Madflavor
Member
It’s a video game.
This isn’t that serious.
No it’s not serious, but if you saw a version of an outfit in a trailer that you loved and couldn’t wait to get it in the game, then it’s kinda bullshit.
It’s a video game.
This isn’t that serious.
"Outrage" was the word I wanted to use.That literally would not be censorship. Do you know what the word means?
I really feel this "it's just a video game" sentiment is an injustice to the contribution of videos games to our culture. This sort of self-censorship is prevalent in the movie industry. It is widely derided and generally considered unacceptable. Imagine your favourite book or music album being changed simply due to moral pressure from a third party, or a concerted effort from corporate interests.It’s a video game.
This isn’t that serious.
You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.That costume was never shown/advertised so they never promised that particular item. They said 30 outfits and we are getting DOUBLE of that, among other many features that usually aren't free.
Customers do a great disservice by not being able to separate the good from the bad.
By the way, Shift Up's CEO has already confirmed that this is THEIR VISION. So, by going against their vision people are literally censoring him, for the sake of "liberty".
Liberty hawks should acknowledge they are doing the dirty job of wokies in this drama. IGN France and Kotaku wouldn't do a better job.
I asked this before but no one answered but what would happen if they did do a patch where some outfits were changed to be less revealing but others were changed to be more revealing? Would that be considered censorship then or developers intent?(none in the other direction)
So all those noise about two outfits being slightly changed
C'mon
Again, Devil May Cry V. Censorship pushed by Sony, confirmed by developers, and after enough blowback it was reverted."Outrage" was the word I wanted to use.
I'm now more interested in what the developer intends to do. If they are talking about it internally and decide to revert the changes, won't that mean that this had nothing to do with external factors and was literally designs they made themselves?
Extremists on either side will use whatever they can to get eyes and create reactionary content. We shouldn't try to dismiss legitimate concerns by pointing at the extremist shitstains on either side of the aisle.Well people can't make YouTube videos and X posts that generate money if they don't make a literal mountain out of this.
And noticing lots of posters on X, they're Xbox and PC players so I think some of them are just jumping on so they can attack their enemy platform.
This is up there with every game is censored if they ever change a graphic of any sort. It's ludicrous.
Where was this ever stated by the devs? The devs said these 1.0.0.2 versions are the costumes they wanted in the game. Are you making shit up or what? The argument falls apart when people say something is being censored from the game because the developers tweaked their own designs to what they themselves say they wanted. Censorship would be the developers not being allowed something they wanted. There clearly isn't a problem with cleavage or arse in the game. You get a full on skin suit, you can get a nice looking lingerie outfit with cleavage for collecting all 49 collectibles.You do know censorship isn't an all or nothing thing, right? To use a more well known example that was eventually changed after pushback, DMCV. They didn't cover everyone up in Burkas, but they still actively censored parts of the game. Enforced by Sony themselves, as stated by the devs.
Yes it would if the developer made a change enforced by the publisher who saw it as a threat to sales but the developer preferred less skin in the original design of a costume that they had to change. That's the point. It works both ways.That literally would not be censorship. Do you know what the word means?
You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.
And the HARD R swap? That is even worse in my opinion. I want the HARD R version of the game.
If that's the game the developer wanted to release who's being censored exactly?
Go complain about actual censorship like not being able to say the words 'Jellyfish', 'poncho' or 'lmao' if you actually care about censorship.
I once thought something similar, but again: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935If censorship was a thing here. Every fucking outfit would have been censored.
Somehow, I doubt there would be people complaining about censorship if it was the other way around, where the patch would make some outfits more revealing.
Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.
So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.
Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.
I once thought something similar, but again: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935
At least some of the outfits censored were changed for a reason that doesn't apply to the other outfits.
If it wasn't optional, I'd think people would complain, and I think they'd have a right to complain. I'm sure a lot of people don't really need or want the more sexually explicit versions of these outfits in order to enjoy this game, they just reject the idea of people imposing their moral values and deciding for them. I know when I play this game, I'll be using whatever outfits I think make the character look cool and stylish rather than whatever shows the most skin.
I'd argue it's a matter of who because it's the initial intent of somebody who has to be suppressed. when there is no logically visible moral, political, or religious reason nobody is being surpressed and all you're doing is just destroying artistic intent.Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.
So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.
Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.
Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.
So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.
Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.
Some people are saying seven total outfits changed, but haven’t seen pics of all seven.change of two outfits
I'd argue it's a matter of who because it's the initial intent of somebody who has to be suppressed. when there is no logically visible moral, political, or religious reason nobody is being surpressed and all you're doing is just destroying artistic intent.
I'll use your example of Prince. Say prince was writing an album. while writing it he removes a line that had the word fuck in it because he didn't like the way it sounded there but keeps fuck and other profanities in other parts where he thinks it's good. He edits that line before release date. People go apeshit and assume it's censorship even though profanity still exists in the album. Is it censorship? Is he still pushing a religious or moral view that he clearly didn't have?
Is there a religious or moral view in stellar blade considering the things people are saying are being censored still exists in the game aplenty everywhere else?
Now imagine it the other way too because it works the other way, Prince became a Jehovah's Witness and wanted to include a song about Jehovah in his album and removed the profanity in his song before release. the publisher said no because it would hurt sales, is this censorship or not too? For censorship to occur you have to supress somebody's point of view, speech or art.
