Support NeoGAF

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Exactly my point. They've seen results from their complaints before - sometimes through threats of violence. They know they'll continue to see results, and they'll continue to request "offensive" things be removed from media. No other group will get this treatment.

You just had the example about regarding the Matador costume.

 

[GrizzNKev]

I'm not disputing that.

It's down to reasonableness.

On its own, as a single, tiny case, it's reasonable. The issue as a whole and what it could possibly impact? The string of increasingly frequent cases of this happening? Not reasonable.

 

[ymmv]

So how did they not notice this in the first place? Is it really written this or the random designs of the texture make it look likes the word written in arabic?

If it's the first case, they were really clumsy to put that thing in in the first place.

It only has to look vaguely like the word Allah to cause offense. See http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/09/finding-allah-in-unlikely-places for some silly examples like a banned ice cream logo and Nike sport shoes.

 

[Dead Man]

You can offend someone if you want but you can also decide to not be a jerk and listen to reasonable complaints and decide not to offend.

Absolutley. You can also not be a jerk and expect the world to cater to your sensitivities. If the devs want to change it, that's fine. If they don't, that should be fine too.

 

[GavinGT]

You can offend someone if you want to but you can also decide to not be a jerk and listen to reasonable complaints and decide not to offend.

There are tons of reasonable complaints about games that go unaddressed.

 

[ymmv]

So Muslims can't complain about things because it might be perceived as a physical threat?

Nobody threatened them or forced them to change it.It's a small change that probably doesn't cost much (they wouldn't do it if it cost millions) so I doubt it's "100%" because they're afraid of being bombed.

Changing a texture is cheap, getting the game patches certified by Sony and MS isn't.

 

[snap0212]

You can offend someone if you want to but you can also decide to not be a jerk and listen to reasonable complaints and decide not to offend.

I don't think anyone says otherswise. People have a problem because developers always cave in when there are Religious complaints. Russia complained about the No Russian mission in MW2. It wasn't removed from the game, it was altered in the Russian version. Cuba complained about the first mission in Black Ops. It wasn't removed. Religion gets a special treatment every time when being offended and that's what people have a problem with.

 

[Kurtofan]

Absolutley. You can also not be a jerk and expect the world to cater to your sensitivities. If the devs want to change it, that's fine. If they don't, that should be fine too.

And the devs wanted to change it, so what's the problem?

I don't think anyone says otherswise. People have a problem because developers always cave in when there are Religious complaints. Russia complained about the No Russian mission in MW2. It wasn't removed from the game, it was altered in the Russian version. Cuba complained about the first mission in Black Ops. It wasn't removed. Religion gets a special treatment every time when being offended that no one else gets and that's what people have a problem with.

Well I'd definitely classify "altered in the Russian version" as a change not to offend.

Russia being a single country it's probably easier to just alter a version instead of changing them all.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

On its own, as a single, tiny case, it's reasonable. The issue as a whole and what it could possibly impact? The string of increasingly frequent cases of this happening? Not reasonable.

It's a group of people voicing their discontent with something they've seen in the game which offends/upsets them.

Were you this energised when people complained about the Mass Effect 3 ending? Surely that was a capitulation which changed the artistic vision.

 

[ymmv]

So Muslims can't complain about things because it might be perceived as a physical threat?

Nobody threatened them or forced them to change it.It's a small change that probably doesn't cost much (they wouldn't do it if it cost millions) so I doubt it's "100%" because they're afraid of being bombed.

Changing a texture is cheap, getting the game patches certified by Sony and MS isn't. But of course something like gets a very high priority (compared to game breaking bugs). Namco doesn't want their games banned in the Middle East - or worse.

 

[GrizzNKev]

It's a group of people voicing their discontent with something they've seen in the game which offends/upsets them.

Were you this energised when people complained about the Mass Effect 3 ending? Surely that was a capitulation which changed the artistic vision.

I was upset by the game's ending. But guess what? They didn't change it. They elaborated a little bit, filled some minor plot holes, but they didn't change a damn thing. They held to their artistic vision.

Plus, it took several months of complaining and pleading with the developers by hundreds of thousands of fans and customers to get that slight amount of elaboration. Nobody was asking for censorship. They were asking for answers. There is no comparison.

 

[Dead Man]

And the devs wanted to change it, so what's the problem?

My reply was to a post suggesting any offense should be removed from a game. I suggested it does not need to be.

