Forum

Ambimunch wrote:

Meanwhile games like Gears of War where you rip people to bits and chainsaw their necks into a fountain of flesh and gore is okay. But hey, gotta protect kids from the boobs.

I guess you've never played CRPG in your life. Character customization is a big part of genre, of course it's a little bit more complex than simple boob slider, but nobody censors it in the West.

On that day humanity was reminded that if you live outside of Japan you can not customize your Brest size on a female character in a video game. Rolling Eyes

AiddonValentine wrote:

And of course that's before we get into the biggest problem: this isn't censorship. Period. Censorship requires a governmental body. This is a company editing the product THEY MADE THEMSELVES due to issues they believed it would bring due to the differences in values between Western and Japanese audiences.

Of course when faced with that people will claim "self-censorship!" which, let's be honest, is a desperate attempt to deflect criticism. And maybe this whole thing wouldn't be so silly if it weren't people defending a bust slider instead of something more in line with the gameplay or storyline. Again, people not picking their battles properly and thus will no doubt be dismissed when something of real weight actually happens.

Censorship is censorship, period. It does not require a government body. Your claims that it does is just trying to deflect from the fact that it is censorship.

But of course, there's no point in saying this to you as when people are wrong and are told they're wrong they tend to believe in their wrongness even more.

AiddonValentine wrote:

And of course that's before we get into the biggest problem: this isn't censorship. Period. Censorship requires a governmental body. This is a company editing the product THEY MADE THEMSELVES due to issues they believed it would bring due to the differences in values between Western and Japanese audiences.

Of course when faced with that people will claim "self-censorship!" which, let's be honest, is a desperate attempt to deflect criticism. And maybe this whole thing wouldn't be so silly if it weren't people defending a bust slider instead of something more in line with the gameplay or storyline. Again, people not picking their battles properly and thus will no doubt be dismissed when something of real weight actually happens.

Usually you'd be right, but the localizers are not the same thing as the developers. Monolith Soft is not Nintendo of America - not even close. You also have made another mistake here - it doesn't require a government body at all, just an authority. Localizers I would say count as such an authority. (You may have been thinking of "free speech" in the context of America, which does refer to the government specifically. But censorship never has.)

This is what puts this on a different level than the Skullgirls devs removing some panty shots, something gamers were a lot more angry about even though that wasn't censorship at all. But in this case, a feature is being removed in certain regions by an authority higher than the development team. This isn't an indie game.

Lastly, don't dismiss the validity of the complaints due to the feature in question. If you need to read through the thread again and find that most of us complaining are, in fact, women, then do so. And if you need to read about how censoring this is putting breasts as inherently sexual much more than the slider ever would, then do so as well. Now, I would prioritize keeping the religious names over keeping the bust slider, but that's not what this article is about, and ideally I'd like to have both.

You definitely would usually be in the right here, I know I've seen gamers misuse the word censorship far too many times too, but this is one time where you might want to reevaluate the situation.

AiddonValentine wrote:

And of course that's before we get into the biggest problem: this isn't censorship. Period. Censorship requires a governmental body. This is a company editing the product THEY MADE THEMSELVES due to issues they believed it would bring due to the differences in values between Western and Japanese audiences.

Of course when faced with that people will claim "self-censorship!" which, let's be honest, is a desperate attempt to deflect criticism. And maybe this whole thing wouldn't be so silly if it weren't people defending a bust slider instead of something more in line with the gameplay or storyline. Again, people not picking their battles properly and thus will no doubt be dismissed when something of real weight actually happens.

Censorship/Self Editing. Not really much difference in the end. Really just something English majors can argue about.

"Desperate attempt to deflect criticsim", not really. Fan service is fan service.

The real problem is one group of people who cannot control themselves from using optional features and optional clothing (that they despise), and want to restrict others from using those features and clothing.

