Forum - View topicAnswerman - What's With All The Censorship Lately?
|
Goto page Previous Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
leafy sea dragon
 Posts: 7163 Location: Another Kingdom |
|
|||||||||||||||
Yep, sounds like you're taking offense at other people taking offense. I highly doubt there are that many people out there looking for something to take offense to, because it's not a positive feeling. Rather, there are people who are easily offended by particular things, and, thanks to the pervasiveness of the Internet, can say what they feel. Indeed, for any particular thing, someone can take offense to it. I remember waiting in a crowded parking lot waiting for someone to leave, and when I told him that I'll allow him to leave, he took it as an insult and decided to sit in his car in the space ranting to me about his eating schedule. This phenomenon is nothing new. There have always been people who, due to their beliefs or political values or their moral compass or whatnot, will take offense at things few other people do. Hence, I don't really see what the big deal is here. Now I ask: For these people who take offense at certain things, what should they do? What offends you (besides people taking offense at things), and how do you react to it?
It sounds like you want to take action against this, but I can't really figure out if you have in mind some feasible means to do it.
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is estimated to ultimately bring in $900 million worldwide gross. Whether it will turn a profit is uncertain, but it is certainly not poor ticket sales. There's been a drop from the first week, but the money's there. Critical reception to a movie doesn't correlate strongly to box office performance. It helps, but if the movie is something that doesn't appeal to professional critics and film buffs but is loved by the general public, you're going to see a huge gap between them. Zack Snyder is one of those directors popular with his intended audience but not with film fans, just like Tyler Perry, Michael Bay, and Adam Sandler. (Jerry Bruckheimer is a borderline case--he's hit-or-miss critically but, Lone Rangeraside, is consistently a sales success.)
Even if you self-publish or you're indie, you sometimes still have to compromise, because, just like everyone else, you have to turn a profit in order to survive (even more so if you're running a small company, because one unprofitable project is all it takes to sink you). And in rare cases, you may have to make changes to fit with legal standards (particularly if there are sexually suggestive images of underage characters). |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
manapear
Posts: 1526 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Honestly though, many of the people against censorship tend to be very amusing and hypocritical. They get offended that people will (potentially) be offended over certain material, so clearly, they're the only ones allowed to be offended. On top of the hypocrisy, they attacked Alison Rapp, especially on her essay in regards to the Japanese pedophilia law; and yet they wanted the ability to see Lin in a swimsuit or create loli-like bodies for pervy outfits. Lol, why be so hypocritical? It's incredibly telling.
What I'm curious about is all the people lying about the "censorship" in these games. Obviously they haven't played it to know, but it's happening with Fates and it happened with XCX too. Are the people spreading the lies just anti-Nintendo? Anti-people who care about social justice? Why bother spreading the lies? Aside from the misconceptions and lies on Fates, I remember all kind of asinine stuff people would throw out in regards to XCX, like "all references and instances of religion were removed," and yet, God and all kinds of religion were constantly thrown about in the game. (And handled surprisingly well and in a variety of ways!) I think the heart of the misconception/lies will certainly reveal something about a portion of the censorship-crying crowd and what's going on there. As a minor note, it also is weird to me how zero sum the anti-censorship people are about things. You can dislike censorship but still support a product. Even if you don't want to support the changes/removals, do it for the sake of the original creator. Just be sure to contact whoever is publishing/localizing that you don't like the particular changes. (And if you're going to not buy the product, don't go off and try to enjoy it for free either, because it irritates me most when people brag about how they're just going to emulate the game instead of buy any kind of copy. That's also shady and wrong.) |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Cave
Posts: 80 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Going to add my 2 cents in as someone who is hugely anti-censorship:
I don't care who's doing it. I don't care the reasons why. Censorship should never happen. Period.