Fake edit: Rereading the initial post I quoted, it did not suggest that. :/

Actual edit: I don't like creators changing content to avoid offense. If somone is an offensive douchebag, I woudl rather they just be honest. If someone offends people unknoingly I would like the people offended to point it out and move on, not for the work to be changed. I would like complaints about quality to be addressed quickly and directly, not complaints about content.

 

[Glass Rebel]

The point being made is that there are plenty of things in games that could be offensive to a wide variety of cultures and religions but the only ones that are commonly changed or removed are references to things that are a part of Muslim culture. There are reasons why, and we have and still can observe them quite frequently in all forms of media. Hopefully I don't have to lay them all out for you. This example is on the tame end of the spectrum but it still fits within the context of Muslims demanding or requesting changes or censorship.

It's not a big deal if it happens once, but it keeps happening and that's going to annoy people.

Look at it this way: if the argument was that their depiction of the word "Allah" was offensive because it had a shadow cast on it and Allah should only be represented in direct sunlight, and I told this to a dev and demanded they change the lighting, would they or anyone else even know that I just made that up?

Probably not.

Would they still change it and apologize?

Probably.

When you have people demanding that a blurry as fuck picture frame be removed because it's too close to a toilet, or that a word shouldn't be exposed to feet, they're not going to be familiar enough with the culture to understand why, or even care why. They just want to reach their audience without those kinds of issues.

Please, let's not create any hypothetical situations but focus on the stuff actually happening.

When you create products for international distribution you have to make sure you don't offend any of your potential customers. Am I the only one who remembers this?

Namco shot themselves in the foot, you're an expert etc.

Its about religion having a special privilege to never be offended by anything, and be able to make any demands they want, and never have to justify it in any way other than "this offends me because i'm religious." Comes across as petty, childish and delusional, and if there's a better reason for religions to get whatever they want, the onus is on you (i.e. the people making the claim that there's nothing wrong with it) to prove it.

yeah...

When you make a game that offends Muslims you can ask them for a better justification. Harada obviously thought it was enough.

 

[jimi_dini]

I see why they removed it. probably would've done the same.

but it just annoys me. the political correctness around religion is sickening.

I don't see a problem in this case. I mean at all. I can understand, if a Muslim would be offended by it, so why not change those few pixels. And noone even requested a change, they were just notified about it in a polite manner. And it's not even religion specific, it's also culture specific.

Plenty of people ITT have no clue about foreign cultures. For example nodding your head means "no" in Greece. Hell, giving out a business card with one hand in Japan is considered very rude, but would be considered normal in western cultures. In Japan you are supposed to give it out using both hands.

Compare this to a whole MGS2 cutscene ripped out of the game and was never put in there again, even for the HD collection release 10 years later. THAT's crazy. I mean I can understand it somewhat, but this was even done without anyone complaining. I doubt that putting the cutscene back in for the HD collection would have been a problem, but they didn't do that. And in MGS2's case, it wouldn't even have been offensive at all like giving a middle finger.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

So Bioware amended the ending to ensure those that complained were satisfied/less upset?

I think it just comes to being reasonable; something I've already said.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Please, let's not create any hypothetical situations but focus on the stuff actually happening.

When you create products for international distribution you have to make sure you don't offend any of your potential customers. Am I the only one who remembers this?





yeah...

When you make a game that offends Muslims you can ask them for a better justification. Harada obviously thought it was enough.

I have that card. A misunderstood cultural image that appeared to be similar to something that represented an organization responsible for the death of millions of people. An actual event, mind you. Not fictional. A little more severe than the word "God" being near feet.

So Bioware amended the ending to ensure those that complained were satisfied/less upset?

I think it just comes to being reasonable; something I've already said.

Not quite. They didn't do it out of fear of lost sales. They already made their profits. They did it because the people dedicated to their product wanted more.

 

[Kurtofan]

Please, let's not create any hypothetical situations but focus on the stuff actually happening.

When you create products for international distribution you have to make sure you don't offend any of your potential customers. Am I the only one who remembers this?





yeah...

When you make a game that offends Muslims you can ask them for a better justification. Harada obviously thought it was enough.

Also in One Piece:

became

 

[IdreamofHIME]

No one remember the 80's/90's when Nintendo used to demand removal of all religious signs in western releases?

