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.Bat Vader said:
Fire Emblem Fates Cuts Petting From English Version
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
It's kind of weak that your only major western example was trying to do something really minor in quiet fashion...Paragon Fury said:
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.
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 said:
The fighting is only really going on in internet forums, which I don't think Nintendo is willing to invest much money in preventing.Bat Vader said:
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.
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.MarsAtlas said:
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.
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.SquallTheBlade said:
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.
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.Piecewise said:
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!
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
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!
WHAT??? They removed interception?erttheking said:
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
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.Silverspetz said:
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.
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.
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.The Material Sheep said:
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.
I just saw Mundanemats video about it and he seems to take the not so uncommon stance of thinking skinship was removed because of a fear to offend those gosh darn social justice warriors.
Lets correct something here. It are not the social justice warriors who have the biggest reason to dislike this feature and they are not the ones who gain the most of this move. The ones with the biggest reasons to dislike skinshippings presence in Fire emblem are the traditional Fire emblem fans and they are the ones with the most to gain of Fire emblems excellent pedigree not being polluted. When people think of Fire emblem they should think ''oh, that founder of the turn based strategy genre with 13 great titles under its belt'' rather then ''Oh that game where you can pet shota's and loli's''.
This is not an instance of fans being deprived of a staple of their quirky series because of boring and prudish Westerners. Skinship was a very recent, very unwelcome addition which was controversial to both the Fire emblem fans and the games own developers. Any pushback against skinshipping came from long time Fire emblem fans while I never even heard a social justice warrior comment on it. Sure, there is overlap between fans of fire emblem and those that like Skinshipping but to most long time fans it wasn't a welcome edition. This is not an example of long time fans being left out in the cold to avoid offending those with no interest in the game itself.
Social justice warriors just didn't make a fuss out of this issue while Fire emblem fans expressed displeasure over having such a stupid feature in a proud series. Maybe Skinship got removed out of fear of sjw's but its also possible Nintendo realized the feature was out of place in Fire emblem and that it would get deemed so in a country without the amount of Otaku's to make them get away with such an out of place addition.
It just irks me that people on non Fire emblem sites generally ignore the Fire emblem series and its fans on this issue. Skinship has not been part of Fire emblem in its decades long history before fates, its not part of Fire emblems identity and a large amount of the fans never ever wanted such a feature. Instead I see people talk about censorship and social justice warriors.
And another thing! Can we stop with the Pokemon comparisons when it comes to Conquest and birthright? They aren't the same game with little differences. The games got different playable casts, different stories and different game play stlyles, Conquest being more in line with Fire emblem games before Awakening and Birthright being more like Awakening. Its more like the Zelda Oracle games then the red and blue Pokemon games.
Lets correct something here. It are not the social justice warriors who have the biggest reason to dislike this feature and they are not the ones who gain the most of this move. The ones with the biggest reasons to dislike skinshippings presence in Fire emblem are the traditional Fire emblem fans and they are the ones with the most to gain of Fire emblems excellent pedigree not being polluted. When people think of Fire emblem they should think ''oh, that founder of the turn based strategy genre with 13 great titles under its belt'' rather then ''Oh that game where you can pet shota's and loli's''.
This is not an instance of fans being deprived of a staple of their quirky series because of boring and prudish Westerners. Skinship was a very recent, very unwelcome addition which was controversial to both the Fire emblem fans and the games own developers. Any pushback against skinshipping came from long time Fire emblem fans while I never even heard a social justice warrior comment on it. Sure, there is overlap between fans of fire emblem and those that like Skinshipping but to most long time fans it wasn't a welcome edition. This is not an example of long time fans being left out in the cold to avoid offending those with no interest in the game itself.
Social justice warriors just didn't make a fuss out of this issue while Fire emblem fans expressed displeasure over having such a stupid feature in a proud series. Maybe Skinship got removed out of fear of sjw's but its also possible Nintendo realized the feature was out of place in Fire emblem and that it would get deemed so in a country without the amount of Otaku's to make them get away with such an out of place addition.