First time I agree with this dude:
But you're talking about the content creator here and it's clear that the 'moral preference' is not present at all in the creator or game. The accusation hinges solely on when the creator made the design change while still working on the game when the disc was pressed.The person being suppressed is generally the person who doesn't want others to decide what content they should be allowed to access based on someone else's moral preferences.
The "finished product" wasn't finished though. Between the disc pressed build and the day one release it's clear they were still working on the game. The day one patch includes NG+, more costumes and suits, fixes to animation latency, new skills, and level expansions. It's semantics about the "finished product" being the time they pressed discs. It becomes worse that the 'finished product' is exactly as it released and can be played exactly as released. So it's just people disagreeing on changes.That example doesn't follow the situation of this game, because this game was sold as a finished product and then changed after the fact.
I don't follow. What outline of female anatomy are you talking about, cameltoe? It's still there.Also, the most noticeable change that I've seen reduces the outline of female anatomy in a way that isn't present in any other outfit, so the "but it still has the word fuck in other places" analogy doesn't quite work either. This doesn't seem to be accurate: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935
Yeah, I agree that self-censorship can exist too but a content creator who says that's what they wanted to release and people try to cancel the game, the people cancelling are the one doing the censorship of somebody elses artistic work. Let's just wait and see what comes of these internal discussions. if they happen to offer those costumes too it's clear that talk of trying to push moral preference was all bullshit.To take the example you wrote at face value, though, it's still only censorship if it's done for reasons related to morality. For example, if Prince made the changes because he was afraid of getting a parental advisory label, that would be self-censorship to appease someone else's limits of what should be regarded as morally acceptable.
To quote the ACLU on what censorship is:
"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.
In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression."
If "it would hurt sales" is due to the perceptions of people who would be offended by the content, then yes, it's censorship. But it's also understandable because the publisher also has to release a product that they're happy with, and I don't think an artist should be able to force their values on their publisher either.
But you're getting into some of the more debatable issues of self-censorship that don't really apply to content that was released and then censored after the fact, which was the case with Stellar Blade.
Regardless of the more extreme edges that are being toned down, Sony did just release a video game with a very sexy main protagonist. Censorship sucks, but overall, I think that's still a win.
Is it possible ShiftUp deliberately chose to tone down certain outfits in order to more fully accentuate others by comparison?
But the patch also included the NG+ that introduced new skills, costumes, and more. Why is that being left out? How are you guys determining this was an 11th hour decision when it includes additional content. The graffiti I can see being an 11th hour change but not the costumes.It's possible, but given what we know, these changes seemed to have been made at the 11th hour. I don't think any developer would care about cosmetics so close to release, they're more concerned about ironing out bugs and performance.
But the patch also included the NG+ that introduced new skills, costumes, and more. Why is that being left out? How are you guys determining this was an 11th hour decision when it includes additional content. The graffiti I can see being an 11th hour change but not the costumes.
He's suggesting that "11th hour" is wrong when there were far bigger changes happening between that period.Are you suggesting it's not possible to implement additional unplanned changes to a patch close to it's release?
No, but I wrote a letter to your mother telling her I hope that both she and you have a very nice day.did you write your latters for Sony japan and stiff Up already guys?
You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.
that's noice, but that's not helping the cause.No, but I wrote a letter to your mother telling her I hope that both she and you have a very nice day.
Its called Director's Cut.I asked this before but no one answered but what would happen if they did do a patch where some outfits were changed to be less revealing but others were changed to be more revealing? Would that be considered censorship then or developers intent?
#FreeYourNiceDay is the thing I'm currently representing, sorry.that's noice, but that's not helping the cause.
have you sign to #FreeStellarBlade?
He's suggesting that "11th hour" is wrong when there were far bigger changes happening between that period.
But the assumption is that it was too late to add or change things in the "11th hour" and so they must have done this in a hurry and without intent. when in fact in the "11th hour" they added 34 new costumes and far bigger changes. It lends credence to the fact that it wasn't exactly "11th hour" and the "unplanned" is just speculation.Right but that doesn't mean they couldn't implement any other changes that the originally didn't plan on.
But the assumption is that it was too late to add or change things in the "11th hour" and so they must have done this in a hurry and without intent. when in fact in the "11th hour" they added 34 new costumes and far bigger changes. It lends credence to the fact that it wasn't exactly "11th hour" and the "unplanned" is just speculation.
Oh no I can almost guarantee you NG+ was planned in advance. The additional skills, equipment, hard mode, implementing NG+, 30+ palette swaps to costumes, that's not something they cooked up in a very short amount of time. When I talk about the 11th hour, I'm talking about the period of time between the game going Gold, and release. They were most likely fully focused on QA issues and Hard Mode/NG+ features leading up to release.
It's possible, but given what we know, these changes seemed to have been made at the 11th hour. I don't think any developer would care about cosmetics so close to release, they're more concerned about ironing out bugs and performance.
You said:
And the person replied saying why do people ignore all the additional changes they made in the day 1 patch. It was clear that they cared about more than just bugs and performance close to release with the day one patch. Contrary to what you said they cared about additional cosmetics, additional modes and skills very close to release and got them out on day 1. While they were making those additional costumes they could very easily make alterations to designs to accentuate different palettes (it wasn't just palattes btw) and it would affect the original with little to no effort. It wouldn't be 11th hour unplanned stuff.
Today, in addition to trade and political issues, only globally sold American-influenced entertainment media, such as that of SIE, often contains elements like these.It’s a video game.
This isn’t that serious.