From Nintendo of America's Video Game Content Guidelines:

The following Game Content Guidelines are presented for assistance in the development of authorized game paks (i.e., both Nintendo and licensee game paks) by defining the type of content and themes inconsistent with Nintendo's corporate and marketing philosophy. Although exceptions may be made to preserve the content of a game, Nintendo will not approve games for the NES, Game Boy or Super NES systems (i.e., audio-visual work, packaging, and instruction manuals) which:

reflect ethnic, religious, nationalistic, or sexual stereotypes of language; this includes symbols that are related to any type of racial, religious, nationalistic, or ethnic group, such as crosses, pentagrams, God, Gods (Roman mythological gods are acceptable), Satan, hell, Buddha;

 

[Glass Rebel]

I have that card. A misunderstood cultural image that appeared to be similar to something that represented an organization responsible for the death of millions of people. An actual event, mind you. Not fictional. A little more severe than the word "God" being near feet.

But hey, why should Jewish people be offended? I mean, it's just a single symbol, not even the same but mirrored!

See, we can do this for almost every single thing that offends people. Just because your, mine and other's threshold for being offended is higher doesn't mean we should just dismiss anything below that.

 

[GrizzNKev]

But hey, why should Jewish people be offended? I mean, it's just a single symbol, not even the same but mirrored!

See, we can do this for almost every single thing that offends people. Just because your, mine and other's threshold for being offended is higher doesn't mean we should just dismiss anything below that.

I never said I approved of the removal. Yeah, its impact is greater, but I hold it to the same standard as everything else. I can see justification for it much more easily but anyone can look at that right now and find out what it actually means and proceed to not be offended. Just trying to show why it's not really an effective comparison.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I never said I approved of the removal. Yeah, its impact is greater, but I hold it to the same standard as everything else. I can see justification for it much more easily but anyone can look at that right now and find out what it actually means and proceed to not be offended.

So you think they should have kept it? Or do you think Jewish people shouldn't have complained about it?

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

"Compromising" on this doesn't give carte blanche for all offending things to be automatically taken out.

Edit: this notion of just religious people getting their way is just a falsehood as well.

See Nike's removal of Black and Tango trainers.

 

[GrizzNKev]

"Compromising" on this doesn't give carte blanche for all offending things to be automatically taken out.

Unless it involves imagery from Islam. Like we've seen happen so many times, far beyond just video games.

edit reply to edit: It's the most common, if you dismiss it by saying it's not exclusive to religion you're ignoring the reality of the situation.

So you think they should have kept it? Or do you think Jewish people shouldn't have complained about it?

They should have kept it, and people who didn't like it should have thought for a moment that there's a difference between what they say it is and what it really is.

Those who don't think, well sure, they can and will complain, but that doesn't mean the artist should do what they say.

 

[GavinGT]

Just look at South Park: they offend literally everybody, and yet the network only succombed to the pressure to censor Allah.

 

[Kageshinzo]

I have that card. A misunderstood cultural image that appeared to be similar to something that represented an organization responsible for the death of millions of people. An actual event, mind you. Not fictional. A little more severe than the word "God" being near feet.

If you think that the word "Allah" or any other singular deity (and no, people, "god" is not the singular claim of Catholicism hence why that Ergheiz pic someone posted earlier is a poor analogy) should not be put on the same level of significance as an actual event, then I would ask you to review the history of human civilization and take into account the hundreds of millions of people who were put to death because of a religion's divine figurehead.

 

[Dictator93]

Just look at South Park: they offend literally everybody, and yet the network only succombed to the pressure to censor Allah.

Yep. Pretty funny (also, it was mohammad, not allah)

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Unless it involves imagery from Islam. Like we've seen happen so many times, far beyond just video games.

There are things in Islam which are genuinely offensive to those that practice. There's a whiff of suggestion that people don't believe in that reaction whatsoever, ie using offense as a rallying call for something else.

Using "Allah" here or in the toilet causes genuine offense.

If it's a reasonable complaint and it wasn't intended, then take it out.

If one intends to put it in, to cause offense then I would say they shouldn't compromise whatsoever.

This isn't a case of genuine artistic vision. If it were, then I'd agree that there should be no compromises.

Edit: to reply to your edit, it's the most common already demonstrates it's not exclusive to religion then, doesn't it?

Religious complaints also might be the more widely reported "complaint".

