendo is concerned, because they're pandering to their market and image.

2: Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 was a blatant marketing stunt for two reasons: Sales of the series have always been pretty weak in the US and Europe. The first game only got it's sales numbers because of the controversy it spawned. The other is the way the framed it to scapegoat "SJWs", it's no coincidence when western gaming media is railing against "SJWs" and feminists that Koei-Tecmo pulled a stunt like this. They did it purely to drive sales in the import market in the west, because they couldn't justify marketing and packaging costs after the poor sales of the last game.

So your examples to shout bloody murder at a the so called evil "SJWs"? A move by a pretty politically correct, and left leaning developer/publisher, Blizzard. A marketing publicity stunt to move copies of wank material in import markets by Koei-Tecmo. Along with a "well duh" move done by Nintendo of America, whose really well known for censoring first party titles still, and used to censor third party titles until into the Game Cube era. This isn't your "SJW" and "Feminazi" boogeyman, it's three typical moves made by companies playing to their well known positions.

 

[Bat Vader]

Why not make two separate versions. One where the stuff is cut and one where the game is in its original unaltered state besides English. That way both camps can be happy.

Would it be worth it? I mean how many people outside of the current internet flame wars even know that this thing exists and care about it in the slightest? And out of those how many would be interested in actually buying it? In physical format they might not even break even on the amount of copies they would need to make.

I'd say it'd be worth it because it would help stop all the fighting. I also dislike stuff getting cut because it feels like I am paying more for less content. If due to localisation or anything else content gets cut from a game the price should reflect that.

 

[Erttheking]

Why not make two separate versions. One where the stuff is cut and one where the game is in its original unaltered state besides English. That way both camps can be happy.

Would it be worth it? I mean how many people outside of the current internet flame wars even know that this thing exists and care about it in the slightest? And out of those how many would be interested in actually buying it? In physical format they might not even break even on the amount of copies they would need to make.

I'd say it'd be worth it because it would help stop all the fighting. I also dislike stuff getting cut because it feels like I am paying more for less content. If due to localisation or anything else content gets cut from a game the price should reflect that.

The fighting is only really going on in internet forums, which I don't think Nintendo is willing to invest much money in preventing.

As for your other point, I respect that, but I don't see how this really qualifies less content, since it wasn't a part of the previous Fire Emblem games and the content was so insubstantial it hardly feels like much of a loss. As a result the end package is basically what Fire Emblem fans have come to expect, minus the Pokemon dual game bullshit.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

-Slash-

And you conveniently leave out a problem: Shadow Dragon's sales were HALF of Blazing Sword's. And Shadow Dragon came out in NA in 2009, only six years after Blazing Sword. It's not as steep when Japanese sales are considered, but the dropoff was still bad (if VG Chartz is accurate, which I doubt, but I'll humor you) as losing a third to a half of your consumer base in never a good thing. And then Awakening came along and became the highest-selling entry in the franchise worldwide, in Europe, and in NA. In Japan it's the third highest-selling behind Mystery of the Emblem and Seisen no Keifu. And it far outsold its immediate predecessors in Japan. It saved the freaking franchise by reinvigorating it, adding flair to the series by doing a lot of things new which included visual design and putting an emphasis on the supports again like in Seisen no Keifu instead of having them be a side thing.

And that's before we get into the reality of the situation: again, Awakening is the highest-selling entry of the franchise worldwide and overall everything you claim "ruins" it people loved in spades. Those elements are WHY it sold so well not just in Japan but also worldwide. And judging by your VG Chartz argument Fates is only slightly behind Awakening. I guess we know who won out. And I know I'm going to be a part of the sales because I have better things to do than sling mud at "otaku" despite posting on a gaming message board. The members of which are still otaku regardless of how they try to claim otherwise.

 

[Silverspetz]

People who think removing some pointless and creepy fanservice is a sign of big brother will never not be funny to me.

How was it pointless? And what do you mean creepy? Have you considered that maybe the content wasn't aimed at you? There are people who would have liked it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be removed.

It is pointless because there is absolutely no reason to tie the relationship mechanic to such a minigame. It is woefully out of place here.

Huh, to me it feels like natural thing to expand on. Awakening already had pretty nice affinity system. Might as well go one step forward and include this.

It is creepy because playing around with characters faces just to see them blush is fetishistic and CREEPY.

And WHY exactly are they fetishistic and creepy? Have you never patted someone on their head?

And the affinity system already got its own share of flak for being otaku pandering. I didn't mind it so much because at least it was based on the main game-mechanic. You improved the relationship between characters by pairing them up in fights and training their teamwork. It fit well in a series based on strategy and character. The petting mechanic is a feature that comes straight out of moe dating games. It is not "one step forward" it is a completely different mechanic that has nothing to do with the rest of the game. Taking it "one step forward" would be improving on that mechanic to maybe get more branching story paths depending on the relationship between the characters or more tragic consequences for losing a party-member.

Have I ever patted someone on the head? No! Why the heck would I ever do that? That is how you treat your house pet, not actual people. If it is a specific quirk between two characters then fine. That might be cute I guess. But having it as a mechanic where you just play around with a person's face to get "cute" reactions out of them is pretty blatantly pandering to Otaku fetishes.

Oh come on. Thats at worst just bad writing, not some sort of ideological message they're trying to shove in. There's no malice there; it's just stupid. And calling it "Gay conversion therapy" is like saying that The Last of Us is pro-patriarchal propaganda because it has a girl following a guy around and eventually being saved by him.