Definitely agree. For example, I don't buy manga published by Viz anymore as they have censored far, far too much for my tastes (I make an exception for ESJ though as it is ridiculously cheap). Now I just buy the Japanese volumes and read them while I learn Japanese. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
manapear
Posts: 1526 |
|
|||||||||||||||
That's a much better alternative. I am pretty frustrated with Viz, but I'm also very mixed about a lot websites and fan translations (between quality and their beliefs; like whether or not they bother encouraging people to support the official versions). But I always make an effort to at least buy the manga raw, whether when the issue comes out in the magazines, or the volumes. There is always a way to support the (original) creator, even if you don't want to support changes. And even if it came down to the Japanese company censoring themselves (SO5 is a recent case, but I hesitate to call that censorship, especially given the situation), I still think it's more worthwhile to still buy their product but send a message to them. Even if we don't support censorship, it's also important to support our markets, given they can be rather niche. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Johan Eriksson 9003
Posts: 281 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Seriously, just stop using comparisons altogether. It's very clear that you have no idea what makes them work. This one in particular fails on multiple levels. First of all, you are literary comparing "not making as much money as they could have" to instant death. Can you say hyperbole much? If Nintendo had released the game without removing any content, the absolute worst that might have happened is that they would lose some customers. This may be bad for a company sure, but it is hardly comparable to being shot in the head. They wouldn't even have gone bankrupt for Christ's sake. Both of the other options from before would have been equally valid ways of making money. Maybe not as much as option C but they would definitely have turned a profit. That's not an "illusion" of choice. The choice does not disappear just because some choices lead to better results than others. Second of all, the comparison fails because in your scenario, the need for survival is brought on purely by external forces whereas Nintendo has had agency from the start. They are a company, which means that they started out with the intention of making money. They moved into the gaming industry with the intention of making money and now they are designing games with the intention of making money. Making money has always been their goal and they have always been making products with that priority in mind.The only one twisting power dynamics here is you by pretending that the consumers are holding some kind of gun to Nintendo's head.
This is getting ridiculous. What you agree or disagree with is of no consequence. It still doesn't change the fact that there is a massive difference between a work being poorly received by the audience and a work being illegal to publish. You can't pretend that the prospect of being physically thrown in jail is just some minor technicality that can be overlooked here. The playwright isn't physically free to publish his work because if he does, then the censor can bring in physical policemen to physically shut him down and physically throw him in jail. Why is this so goddamn hard for you to understand? You can't pretend that 2 situations are the same just because they both have "consequences" when said consequences are nothing alike for the two scenarios. The playwright will be stripped of his freedom and basic human rights if he doesn't comply with the government censor's wishes. Nintendo will make somewhat less money if they don't comply with their customers' wishes. The playwright's "motivation" is to put his work out there which he can't do unless the censor approves of his work. Nintendo's goal is also to put their work out there, which they can still do without listening to the feedback they get because no one will stop them or physically pull their game off the shelves if they don't. They just choose to do it in a certain way because they also wish to make money off their product. These two are nothing alike. Stop pretending that having the freedom to do exactly what you want to do with your medium is somehow censorship.
So what is your point then? What rights or artistic freedoms have been compromised by this "censorship"? Why are you so adamant in arguing for calling out this censorship when it is just a part of what the company itself wants to do with their product, which is their legal and moral right? It's like you just really want people to admit that this is censorship without regard for what makes actual censorship such a huge violation of civil rights.
You are avoiding the issue. The studio most likely would have made changes if they knew how poorly received the movie would be (I'm speaking relatively here since it obviously still made money), and that is just supply and demand, which is exactly my point. This is simply the market at work. The public made it clear that they weren't interested in a product that had homophobia and creepy petting games in it and the company listened. No ones artistic freedoms were compromised and no ones rights were infringed upon. This is only "censorship" in the most technical and meaningless way, because in the end, no one forced Nintendo to do anything. That fact will never change, no matter how much you would like to pretend that the public totally held a gun to their head. If the public really did "censor" Nintendo in this case, then you are also "censoring" every single product that you have no interest in by simply not buying it. Are you starting to see how ridiculous this is yet?