 

[Glass Rebel]

They should have kept it, and people who didn't like it should have thought for a moment that there's a difference between what they say it is and what it really is.

Those who don't think, well sure, they can and will complain, but that doesn't mean the artist should do what they say.

But in both TTT2's and the Pokemon case the creators decided to remove it because it offended someone.

The only people who are making a fuss over this turn of events are those that aren't affected by this at all. Your enjoyment of the product doesn't change one bit but you're still upset over what basically boils down to this:

"hey dude, that thing there is kinda offensive"
"oh shit, I didn't know, I'll remove it"
"cool"

 

[GrizzNKev]

If you think that the word "Allah" or any other singular deity (and no, people, "god" is not the singular claim of Catholicism hence why that Ergheiz pic someone posted earlier is a poor analogy) should not be put on the same level of significance as an actual event, then I would ask you to review the history of human civilization and take into account the hundreds of millions of people who were put to death because of a religion's divine figurehead.

I didn't write that as well as I should have. I was comparing offense in the context of an actual event to offense in the context of religious belief.

There are things in Islam which are genuinely offensive to those that practice. There's a whiff of suggestion that people don't believe in that reaction whatsoever, ie using offense as a rallying call for something else.

Using "Allah" here or in the toilet causes genuine offense.

If it's a reasonable complaint and it wasn't intended, then take it out.

If one intends to put it in, to cause offense then I would say they shouldn't compromise whatsoever.

This isn't a case of genuine artistic vision. If it were, then I'd agree that there should be no compromises.

At the very core their "genuine offense" is a silly thing to me, but keeping in mind the need to respect people who are different from me, the real issue to the public is that it is known that aggression and violence are common things to come from this offense. I can call anything genuinely offensive. It doesn't really matter unless I have a reputation for wanting to kill people who offend me. It doesn't matter if it's an extreme minority, because that is the voice the world hears. As someone else mentioned earlier, it's even worse for educated Muslim people who don't share those thoughts because then they have to deal with the generalizations that come from it.

Edit: to reply to your edit, it's the most common already demonstrates it's not exclusive to religion then, doesn't it?

Religious complaints also might be the more widely reported "complaint".

I wasn't arguing whether it was exclusive, I was arguing that it's the only type to consistently have an impact on society.

 

[Rollo Lawson]

Seeing how ominous religion is as a thing in this world, I want to suggest that everyone take some time to educate themselves on at least the most widespread beliefs. A lot of the posts in this thread really just show a lack of knowledge

 

[GavinGT]

Seeing how ominous religion is as a thing in this world, I want to suggest that everyone take some time to educate themselves on at least the most widespread beliefs. A lot of the posts in this thread really just show a lack of knowledge

What qualifies as 'above a toilet'? Do residents of apartment buildings have to coordinate so that someone on a higher floor hasn't placed an homage to Allah above a toilet on a lower floor? What about airplanes containing homages within that happen to be flying over toilets?

 

[PixyJunket]

I love examining the fraudulence of certain groups, I won't use any labels, but you know who they are.

If there was something that offended someone from a Christian religion, these people would be saying "Too bad you ignorant redneck, go back to hating blacks and women." But when something offends someone from an Islamic religion, a lot of these exact same people (again, no labels) will be like "You have to respect people's religious beliefs."

 

[Glass Rebel]

I love examining the fraudulence of certain groups, I won't use any labels, but you know who they are.

If there was something that offended someone from a Christian religion, these people would be saying "Too bad you ignorant redneck, go back to hating blacks and women." But when something offends someone from an Islamic religion, a lot of these exact same people (again, no labels) will be like "You have to respect people's religious beliefs."

come on, I'm curious.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

What qualifies as 'above a toilet'? Do residents of apartment buildings have to coordinate so that someone on a higher floor hasn't placed an homage to Allah above a toilet on a lower floor? What about airplanes containing homages within that happen to be flying over toilets?

Yeah, I think I'm out of this thread.

There's that whiff I was talking about.

 

[PixyJunket]

come on, I'm curious.

It's just a general observation, I'm in no way suggesting that it's happening in this thread; the subject matter on hand just allowed me to muse on it slightly.

 

[GavinGT]

Yeah, I think I'm out of this thread.

There's that whiff I was talking about.

