Quote from: Ender on January 27, 2016, 10:18:13 AM

R rated movies are allowed to have sex and nudity in them, so it would be pretty silly to protest it.

I agree. I never said anything about that, though.

It all depends on the movie.

If we're talking Serbian Film levels of sex, where there's an extended scene of a man raping a newborn baby, you might want to reconsider that stance.

That was political commentary and entirely validated.

I'm not an elderly golf player, though. Not even... Not even close.

I just don't see what the problem is when it comes to protesting a game and demanding it to be changed. At all. That, in itself, is part of your guaranteed 1st amendment rights. All I'm saying is, "I don't like this. If you don't change this, I will not buy this game, and I will speak out against your game, and I will tell others to avoid your game, you bunch of disgusting cunts."

I'm not holding a gun to their head--I'm just saying, if they keep pulling this shit, I will do whatever I can to boycott them. Until they change.

They don't HAVE to change--but I will refuse to support them unless they do. Because I don't support their art product.

Why is that wrong?

Exaggeration is just the easiest way to convey metaphor. I was just elaborating on what I meant by "demographics".

Allow me to alter my message: why something is changed is more important than what. There's nothing wrong with sharing a sentiment, I wasn't quite saying that it shouldn't happen. The issue is whether the artist changed their idea because someone else thought it was wrong, or because the artist thought it was wrong. The exchange of information creates new perspectives; if IS thought, "gee, maybe that just isn't a good mechanic." when localizing the game, that's entirely fine. Even if someone had to tell them that first.

What isn't okay is changing because the artist was pressured into it. That's how you get 90's localizations, where "Tatsuri" becomes "Tyler", and is suddenly a different ethnicity. Feeling you should change your work out of fear that it won't be accepted is not okay. Fear causes misunderstandings, and unnecessary actions.

It's one thing to change the outfit of a thirteen year-old because you understand cultural differences, and another to completely remove a customization option because you're afraid that someone might misunderstand your intent. (Xenoblade Chronicles X)

This OP isn't biased, one sided, or exaggerated at all.

Indeed.

And it doesn't include false information either.

Glad we agree.

The only example I can think of where a developer changed something in their game due to severe backlash was just before Infamous 2 came out. Cole's redesign was universally panned when it was first revealed, and Sucker Punch was like, "Oh, people are really upset over this, let's change it." And they changed it.

CENS0RSH1P

How often does this actually happen, though?

YouTube

All of the worlds sin is contained within this face patting mini game.

Yes.

Well, if I were to use your logic here, technically the only people who should have any say or right to modify on the respective "vision" of their game or content are the creators themselves.

Which would therefore define censorship as an outsider alteration to the dev's true vision of the game. Which would merit a no from me, then. Even if the game is shit because of it.

Finding a balance between vision and business, to me, has artistic value in and of itself. It's admirable when your artistic vision can be enjoyed by a large number of people.

Any chucklefuck can express him or herself in whatever shitty way he or she pleases, with no regard for what other people think. That's fine. I do that all the time.

But anyone can do it, and there's nothing particularly impressive about it.

Besides. Products will show themselves for what they are. As a whole if it's deemed as shit then it won't do well. If it isn't, then it will. These things sort themselves out on their own

No, they don't. I'm sick of this argument.

The average person is not a good judge for what is or isn't shit. You simply can't rely on them.

If the game was censored at gunpoint, worldwide, I'd probably be against it too. But that example couldn't be further from the truth.

edit:
I can't fucking type for shit today.

Quote from: Sandtrap on January 27, 2016, 11:14:05 AM

Besides. Products will show themselves for what they are. As a whole if it's deemed as shit then it won't do well. If it isn't, then it will. These things sort themselves out on their own

No, they don't. I'm sick of this argument.

The average person is not a good judge for what is or isn't shit. You simply can't rely on them.

If the game was censored at gunpoint, worldwide, I'd probably be against it too. But that example couldn't be further from the truth.

edit:
I can't fucking type for shit today.

Well, I'm an average person. I know I wouldn't buy the game. You're an average person. You wouldn't buy the game. All this really ends up coming down to is a matter of opinion because on one hand you might have a group of "average" people who will buy the game, and another group who won't.

Take it a step further and you realise that "average" has different standards in different parts of the world.

In japan this game might sell like hotcakes because it appeals to the average population over there. Over here it might do better or worse because of the differences in people.

Using the word "average" to describe people is such a shit way because there is no actual answer to really define what the fuck an average person is. Unless of course you can pull out an official handbook and cite to me the exact rules and definitions of what an average person counts as.