Last edited by Kikaioh on Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:14 am; edited 1 time in total

@Arale Kurashiki: I did want to mention, Monolith Soft is actually a subsidiary of Nintendo, owned by Nintendo and considered a first-party developer since 2007. So Nintendo isn't just a localizing publisher, it's basically their own game that they're bringing over here.

I think Aidonn's broader point is that these changes shouldn't be conflated with government censorship squashing freedom of expression. This is a company adjusting its own content to better suit the culture of a different region, and "self-censorship" isn't the sort of editing that people normally get up in arms about when they're rallying against "censorship".

Well, yes, but the execs are still different than the dev team, even if they're part of the same company. And Nintendo of America's localizers are different than the execs too, so it's a few steps removed from the developers proper.

Last edited by Kikaioh on Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:27 am; edited 2 times in total

Even then, all game development ultimately gets filtered by the company vision. Let's say a developer on the Monolith Soft team wanted to add hentai loli nudity to the game: his supervisor would likely tell him "that's not doable because it's not appropriate for our target market, it's not appropriate for our company, and it's not appropriate for our parent company Nintendo --- that sort of content goes against our collective brand".

People sometimes forget that it isn't the company's obligation to enable developers to make whatever games they want. Ultimately, developers are hired to make games that follow the corporate vision, not the other way around.

I don't own a Wii but a Vita, but boycot is the only weapon we have to stop this trend, otherwise if people continue to support censored games they will go more further since they get enought revenue.
Fight the censorship with your wallet, or support the original version if you are able to read japanese language.

Hypocrites and their false "family friend" excuse.

Indie companies free from publishers and these false puritans are also our alternative, hope more developers leave the console market and develop for PC and publish themselves their games without any censorship to their own art.

I think valid points are being made by both sides here to some degree. Look, obviously this isn't classic scare quotes "Censorship". Not in the way that term is traditionally used. There's no government body involved here telling Nintendo they have to make this change. This is them, of their own volition and through no apparent external force or coercion, deciding to modify their own product as they have every right to do. So right off the bat that is an important distinction. I also think it is valid to point out that "self-censorship" has always been an oxymoron. Yes, public pressure can potentially cause a dev to change something about their game that they'd rather not. Yeah, it sucks if the dev caves when they probably shouldn't. But that's just the reality of free expression. People are going to criticize and/or refuse to support things they dislike. That's their right. In turn it is up to devs to decide whether or not they want to ignore that criticism and potentially lose sales. I hope they stand firm if what they're doing merits it. But if they don't A) this is not censorship by any definition and B) this is at best a case by case thing. Categorically rejecting the notion of devs making changes based on what people will like/dislike is absurd.

That said, I do think it is valid to point out as some have that Nintendo and MonolithSoft are different entities. It's not clear where this decision is coming from exactly and whether the devs are on board with it. I don't know that it's censorship but it's certainly fair game in principle to criticize a publisher for restricting a developer's ability to create the game they want to make. Here's the thing though. Once you go down that road, everything becomes potential "censorship". The reality is, game development is always subject to publisher demands. When you're owned or funded by another company you invariably exist under their thumb. It's unfortunate but it also makes it all but impossible to categorically reject this kind of so called "censorship". If you fundamentally reject the notion of a publisher telling a dev what to do...well that happens all the time and could be anything. And thus, it just turns into an insubstantial guessing game about what the devs would have done in a hypothetical and ultimately completely non-existent vacuum of perfect creative freedom. Would they have released the game with this feature? Maybe. But then again, maybe they'd really rather just not have this kind of thing in the first place. But it helps sales in Japan so somebody tells them to include it. This is why ultimately I feel like I need to judge it on a case by case basis (whereas I categorically reject true censorship). Show me a case specifically where a dev is forced to make a significant change that they're seriously committed to as part of their vision for the game and I'll agree, that sucks. I don't really see any evidence that this is the case here though.