I was responding to a poster who was advising everyone to educate themselves about religions so as to avoid offending others. I was trying to make a point by showing how convoluted these things seem to outsiders, and how what's offensive isn't clear to someone who hasn't lived by these rules his entire life. I could go take classes in this stuff and still probably commit some subtle, offensive act.

 

[Finaika]

I was responding to a poster who was advising everyone to educate themselves about religions so as to avoid offending others. I was trying to make a point by showing how convoluted these things seem to outsiders, and how what's offensive isn't clear to someone who hasn't lived by these rules his entire life. I could go take classes in this stuff and still probably do some subtle, offensive thing.

I think its pretty clear that airplanes with such homages should be OK flying over toilets.

 

[Kageshinzo]

I didn't write that as well as I should have. I was comparing offense in the context of an actual event to offense in the context of religious belief.

Now see, I think this is where most people not of the Islamic faith don't understand why they had to raise a stink over it. Until you (not you specifically, the general non-Islamic you) have been raised and indoctrinated on such belief and faith for most of your life, and we all know how Muslims can be fanatic about their faith, you do not have the luxury or right to quantify what degree of offense these things should have on the typical Muslim.

And no, before someone wonders or asks, I am not a Muslim. I was raised a Catholic, and consider myself a Christian (and yes, I've made a differentiation between the two).

If there was something that offended someone from a Christian religion, these people would be saying "Too bad you ignorant redneck, go back to hating blacks and women." But when something offends someone from an Islamic religion, a lot of these exact same people (again, no labels) will be like "You have to respect people's religious beliefs."

If that image in question was the picture of the Virgin Mary or Christ, I can assure you, I would still defend the indignation of the Catholics. And don't even suggest that the Vatican, or at least some Catholics entrenched in their faith, would not react to it if it were so.

 

[GavinGT]

I think its pretty clear that airplanes with such homages should be OK flying over toilets.

Is it also clear that videogame characters should adhere to the same rules as the actual followers of the religion? The way I see it, controlling a character who steps on the word 'Allah' in a digital world is very different from a Muslim doing it himself. If these rules aren't spelled out in a regimented manner then it seems crazy for an outsider to understand and conform to them, even if they are reasonably educated in these matters.

 

[ymmv]

Here's another view of the offending sign:

According to a poster on another forum it looks like Arabic writing, the lines look like the word Allah, but it's not the same. Can anyone confirm this?

This is how Allah is supposedly written:

 

[nib95]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mobileweb/2012/06/07/hitman-developers-offer-apology-trailer_n_1576797.html

Pretty cool trailer tbh. If a women's trying to kill you, I think physical violence is a ok lol.

Anyway, the level from the OP is a non issue, but I think the guy asked politely, and Namco are probably taking a prevention is better than cure tact. I do think their designers should have done a bit more research, especially with it being on the floor and all, but it's not really anything to get ruffled over.

I think it's perfectly respectable that they're changing it though.

 

[2San]

According to a poster on another forum it looks like Arabic writing, the lines look like the word Allah, but it's not the same. Can anyone confirm this?

This is how Allah is supposedly written:

Allah can be written in 100 ways though. If remember correctly(I used to be Muslim).

 

[ASIS]

The screen is blurry as hell. But from what I can see, yes, I can make out "Allah" in that texture.

 

[nib95]

Allah can be written in 100 ways though. If remember correctly(I used to be Muslim).

There are 99 different names for Allah but I don't think it can be written in that many ways. Provided you're talking strictly Arabic.

Very difficult to see or say, but I do believe it says either Allah or Allahu.

 

[Finaika]

It is Allah.

 

[Rollo Lawson]

What qualifies as 'above a toilet'? Do residents of apartment buildings have to coordinate so that someone on a higher floor hasn't placed an homage to Allah above a toilet on a lower floor? What about airplanes containing homages within that happen to be flying over toilets?

In a bathroom.

http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1630

 

[Persona86]

Before people over react, what were the tweets like? If they were just letting him know, what's the big deal in that? also it could be Non Muslims pointing it out in the first place.

Remember both sides have the potential to overreact.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Its really nice to play the victim but without proof this is completely baseless, I don't remember a single time where a game developer was actually "threatened" due to religious reasons.

No offense, but the reputation forces the devs to act quickly before it gets out of hand. Now if the devs said."deal with it", what then?

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

oh god, "allah" in a videogame? the humanity!

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

What happens when the religious beliefs directly contradict each other?

You insult them all