Forum - View topic

NEWS: XSEED: Corpse Party: Blood Drive Will Not Contain Censorship

That is why when Atlus announced they were censoring Dungeon Travelers 2, they said that an AO rating would would be inevitable, as opposed to just saying it was rated AO. In the case with NISA censoring Criminal Girls, they censored it because the staff was trading backdoor emails with someone who was supposedly from the ESRB and acted soley on his "insider" advice, thus bypassing the ratings process (official ratings are decided on a vote).

In both cases, you never actually see the games listed as being rated AO on www.esrb.org whenever they annonce that they're censoring a title--They intended to censor it before they even submit it to the ESRB, without bothering to actually give the official ratings process a chance.

Not one game localized from Japan has ever been through a Manhunt 2-style situation where it was officially rated AO the first time and had to be resubmitted with a censored version.

Yes. It's better to not have it at all than to have a censored version.

In at least the case of Dungeon Travelers (maybe Criminal Girls too, but I'm not positive on that one) the publisher consulted with the ESRB before/during the rating process, were told by the ESRB "this content will get your game an AO rating", and proceeded to censor the flagged content. The ESRB does that. They can look over your game before a final rating in given.

Then you realize we wouldn't have pretty much any ecchi games in the west with that mentality, right? So you want an entire genre to disappear because the ratings boards force some minor edits? That's a horrible way of thinking.

Actually, no. My train of thought is pretty correct. You either localize it all, or don't bother. You save your resources for something you can localize unhindered and leave the "questionable title" to a company that might actually have some balls.

If a localization company has been in the business of localizing titles for 10-20 years, they themselves should already have some idea of what sort of content is going to be rated AO. However, the ratings process is done by a vote, and the ESRB has rated M on extremely rique games before (Exhibit A: The Senran Kagura series).

It may seem cost effective to get an insider "consultant", but if they have to censor something, they risk losing sales by pissing off a consumer base that actually cares about the content in their games. How are they to let one or two company representatives determine the voice of an entire ratings organization that has been exposed to all sorts of questionable crap for nearly two-and-a-half decades now?

Actually, I'd rather see them investing the extra time and money assuring their fans that the ESRB was the only factor in their decisions should the need to censor arise (see below) That means exhausting their options by risking an a extra week or two to getting it through the ratings process uncensored. Anything less than that is half-assing it. Plain and simple.

I never once said it wouldn't work. However, you cannot definitively say that it does work if there's no precedent for it (I.E--localized games have actually been rated AO before).

Tom had to fight his peers to ensure the content of Senran Kagura remained unedited, and the ESRB wasn't even a factor in their reasoning--If it weren't for him, we would've gotten even worse editing than the removal of the characters' ages from their descriptions.

In an industry that doesn't allow AO titles on console games, it's far too easy for companies to censor for their own reasons and use the ESRB as a scapegoat. The only way to definitively prove that they're not dicking around with censoring content is to get an uncensored non-eroge title officially rated AO and have it listed as such on the ESRB's website.

Regardless of whether using "backdoor" insiders does work, this sort of practice is unethical as hell. From a consumer standpoint, it does a major disservice to fans that actually partake in such games, because they'll have to deal with watered-down content when it might've not even needed to be.

From the ESRB's standpoint, it's just as even more unethical. Tom himself has mentioned that the companies using backdoor talks with ESRB "reps" often do so under NDAs, so they don't mention who they talk with. You know why this happens? It's because if the ESRB knew who these "reps" were, they'd fire them for damaging their brand, since they were acting on their behalf behind their backs and disclosing unauthorized information without any official input.

If the ESRB rates games on a majority vote, they wouldn't want any single member to have the ability to essentially dictate a publisher's impression of the final outcome of the ratings process.

The ESRB is intended to act on behalf of the consumers, not the companies. I don't think self-censorship apologists like you seem to understand this.

Watch Dogs, which has sex slaves and completely topless women

This has nothing to do with "having some balls". If the ratings boards block you, they block you. That's exactly what happens. I've already said it before, Atlus, NISA, XSEED, Aksys, etc do NOT have the money or time to risk getting an AO. They unofficially consult with the ratings boards, get up front what's flagged as inappropriate, and modify it appropriately.

This is incorrect. Ratings change. Look at the Hot Coffee incident. That was flagged AO immediately, but in today's world GTA V goes far beyond that and was given an M. Also, Senran Kagura really isn't THAT risque compared to something such as Criminal Girls. Bon Appetite might be on the level but Shinovi Versus and Senran Kagura Burst is really tame in comparison.

You realize these unofficial consultations are done with members of the ratings board, right? It's not like the door man is doing the consultation for them. There's a reason Tom says emailing the ESRB is a completely valid way to know up front what's a problem and what isn't.