Actually, I think the best argument against this is just that the Japanese version will differ from the western version. I've always disliked that. To me, it's either the right call and you should do it universally or it is the wrong call and you shouldn't do it at all. I guess also I just prefer there be one definitive version of a game. I don't much like the idea of missing out on something in another version. Then again, I also want the best version of a game. If a game is made better by them cutting out something sketchy that is in the Japanese version, maybe it's worth the trade-off. Then again, you can make the case that this really doesn't make the game worse in any way despite its dubious purpose.

TarsTarkas wrote:

Censorship/Self Editing. Not really much difference in the end. Really just something English majors can argue about.

Thanks TarsTarkas. We can always count on you to show up and bring an interesting, nuanced discussion down to the dumbest, most reductive level in an instant.

Arale Kurashiki wrote:

Their choice to remove this feature is therefore not really connected to the devs' intent.

Often, the devs' intent is the company's intent.

mewpudding101 wrote:

enurtsol wrote:

Except maybe when she has kids since biologically flatter boobs potentially produce less milk (not as many glands).

Wow, that comment is pretty darn inappropriate.

My apologies; I have an OB/GYN friend and heard her talk about these stuffs matter-of-factly, so it's just biology and not meant to offend.

AiddonValentine wrote:

And of course that's before we get into the biggest problem: this isn't censorship. Period. Censorship requires a governmental body. This is a company editing the product THEY MADE THEMSELVES due to issues they believed it would bring due to the differences in values between Western and Japanese audiences.

It's more like editing. But editing can go both ways - it can mean taking something off, or adding something on.
What if the bust slider wasn't in the original version but was added to a localization, would people complain? It's still an edit and not in the original intent.

Lets boycott because no boob slider!

Game sells badly.

Next game isn't localized because it wasn't worth the money to port over.

Why did Nintendo no bring the next game over to the west! Don't they know they would make tons of money because we all want this game!?

Pretty sure that's how this will all go if it was a majority boycott regardless of intentions.

Kikaioh wrote:

Even then, all game development ultimately gets filtered by the company vision. Let's say a developer on the Monolith Soft team wanted to add hentai loli nudity to the game: his supervisor would likely tell him "that's not doable because it's not appropriate for our target market, it's not appropriate for our company, and it's not appropriate for our parent company Nintendo --- that sort of content goes against our collective brand".

People sometimes forget that it isn't the company's obligation to enable developers to make whatever games they want. Ultimately, developers are hired to make games that follow the corporate vision, not the other way around.

So Bayonetta was solely Sega's (and then) Nintendo's vision and not that of Platinum's?

Last edited by Actar on Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:49 am; edited 8 times in total

enurtsol wrote:

AiddonValentine wrote:

And of course that's before we get into the biggest problem: this isn't censorship. Period. Censorship requires a governmental body. This is a company editing the product THEY MADE THEMSELVES due to issues they believed it would bring due to the differences in values between Western and Japanese audiences.

It's more like editing. But editing can go both ways - it can mean taking something off, or adding something on.
What if the bust slider wasn't in the original version but was added to a localization, would people complain? It's still an edit and not in the original intent.

The thing is not about original intent. It never was. Perhaps censorship was a poor choice of words, but what else should it be called when it is an act of removing (possibly) offensive material? This semantic game is distracting us from the issue at hand.

It is about the removal of features that were originally there. Why would anyone want to support such a decision? Leaving it in won't hurt anyone and removing it only serves to limit the options of those who want to use it. If you want to argue that it can be offensive, well, anything is offensive to someone. Does that mean that we should pander to every sensitive person's whims and fancies? Not at all. If they don't like it, they can ignore it. It's as simple as that.

I hate a ton of stuff. But I recognize that there are people who do like the things I hate and do not wish to take it away from them. Let's say that you're right. Taking the boob slider out doesn't affect gameplay. By the same logic, having it in doesn't affect gameplay either. However, if anything, taking the slider out removes the ability for certain people, male or female, to get the body types that they want - thus affecting gameplay.

