Signa said:
Happyninja42 said:
Signa said:
I think it's censorship when you're changing the work because someone told you it was offensive.
No, censorship is when you are ordered to do so by government regulation to change it/remove it/block it, under penalty of criminal action.
Fully disagree here. The government doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of censoring something.
Well that's fine, but the definition would disagree with your personal definition of censorship.
Signa said:
snip
My definition doesn't apply here, because it's a completely different circumstance. I didn't play ME, but what I understand the problem to be was that people were sold a defective product.
No they weren't. The product was perfectly functional. They just didn't like the ending.
Signa said:
They might has well have ended the game with a youtube poop video for all the difference it would have made in the quality of the product.
I dunno. I've seen poop videos, even seen someone poop IRL, and I gotta tell you, the original ending cutscenes were still waaaaay better.
Signa said:
People weren't upset with ME3 because it was offensive,
Ooooh yes they were offended. Holy fuckballs were they offended by that ending. There are pages and pages and pages of shit online where people rant about the "betrayal" they suffered at the hands of Bioware, because they didn't get the ending they wanted/thought they deserved. Offense is a very broad term, it doesn't just mean "you've offended me based on sex/orientation/skin".
Signa said:
they hated it because it was a lazy "fuck you, we have your money" ending to the story. There was no artistic vision to the ending, they just ended it because they wanted (or needed, knowing EA) to be done. They didn't want content removed, or even altered, they wanted a complete finish. They wanted more added. That's not censorship at all!
Well I agree it's not censorship at all, because I don't agree with your definition of it. But by your definition, yes, what was done to Bioware would be censorship. You say you didn't play the game, well I did, and I've seen the original endings compared to the improved ones. And I gotta tell you, they're not that different. The core aspects of the endings are pretty much the same. They added a few more lines of dialogue to make a few things less ambiguous, and a few more still shots elaborating what happened to some of the other groups. That's it. It's not the difference between a complete ending, and and incomplete ending. Both were complete, just one was in a way that the fanbase lost their shit and bitched until they changed it, and the other was what they got for their bitching. And by your definition of censorship being something anyone can do, if they just say "I find this offensive" then yes, it was censorship.
And that's my point. It wasn't. It was the customer base complaining about a product, and demanding a change made or they wouldn't support the company anymore. And the company agreeing to the demands of their consumer base. That's something that happens in every aspect of the free market. That's the "your shit sucks, so I'm not giving you my money anymore" way of capitalism. It's not censorship.
Signa said:
I think that's only true to a point. Once a product enters public consciousness, revisions become dangerous because of nuance. George Lucas adding a scream for Luke falling down the Cloud City pit was something he just did with his work, and it made it shitty. He even realized it was shitty later, and removed it. It may be his right to change it, but it's unfair to the rest of us that enjoyed the product as it was originally created. His work became our experience, and trying to change that experience retroactively is a bad thing.
I think you and I are just going to have to disagree on some fundamentals here. Because I don't feel it's unfair for Lucas to change Star Wars. It's his creation, he can add flying space monkies that fart rainbows if he wants to. I have no right to demand that he change it back because "you changed it, now it sucks". I have no owning stock in Lucasfilms, I didn't help produce it, I simply watch it. And if he changes it and I don't like it, sure I can ***** about it, but he doesn't have to listen to a damn thing I say. And that's fine, I can just stop watching his stuff if I'm that upset about it. Him changing Star Wars doesn't change our love of it. There are still the unedited versions out there, I own them myself. If I want to, I can easily watch the original versions, no matter how many times Lucas changes them. He can't take that away from me. It doesn't retroactively taint the story, it's just a new thing that is different, and that I happen to not like. Now, to your point about the Luke scream, and him taking it out. This is a great example, would you say, that the people who bitched at him about that scream, censored him? No. Why not? Because I don't see any difference in "change it because it offends me politically!" and "change it because it offends me asthetically!" They are both essentially. "What you made pisses me off, and I want you to change it." The why of it is irrelevent. So if one is censorship, then they both are. And if one isn't censorship, then neither of them are.