It just irks me that people on non Fire emblem sites generally ignore the Fire emblem series and its fans on this issue. Skinship has not been part of Fire emblem in its decades long history before fates, its not part of Fire emblems identity and a large amount of the fans never ever wanted such a feature. Instead I see people talk about censorship and social justice warriors.
And another thing! Can we stop with the Pokemon comparisons when it comes to Conquest and birthright? They aren't the same game with little differences. The games got different playable casts, different stories and different game play stlyles, Conquest being more in line with Fire emblem games before Awakening and Birthright being more like Awakening. Its more like the Zelda Oracle games then the red and blue Pokemon games.
Don't bother. The internet doesn't need any more people sarcastically dragging that quote out every time a developer so much as alters a font. Plenty of others will digently inform us that the sky is falling, we don't need another voice to the chorus.Paragon Fury said:
I'm really starting to understand why so many arguments pop up bickering over the definition of censorship; because plenty of others are more than willing to conflate every single form of censorship bar none, no matter how petty or severe, under into the same level of severity. That claim that anyone who is so much as apathetic about this automatically wants censorship is absolutely absurd, and just reminds me of all the people screaming "you're either with us or you support terrorism!"
So I guess we're not allow to complain about games getting outright banned if we aren't upset about this completely mundane localization? If the government begins kicking down our door and dragging us off to "re-education camps" for disagreeing with the party we're still not allowed to complain because we didn't flip enough tables that time a company well known for prudishness removed content during a localization, as they have forever? No thanks, I'll reserve my right to complain, since I don't view the world in false dichotomies.
This might be a radical idea I'm putting forth, but perhaps not all forms of censorship warrant hysteria, especially these wishy-washy cases of people editing content without any given reason. But I suppose we're just meant to assume it was at the behest of SJWs.
And what kind of censorship would that be? I certainly won't complain if they decide to remove some absurd mini-game about petting people. But I suppose this is the part where I use my imagination to come up with some heinous act of censorship. But that's a bet you'll probably win, since "some" is about as vague as quantities get.
Again, people are absolutely certain those dastardly SJWs are responsible for this, despite there being no evidence whatsoever. Whether people want to accept it or not, different cultures have different tastes in media. This is nothing new; changing content during localization to make the media more reflective of the target culture isn't anything new. The only part that's new is blaming this completely mundane and predictable act on the SJWs.
As for all this "self censorship," I have to wonder, where do you draw the line between editing and censorship? If I write a first draft of a novel and decide audience won't like it, am I "self censoring" when I re-write it?
At least you're aware of how your post will be received.
I had to continually add more and more search keys before Google even spat out a relevant page, and even then it was nothing more than a (small) handful of threads on the WoW forums. Forgive me if I don't bunker down in my doomsday shelter just yet. So it seems someone somewhere changed one World of Warcraft's many bikini clad character designs from a metal bikini to a metal bikini with skin tight fabric underneath. Oh woe, now we don't have any female character's left to prance around in skimpy armor ... except for all those other ones.
I suppose this is the part where people start unironically throwing around terms like "artistic integrity"? Because as we all know, their character designs show that much skin because it just makes so much sense for the lore and has deep artistic roots, not because they're simply pandering to an audience to make fat stacks of cash. But now that they've changed these designs to (presumably) pander for more money, their artistic integrity is suddenly dead.
I know I'm about to piss a lot of people off for saying this, but the re-design arguably has more artistic merit since it is at least reflecting some kind of idea or theme. Whether you like the political message behind the redesign doesn't change the fact that there is at least an idea behind it, whereas the previous design philosophy was simply tits=money.
Worst of all, these changes Blizzard are making seem to be coming from a developer, not from external pressures. You mentioned Chris Metzen, and he was the one who put the idea forth. How exactly is raging at a developer for making voluntary changes based on their own ideas any better than what the SJWs are doing? Are developers now required to toe the line and add a quota of scantily clad women, lest they offend the sensibilities of gamers?
What exactly is it people are supposed to admit to? That there's a shadowy cabal of tyrannical SJWs ruling over us, based on some Japanese games being altered for localization (as they always have), and a few people voluntarily changing their works. This entire controversy is entirely hypothetical. We never got to see SJWs tear this game down for this minigame, because it was never released. But I suppose self-censorship is a convenient boogyman these days, since people don't even have to be aware of a game to be blamed for its alteration.
