Forum - View topic

The X Button - Long Division

As for Indivisible, I really would've liked to see a completely different art style. To me, it looks too much like Skullgirls, but I get the feeling Lab Zero doesn't have the resources to have another art team. I personally feel that, if they want Indivisible to be its own game, it should look artistically different too. (Unless Lab Zero wants Indivisible to evoke Skullgirls in their appearance or it shares a multiverse with Sullgirls.) That it looks too much like Skullgirls is the biggest turnoff to me. I like the artistic design for Skullgirls, but I really, really would've preferred Indivisible to have its own identity as an IP.

Ultimately Nintendo is putting out a product, not producing games as an outlet for their team of artists. Just because some of their artists might want to make hentai cg models doesn't mean that Nintendo is obligated to put out products to accommodate those perverse fantasies, and this case is no different. The artists were hired to make a product that can sell to its target market, and if Nintendo feels that changes need to be made in order to better accommodate that market, then the artist is already well-aware that the art they're creating is made for and owned by Nintendo, and is created to express the company's vision of the game for the market, not their own.

The beta does have an post-battle healing at least. There's a special attack gauge that builds up when you inflict damage. When a battle is over any unused portion of the gauge is converted to HP. The tiger-shaman lady also has a full-party healing spell.

I can see where you're going, but this kind of thing is inescapable when you have the same small team of designers on a project: Alex Ahad, Miriel Cartwright, Jonathan Kim... they're intimately tied with the design of the game, anyway. Indivisible wouldn't be what it is without them working on it.

It's like how Ristar looks a lot like Sonic the Hedgehog but played totally differently, if that makes any sense. Or Odin Sphere and Muramasa and Dragon's Crown. There were no other connecting points between those two games.

Besides, art-wise, the game does loads to differenciate itself from Skullgirls. It's set in an East-Asian-inspired world, whereas Skullgirls was "Dark Deco", with its heavy 1920s/raunchy Tex Avery-inspired design. Sure, the same unmistakeable artists are involved, but the games look way different in a side-by-side comparison.

Much like with Dragon's Crown, every aspect of Indivisible just wouldn't work without the art style complimenting it.

Oh yeah, I forgot to connect why I'm concerned about beginner-friendliness with healing: That sounds like an unstable equilibrium kind of mechanic. That is, players who become skilled at the game can effectively use this mechanic to keep the party healthy and ready for the next battle whereas people who are just learning might not have much of that special attack gauge left and struggle with low HP.

these changes do nothing but improve the game.

a thing nerds do is, they conflate the legal concept of censorship (”the government is dictating what you can or cannot say”) with a colloquial concept of censorship (”a lewd thing was voluntarily made less lewd”), and treat both as morally equivalent/interchangeable. these two concepts are in fact polysemes- they are described using the same term, but they are distinct ideas without any direct ethical relation or equivalence. one is a violation of human rights, and the other is not.
but hoo boy, you’ll get an earful from hornyboys about The First Amendment if a video game designer changes their mind about displaying a minor’s underwear

Has Nintendo not seen Bikini Girls? They're the best outfit for an adventurer to have, they protect you from extreme cold, heat and much more.

Anyway wasn't interested in XCX but it is still sad that Ninty forced that unnecessary change. Don't see how it was creepy, it's not even sexualized for an outfit but double standards yada yada. Sad but true.

DTJB wrote:

If this is a legit edit on Nintendo's part, then it doesn't matter if the art is crass or just plain stupid, censorship is still censorship. You don't have to like a particular aspect of a work of art; if it's different than what the artist intended, it's not the artist's vision, it's someone else's altered version of it. Personally, I think an artist's vision and meaning should remain intact, even if the meaning behind the art doesn't amount to anything that's thought provoking, worthwhile, or good. It reflects what the artist personally wants, not what someone else wants it to be.

I feel like, even more so than with Fatal Frame, that outfit as it originally was would provoke some angry parents raising a media stink and damaging Nintendo's reputation. Nintendo is vulnerable to this sort of thing, as unlike Rockstar or Bethesda, Nintendo has a family-friendly image to it, so it continues to be a name parents trust. Losing that trust, at least as far as westerners with western sensibilities, could very well spell the end of the company.

CoreSignal wrote:

Japan has its double standards, too. Sexualizing young characters in Japan may be ok but on the other hand, some forms of violence are not. I know the JP versions of Evil Within, Metal Gear Solid V, parts of the Uncharted games, God of War 3 etc. all had some or all of the blood and gore censored in some way. You could equally say that the JP publishers catered to their audience as well. That said, I also think the name changes by Nintendo are pretty stupid.

There's also No More Heroes and its sequel, which has the strange case of it becoming censored for violence in the country it was made (and carried to the European version) but all the blood and gore kept unchanged for the American version.

You're being sarcastic... right? It shows underboobs. On a 13-year-old kid. I'm not sure what's creepier, that people actually like this kind of filth, or that some don't even see the sexualization in it.

Methinks enough people would think of that as sexualized, what with the underboobs a size-too-small provocatively-swisscheese bikini no sane parents would willingly buy for their 13-yr-old daughter.............. and that's what matters to Nintendo.

Man, gamers don't deserve nice things.

Well, you know Japan can and will justify why they do the things they do to females both young and old in games, including undressing them to practically nothing. And I'm sure everyone here knows what the "why" is.

I'm not being sarcastic, I just do not see that as in any way sexualized. It covers as much as a moderate bikini would therefore I see nothing wrong with it nor it being in the slightest bit creepy, even for a 13 year old.

I don't think I have seen bikinis worn so as to expose the lower curve of the breasts at the beach here in the U.S. Is this common in the U.K.? (Toplessness or nudity is something else.)

I don't think I have seen bikinis worn so as to expose the lower curve of the breasts at the beach here in the U.S. Is this common in the U.K.? (Toplessness or nudity is something else.)

No I'm not sure what the "why" is and why I'm supposed to see that as being bad whatever it is.