To have agency is to have the freedom to act in a way that you wish to act in order to achieve your own goals and needs. Nintendo's goal is to make money and listening to the public is the best way to achieve that, which means that listening to the feedback is what they want to do. In other words, yes, I can prove that they have enough agency here. It is absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a multi-million-dollar company has less agency in this situation. It's like a bad Simpsons joke. "Oh, won't somebody think of the international conglomerate". |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Paiprince
 Posts: 593 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Which is hypocritical of them because by no means Fire Emblem is a family friendly title (or "mainstream" for that matter as someone earlier pointed out lol.). If you've ever had knowledge of the history of the series, the themes and portrayals exhibited runs anathema to NoA's image (war, child murders,adultery, rape, incest etc.). It would've been NoA's best interest if they just didn't release this to the West altogether. What NoA did was a complete misinterpretation of its audience, but because they care obsessively about their perceived image, they went so much as to make all these "localizations" for the sake of the "market" (yeah right). They gambled on that and sadly, they won because they had the misconception that the apathetics and the apologists are the majority because they simply base it on this erroneous reasoning of, "hurr biggest selling FE game to date durr." Yeah, let's just disregard how there is also a huge chunk of fans who became frustrated and ended up boycotting them. I mean they're all just whiny babies right? Who cares about them and their money? There goes potentially more profits down the drain. I guess when you're swimming with so much money, Nintendo doesn't care pissing off core fans as long as it keeps its squeaky clean persona. I'd just like to add that if everyone's priorities in their heads are just how much dollars and yens they can make, then art as it was intended would have become a stale safe space full of hugboxes and unicorns. Yes, I am not going to lie that I'm offended at those who are easily offended because they ARE the ones who don't know how the real world works. Either grow several layers of thick skin or cry off to your liberal arts college campus and write your silly little lib dissertations. We shouldn't be paying something that is cut and neutered just to appease the fee-fees that would get hurt whatsoever. As much as I wanted to wash my hands off this hot mess, it looks like this whole issue will keep haunting me for the rest of my life. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Chrysostomus
Posts: 335 |
|
|||||||||||||||
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Actar
 Posts: 1074 Location: Singapore |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
@ johan.eriksson.9003
I can see that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this subject due to the fundamental differences in our assumptions, ideologies and definitions. You are taking a deontological approach and choose to define censorship in a very, very, very limited and strict sense. I suppose you don't even believe in self-censorship and find it to be an oxymoron. Talking about ignoring the issue, why do these arguments keep spiraling into semantic games? What does changing the wording serve to achieve other than to take attention away from the actions of the companies and justify and legitimize them? Are we somehow trivializing the word for you? Well, a burn is a burn, be it third-degree or a first-degree. Censorship is censorship be it by the state, society or self - whether it is rights or civil liberties being trampled upon or the ability to fully express oneself as you would have without the external forces dictating your actions. Consequences are consequences, be it prison or profit loss. The degree doesn't matter when both parties are driven by the desire to remain free from censure and repercussion. You have not proven that companies are willing to accept profit loss in order to release a game un-censored. You can't. They won't. Their freedom to do so is limited by the society. Am I "also "censoring" every single product that (I) have no interest in by simply not buying it"? Nope. You said it yourself. It is precisely because I have no interest. I wouldn't have bought it anyway. Whatever the case, I've said my piece. Call the changed suggestive Fire Emblem scenes, 
the altered religious symbols in Yu-Gi-Oh!, 
the no-longer homosexual Uranus and Neptune in Sailor Moon 
and the blue Popo in Dragon Ball... 
edits, creative decisions or whatever you want. I just don't agree with the censorship. (^.^) |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
NearEasternerJ1
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
@Actar Get with the times. That doesn't exist in Sailor Moon. The new uncut dub retains the homosexuality. You would have known that if you did some basic research. The Dragon Ball Kai thing? One fringe channel censored Popo. The Nicktoons and uncut version has the original "black Popo".
Also, games aren't comparable to anime. -_- |
||||||||||||||||
Touma
 Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||
If the game makers are not free to modify the games as they see fit then they do not have the ability to fully express themselves. All commercial products respond to the external forces of the market place.
I do not think that I am the only person who believes that tailoring a product to a specific market is not censorship. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Paiprince
Posts: 593 |
|
|||||||||||||||
Truly ironic when we live in the time where such arbitrary forms of alteration should be considered a relic of the 90's. Remember Working Designs? Treehouse seems hellbent to follow on its footsteps. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Chrysostomus
Posts: 335 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Johan Eriksson 9003
Posts: 281 |
|
|||||||||||||||
And you define it in such a broad way that the entire concept becomes pointless and toothless. Self-censorship certainly exists, I just think it is stupid to consider it to be the same thing as actual censorship. One is a tool used to limit artistic freedom and control others, the other is a necessary part of the creative process and just everyday life in general. The only thing they have in common is the name.
Except you aren't comparing burns, you are comparing the loss of basic human rights with a natural part of doing business. In metaphor-speak it's more like comparing a third-degree burn with a hot and dry breeze. The latter is at worst annoying, at best pleasant. Customers telling companies what they want or don't want to spend money on is how the companies learn and do better.Thus they produce not only better products, but hopefully better art.