I would be inclined to be nicer about all this if you hadn't decided for me that I must love all types of censorship due to my apathy over this mundane localization.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, as sick as I am of all the progressives complaining about everything, I'm growing more and more tired of the hysteria put forth by their opposition. Despite claiming to be fighting for "developer freedom," it seems these days developers can't so much as blow their nose without being labeled a traitor and SJW sympathizer.
Link me to the appropriate video and I can do it for you.Paragon Fury said:
Just keep in mind, it doesn't help your argument any. Why? Because they're not coming for your games. You're invoking names and movements that post-date this sort of "censorship," often by quite a bit. Sarkeesian was like, one when the NES came out, and Nintendo had already decided that the NES was going to be marketed to kids and as a toy. Nintendo has gone down that path since before you were even born.
In fact, nobody seemed to care until they could be outraged at the other, the SJW or feminist taking away their games. You use the DOAX3 example, but it doesn't make your case. The game was announced not to be coming to the west months ago, and almost nobody cared. A petition managed to get about 5,000 signatures. Nobody cared until the community manager blamed SJWs or feminism. And then suddenly it wasn't that the game might not sell, it's an incursion on gaming.
...so why no interest before? This says to me it's not so much an interest in censorship, but either outrage culture lashing out at a political target, or people upset because they can't get what they want. Hell, Nintendo's been "censoring" products for 30 years. Most of you weren't even born when this started happening, so if the SJWs have won, what then? You were born in occupied territory. But you're not just turning a blind eye to the practice, you're pretending it's something new. And trotting out this idea of quotas and such because of it. Using decades-old moral panic--stuff older than I am--to make an argument for why we should be worried, even though in decades of the exact same claims it hasn't happened.
So document my comments, bust out the Jim Sterling quote that makes things look more exaggerated, not less. To borrow from The Doctor, "point a gun at me if it helps you relax."
Having been on several "watch" or "enemy" lists, including personal information being documented on the web publicly, I can say such a concern (dialed back from government incursion) might be valid.MarsAtlas said:
...though it also might point to why he might not be the one who should be afraid of making enemies.
Yes, but you do understand conversion therapy is a real thing that really happens and it costs real lives, right?blackrave said:
The NES is 30 now. Nintendo has been "censoring" content since it came to our shores. Nintendo did this because they made a deliberate choice to be a toy, to market to kids.MatthewTheDark said:
Where was the outrage? For that matter, is it wrong for Nintendo to have done that?
FirstNameLastName said:
Wait...he only knows about the Japanese games. He hasn't mentioned the Eldritch ferret sleeper cells. Carry on
LOL yeah, no such thing as a shadowy SJW cabal. That you can prove.
fucking call me when there?s a petition to put back all the name changes and references in Xenogears and Xenosaga. That?s censorship/?localization issues? I actually care about not Pokemon Amie; Weeb delusion edition.
I would say that we could have two different versions, one without and one with the "offending" content. Unfortunately, the outrage crowd have shown they aren't just happy with "offensive" material not being in their games/movies, they dont want anyone else to have it either. That's why the "Just change the channel if you dont like it" argument doesn't work in America.
The ESRB also needs to change their rating system to not be age based as it seems many 18+ individuals cant handle even some of the most innocent of content. The ratings should be based on mental stability with the highest rating being rated R for reasonable people.
The ESRB also needs to change their rating system to not be age based as it seems many 18+ individuals cant handle even some of the most innocent of content. The ratings should be based on mental stability with the highest rating being rated R for reasonable people.
I see the problem.
And I found the solution.
change all the appearance of all characters with extra fur and dog noses.
This will do the trick.
This is after all the reason why you could pet a humanoid Dog in Undertale. Thank God the child didn't pet a Humanoid Goat.
This would be Taboo yo!
And I found the solution.
change all the appearance of all characters with extra fur and dog noses.
This will do the trick.
This is after all the reason why you could pet a humanoid Dog in Undertale. Thank God the child didn't pet a Humanoid Goat.
This would be Taboo yo!