Quote from: Prime Megaten on January 27, 2016, 10:37:31 AM

Exaggeration is just the easiest way to convey metaphor. I was just elaborating on what I meant by "demographics".

Allow me to alter my message: why something is changed is more important than what. There's nothing wrong with sharing a sentiment, I wasn't quite saying that it shouldn't happen. The issue is whether the artist changed their idea because someone else thought it was wrong, or because the artist thought it was wrong. The exchange of information creates new perspectives; if IS thought, "gee, maybe that just isn't a good mechanic." when localizing the game, that's entirely fine. Even if someone had to tell them that first.

What isn't okay is changing because the artist was pressured into it. That's how you get 90's localizations, where "Tatsuri" becomes "Tyler", and is suddenly a different ethnicity. Feeling you should change your work out of fear that it won't be accepted is not okay. Fear causes misunderstandings, and unnecessary actions.

It's one thing to change the outfit of a thirteen year-old because you understand cultural differences, and another to completely remove a customization option because you're afraid that someone might misunderstand your intent. (Xenoblade Chronicles X)

But the only real way to "pressure" a developer into changing something is by threatening to boycott their game. Refuse to purchase the game. That's the only way. I mean, what else is there? If you honestly believe that pressuring developers to change is bad, it follows that the only method to pressure the developer is also bad. Right?

I mean, the only other way to express your disapproval is to write a rant on your blog, or bitch on your Twitter, or something. Write a letter of disapproval.

And they're not gonna give a fuck--why would they? You have to boycott, if you don't support their product.

Why, not what. That's my concern.

Why, not what. That's my concern.

I still don't understand. Is it not perfectly reasonable why the game is being censored here?

Is it not perfectly reasonable why someone would protest this, and want it to be removed or changed?

Absolutely nobody is forcing the developer to change anything. If they change it because they feel pressured, then that's on them. Not us. You simply can't blame people like me for protesting the game--and you can't blame them for making the correct response by censoring the game.

If they felt pressured, oh well--they did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

At the end of the day, they improved a game.

Still, something tells me that you'd be against the change even if it was confirmed that it wasn't due to pressure.

That's actually an interesting question. I'm probably a little biased because I have to deal with Australia's ridiculous censorship of things at times, (And they get stupid with it a lot of the time), so I'm against censorship of games in a lot of cases. In the case of when a game is objectively better off without it? I'd still say that depends on what's being removed. A side thing, that doesn't have much impact on the game, then I can probably forgive it being removed in the case of localisation, or different laws. We do have to consider Japan's culture, compared to more Western culture (Not discussing what Japan SHOULD do, discussing what they currently do). Anyway, it's when censorship severely ruins the original design of the game is when I have a problem. Care usually isn't taken in censoring things, and you're left with a mess of a game because all they did was take out the bad bits without consideration into how they fit into the rest of the game. If censorship is going to occur, then it needs to have effort into replacing the censored bits, so we're not left with a puzzle piece of a game.

Sorry this is probably a mess, I just woke up.

I agree. It's always unfortunate when the thing being censored is integral to the work in some way, and there's no way to work around it. In those cases, I'd be against the censorship. In this particular case, however, it adds nothing to the game but cheap tulpa-esque gratification for a bunch of neckbearded waifu-having losers. Removing the feature takes away nothing of value.

I'd like to just clarify that I'm against censorship in 99.99% of cases. This particular case hits home for me, because Nintendo has always been this safe haven (most of the time) for... wholesome, non-sexualized shit--and I just view this getting-intimate-with-a-partner-in-your-bedroom thing to be a little bit over-the-top.

Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 27, 2016, 12:15:14 PM

This particular case hits home for me, because Nintendo has always been this safe haven (most of the time) for... wholesome, non-sexualized shit--and I just view this getting-intimate-with-a-partner-in-your-bedroom thing to be a little bit over-the-top.

So umm, are we talking about the same Nintendo? This is the same company that use to own a Love Hotel chain and produced games such as rub rabbits where you made babies with other people and undressed them.

This particular case hits home for me, because Nintendo has always been this safe haven (most of the time) for... wholesome, non-sexualized shit--and I just view this getting-intimate-with-a-partner-in-your-bedroom thing to be a little bit over-the-top.

Preempted. I knew someone was going to try and smart-ass there way out of that one.

And Nintendo didn't produce it--Sonic Team did.

It has Nintendo's license, that's it.