Why do you think it's "just a week or two?" You realize they would have to get hit with the AO flag and go back to the drawing board. From the beginning of the localization process. That's NOT a simple one to two week process. Once they get the unsellable rating they need to decide how to get it down to something sellable, have development code the changes (more time and money), have QA retest the game to make sure nothing broke (more time and money), then get the game rated again. It's not a small setback for a small company and it's simply not an option to go back to the drawing board. For most companies the rating is one of the last things done. That's why you see trailers with "Rating Pending."

Erm, what? You said it doesn't work when you disagreed with the unofficial consultations being valid ways to work around the requirement of getting a rating first. The whole point of the consultations is to avoid a precedent.

Yes, Tom fought his peers, and LOST. That's why the game was censored in the first place. Shinovi Versus by all definitions of the word was modified from its original content. So you calling Shinovi Versus unedited is false.

Businesses do not just throw away money like that. Delays in localizations that push back other projects Why would they deliberately submit what they've been told is not going to be sellable only to delay a localization and any potential projects they have in the pipeline? Just to appease a few paranoid gamers? Doesn't seem business savvy to me.

And as a consumer you have the option to vote with your wallet. You don't have to buy a product you're dissatisfied with. Alternatively if you know Japanese, there's almost always the uncensored product available.

Do you have a source on that? Because that's complete speculation and personal bias. Businesses generally do not want their processes being made pubic.

Why not? How does that hurt the ESRB at all? Literally all they're there to do is rate games.

The ESRB doesn't exist for consumers. Not by a longshot. They exist for Parents so they can make educated guesses at what is appropriate for their children. They don't exist for adults who know what is appropriate for themselves.

So how does the ESRB prove that they know for sure that a game like Criminal Girls is AO and Bon Appetit is M rated if they only see the uncensored version of one of these games? I can't be convinced if a game is tamer or worse just by taking your wole word for it--That's something I decide based on my own opinions and experiences.

You seem to be putting a lot of faith in an ambiguous situation here.

Individual members, I might add--You've dodged my question again: How is the opinion of an individual rater supposed to be representative of everyone in the ESRB? Unless they can say that they've "unofficially" consulted each and every member that will be engaged in the ratings process and have them all "unofficially" rate the game together, there is no proof that any one of them are able to speak for the board as a whole.

So with all this uncertainty, why are you so convinced these games were that unsellable in their original form? Why are you convinced that the ESRB really would rate those games AO if there never has been a precedent?

Here are two questions for you: I've heard ridiculous claims by fans that ESRB is a censorship organization. Do you think the ESRB wants to be labled this way? You really think it would look good on ESRB to appear as though they're engaging in backdoor talks with publishers to contribute to what can be perceived as de-facto censorship?

I highly doubt it.

Parents are consumers, dude. The fact that they have to "consume" money for products they intend to hand off to their children makes them consumers by default. You don't have to directly partake in the games material to actually become a "consumer" in the slightest.

Besides, do you really have that much faith in people that you believe there isn't such a thing as an adult who doesn't know what is or isn't appropriate? Do you really think all adults are able to tolerate mature content equally? Why do you believe that the ESRB exists for the sole benefit of children?

There is no excuse for these sorts of practices or trying to defend them. As long as the localization companies keep hiding behind scapegoats and people trying to constantly cover for them, our little niche market is never going to break any barriers.

razisgosu wrote:

Would you rather see them cancel the product because a second submission and a 6 month delay makes it unviable for them to release it?

Yes. It's better to not have it at all than to have a censored version.

sony and ms need to just say forget let parents parent their kids, and let ao titles on their systems. Nintendo will be nintendo, but given the violence sexual content double standard its already questionable how valid the esrb system is, so just allow ao games and be done with it.

Unless you can cite specifics on any documents released by ESRB, any statements made by non-anonymous representatives in the organization, or any details on their website that indicate they engage in ratings consulting with publishers prior to the ratings process, this statement is dubious at best. The localization companies pay fees to the ESRB to get these games rated--Why would they give them pertinent information used in a rating assignment for no charge at all?

Atlus actually consulted with the ESRB prior to submitting. They helped identify which images would be an issue, and we took their feedback to the developer to change the images appropriately.

Then you realize we wouldn't have pretty much any ecchi games in the west with that mentality, right? So you want an entire genre to disappear because the ratings boards force some minor edits? That's a horrible way of thinking.

razisgosu wrote:

Then you realize we wouldn't have pretty much any ecchi games in the west with that mentality, right? So you want an entire genre to disappear because the ratings boards force some minor edits? That's a horrible way of thinking.

If we can't have them unaltered* it's better to not have them at all, yes. I won't buy anything with altered content, that is for sure.


*Changing or omitting the age of characters is just as bad.

razisgosu wrote:

Then you realize we wouldn't have pretty much any ecchi games in the west with that mentality, right? So you want an entire genre to disappear because the ratings boards force some minor edits? That's a horrible way of thinking.

If we can't have them unaltered* it's better to not have them at all, yes. I won't buy anything with altered content, that is for sure.

*Changing or omitting the age of characters is just as bad.

[Edit]: removed personal comment. Errinundra.