Kikaioh wrote:

Personally, unless it's some sort of comedic or intelligent context, I don't generally like or support games that shoehorn in sexual fanservice, since it lowers my opinion of the overall product as selling out to base human desires in order to attract an audience, instead of relying on the quality of the product to stand on its own (that doesn't mean I'm against sexual games, though --- it's the motivation to include it in games that aren't inherently sexual in nature that bothers me).

Kikaioh wrote:

Judging from most of the content I've seen from Japan in recent years, I think it's highly likely that the breast slider was done for fanservice purposes, and although I would be fully on board if they existed simply for the sake of providing more options, their presence for the sake of satiating male libidos is a grating nuisance to me.

"Selling out to base human desires". Are you serious? Violent video games, addictive puzzle games and even competitive sports games all sell out to "base human desires", whether it is their desire to kill, win or to lord over others. You're only deluding yourself if you feel that not all games pander to human desires. Also, how can you delineate "the product" and "sexual fanservice"?

Whether something can be sexual or not is up to the individual to determine for themselves. Someone can find a door knob sexually attractive. Will that stop you from using doors because it can be used "for the sake of satiating male libidos"?

...and what do you mean by "inherently sexual"? Do you find breasts inherently sexual? What about exposed legs? Cleavage? Long hair? Slender bodies? Should all characters be turned into robots before the game can "stand on its own"? See the problem here?

What about female libidos then? Are you okay with games with sexualized/objectified men? Or are you not bothered by it because it's not distracting to you, personally?

Arale Kurashiki wrote:

Lastly, don't dismiss the validity of the complaints due to the feature in question.

Except I will. Why? Because things do not exist in a vacuum. If you were to essentially protest "BUST SLIDER!" you would (rightfully) get stared at. Again, pick your fights accordingly

Quote:

If you need to read through the thread again and find that most of us complaining are, in fact, women, then do so.

Why am I reminded of when Gamer Gate tried to use that "not your shield" mumbo jumbo?

TarsTarkas wrote:

Censorship/Self Editing. Not really much difference in the end. Really just something English majors can argue about.

Nope, there's a WORLD of difference. Censorship requires coercion, a governmental body, and very vaguely defined criteria. This is a COMPANY editing something superfluous (and very specific) out of a game they themselves made on their own accord, probably because they realized "y'know, I can't see this going over well in Europe and the US as a whole" due to the fact that they are aware of cultural and societal differences. If you want to blame anyone, blame the Western world (because they WOULD get into a tizzy over something like the bust slider or Lyn's overly-sexualized outfits)

And that's before we get into the problems of the "self-censorship" camp. That argument was not made for the sake of artists or art; it was made because people hated that artists they claimed to respect GREW UP and got rid of their bad habits. Furthermore, it's sloppily defined, it's inconsistent, and it picks the worst moments to fight. Not a camp a lot of people want to be associated with.

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: English Release of Xenoblade Chronicles X Removes Bust-Customization Option

Tokyo Revengers TV Anime Gets Sequel, Fairy Tale Mini Anime

The Café Terrace and Its Goddesses Season 1 Anime Series Review

Cyber Attack Delays Kadokawa's Releases, Accounting With Niconico Expected to Stay Offline for 1 Month or More

Baki Hanma vs. Kengan Ashura Anime Special Review

Guilty Gear Fighting Games Get TV Anime

Samurai Warriors 4 DX Game Review

Heavenly Delusion Director Discusses Keeping the Story Straight

Delicious in Dungeon Anime Gets 2nd Season

Kengan Ashura Season 2 Part 1 Anime Series Review

This Week in Games - Summer Games Fest 2024 Wrap-Up

Director Kawata and Producer Hirabayashi of Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess

This Week in Anime - It's Anime Convention Hunting Season

Forum - View topicINTEREST: English Release of Xenoblade Chronicles X Removes Bust-Customization Option

Forum

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: English Release of Xenoblade Chronicles X Removes Bust-Customization Option