And Nintendo is free from censure and repercussions. The playwright isn't. The public not buying your product is simply the result of putting out a product that no one wants, which is exactly why you are censoring everything you don't buy if we go with your definition of censorship. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly is you not buying things you don't like different from the critics not buying a game with content they don't like? By not showing interest in the product, you are making a statement about what will sell, just as all the people who criticized the petting game in FE did. Thus you are contributing to "society censoring art" since your disinterest is going to affect the company's decissions in the future. Could it be that you just don't think it is as big of a deal when things you don't like is criticized? Yeah, I thought so. People who cry "censorship" in situations like this rarely have enough self-awareness to realize that they themselves have been influencing the market since long before now. I bet I can guess what side of the Overwatch and Baldur's Gate controversy you would be on to, and I bet it isn't the one you are championing now. Of course companies will always care more about their profits. That has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. You can make a great point about whether or not there can really be any real artistic vision when a medium is produced mainly for profit, but that has nothing to do with censorship. Also, why should I have to "prove" anything? If we go by the standard "innocent until proven guilty" method, shouldn't the burden of proof lie with you since you are the one insisting that the public has done something wrong? Where is your proof that Nintendo isn't happy with this change from a creative standpoint?
I'm not familiar enough with American media history to know exactly how many of those examples are just a result of changing tastes and how many are genuine censorship, but I do find it extremely dishonest to pretend that obscuring some T&A is as bad as pretending that gay people don't exist. And if you honestly think that edits and creative decissions are the same as censorship, then you don't really respect art or artists at all. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Actar
Posts: 1074 Location: Singapore |
|
|||||||||||||||
Er, no duh? Standards change. What was considered offensive back then can be widely accepted now. It's called being progressive.
Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. Though I have touched on this multiple times in earlier posts, it was drowned out by the derailing argument that I got caught up in. A distinction has to be made between translation/localization/edits and censorship. Not all changes made with the prospect of "tailoring a product to a specific market" is censorship and I should have emphasized that more. A good localization seeks to preserve meaning and allow the product to remain as accurate to the original as possible in terms of either content or experience, to be understood by the target audience. Censorship is the removing or altering of content on the basis that the content can be considered objectionable or offensive. The entire argument above with johan.eriksson.9003 was about whether or not it could be called censorship when it's "voluntary". I sought out to prove that it wasn't voluntary and that's when the argument derailed. Speaking of which...
See above. Also, I don't believe in objectively good art.
First of, there's no need for the condescending sarcasm. I have been nothing but civil to you throughout this entire exchange. You'll have to elaborate on that Overwatch and Baldur's Gate controversy, because I don't follow gaming news. Though, I doubt my stand would be inconsistent as what I am personally advocating for is for content to be released as-is and unaltered, for people to be given the ability and choice to decide for themselves whether or not the content is suitable for their own consumption without having to resort to censorship. Don't like the petting simulator and boob slider? Just don't use those features! It's there for people who want them. No sense in denying others their enjoyment when you can have your own as well. But I digress. With regard to your first question, similar to the idea of piracy, we are talking about potential lost sales. Minimizing the prospective lost sales if the objectionable content had been left in. For people like me who wouldn't have bothered to have bought the game anyway, it wouldn't have even factored into the calculations.
I highly doubt it was along the lines of "gay people don't exist" and more along the lines of "this wouldn't sit well in a children's show as it might be construed as promoting sexual deviance". But, what do I know. It was the 1990s.
From what I understand, all of them could have been legally broadcast on television. But to avoid bad air times or being rated for more mature audiences or controversies, they played it safe and made the changes. Someone, do correct me if I'm wrong in this regard. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
CoreSignal
 Posts: 727 Location: California, USA |
|
|||||||||||||||
I think it's less a case of Nintendo misinterpreting their audience and more a case of how the audience for Fire Emblem has changed. The Fire Emblem games had been pretty niche during the GBA and Gamecube/Wii era but what happened is that Fire Emblem went mainstream with Awakening and now you're getting a ton of people who've never played a FE game before or people who normally don't play SRPGs. Nintendo started paying attention to the content in FE once the series became a breakout hit and began attracting non-FE players. They took a marketing gamble by censoring the content in FE Fates because they risked pissing off the fanbase but like you said, the gamble paid off, since Fates is a huge success so far. Nintendo may be hypocrites, but at the end of the day they're also a business, and I'm sure they'll forget any ethical concerns once they're at the bank.
As said earlier, anime, manga, video games, etc. are art but they're also a business. Artists and developers will often have to compromise their artistic vision in order to sell a product. Look at how the original FFXII director was pressured into doing something he didn't want to because of commerical reasons. Look at Koji Igarashi, Keiji Inafune, and now Hideo Kojima, leaving Konami and Capcom because they couldn't make the games they wanted to make. In the case of Igarashi and Inafune, they both went to Kickstarter so they could have complete creative control. leafy sea dragon mentioned that even self-published and indie games have to make commerical considerations but Igarashi and Inafune still have more creative freedom with Kickstarter than if they had stayed at Konami and Capcom. |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
) 
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group