Also, what the heck does it have to do with the petting part? This sounds like completely unrelated stupidity.

Genuine question here. At what point exactly does that excuse stop working? At what point does something stop being "just bad writing" and become something that conveys an idea? Yes, this is bad writing. It is bad writing BECAUSE it portrays a scene where our here effectively turns a lesbian woman straight. Whether or not that was intentional is kind of besides that point. It is very possible for an artist to include something ideological that they didn't intend to because they didn't think their decisions through all the way. That is how art WORKS. There is ALWAYS some ideology involved, whether or not the artist intends for it or not.

 

[blackrave]

On one hand I don't like touchscreen gimmicks (most of the time they are implemented poorly)
On the other hand I'm against regional versions in principle.
Especially if justification is to avoid "gay conversion therapy"
WTF is this shit? Hets and homos can't be turned gay or straight for fuck's sake.
(at least without pumping them full of drugs, but it isn't permanently anyway. And I doubt that game comes with medical team)
Only ones that can be somewhat conditioned are bis but even then minimally and it won't change who they are truly attracted to.
Can we stop with this "turn gay" shit already? Please!

I mean XCOM 2 is taking out the air battles that the last one has and no one is upset over that.

WHAT??? They removed interception?
For fuck's sake this game turns more and more into UFO.

P.S.I guess you found one who IS upset about removal of interception. While it was simplistic in EU/EW I liked what LongWar team did with it and hoped that XCom2 will get even more complex and expanded interception. So much for that

 

[The Material Sheep]

Oh come on. Thats at worst just bad writing, not some sort of ideological message they're trying to shove in. There's no malice there; it's just stupid. And calling it "Gay conversion therapy" is like saying that The Last of Us is pro-patriarchal propaganda because it has a girl following a guy around and eventually being saved by him.

Also, what the heck does it have to do with the petting part? This sounds like completely unrelated stupidity.

Genuine question here. At what point exactly does that excuse stop working? At what point does something stop being "just bad writing" and become something that conveys an idea? Yes, this is bad writing. It is bad writing BECAUSE it portrays a scene where our here effectively turns a lesbian woman straight. Whether or not that was intentional is kind of besides that point. It is very possible for an artist to include something ideological that they didn't intend to because they didn't think their decisions through all the way. That is how art WORKS. There is ALWAYS some ideology involved, whether or not the artist intends for it or not.

Yeah that's a bit BS. There is no social statement that inherently coming from a still life, or a realistic sculpture. Its still art, but any social statement is something nine times out of ten you're projecting on to it. If you want to project on to a story or art, ill intent that wasn't there to continue maintaining a persecution complex by all means continue but don't do so under the delusion that its somehow not something your actively trying to take offense at.

 

[MatthewTheDark]

I'd like to say that while this kind of silly feature being removed won't really kill it for me, I am finding the censorship and content cutting a bit disheartening.

Personally, I think the fact that it got cut in NA was the part that pissed me off. If a dev takes a bit out of a game from the start, then fair enough. It was an artistic choice. But when a team decides to cut out parts of the game for only certain parts of the world, that's when I start getting a little pissed. We can't be progressive if we mindlessly censor games just because someone might find it offensive.

 

[Silverspetz]

Oh come on. Thats at worst just bad writing, not some sort of ideological message they're trying to shove in. There's no malice there; it's just stupid. And calling it "Gay conversion therapy" is like saying that The Last of Us is pro-patriarchal propaganda because it has a girl following a guy around and eventually being saved by him.

Also, what the heck does it have to do with the petting part? This sounds like completely unrelated stupidity.

Genuine question here. At what point exactly does that excuse stop working? At what point does something stop being "just bad writing" and become something that conveys an idea? Yes, this is bad writing. It is bad writing BECAUSE it portrays a scene where our here effectively turns a lesbian woman straight. Whether or not that was intentional is kind of besides that point. It is very possible for an artist to include something ideological that they didn't intend to because they didn't think their decisions through all the way. That is how art WORKS. There is ALWAYS some ideology involved, whether or not the artist intends for it or not.

Yeah that's a bit BS. There is no social statement that inherently coming from a still life, or a realistic sculpture. Its still art, but any social statement is something nine times out of ten you're projecting on to it. If you want to project on to a story or art, ill intent that wasn't there to continue maintaining a persecution complex by all means continue but don't do so under the delusion that its somehow not something your actively trying to take offense at.

Who the fuck said anything about a "social statement"? My whole point was that authors often include ideas they never intended to. That ideas doesn't have to be deliberate statements of how the author thinks the world should be. The intent behind it is UNIMPORTANT. What matters is what we actually see in the art itself.

As for whether or not I am "projecting" anything, you might want to take a course in literary analysis. Because when it comes right down to it ALL meaning we impart onto art is "projected". We can't know the author's intent all the time, especially not if the author isn't around anymore. We can only look at what ideas are on display in the work itself. The scene we are talking about is one where a woman who has previously only been interested in other women falls in love with a man after he slips her a drug that makes her see men as women and vice-versa. It is EASY to read that as gay conversion therapy, regardless of what was "intended". Nobody CARES whether or not the makers of the game intended to say something negative about gay people, but that scene is still homophobic and people have every right to criticize it. The point is that it is ridiculous to invalidate every criticism of content by saying "it's just bad writing" or "it's just coincidence". We can still see that something shitty is going on.