Support NeoGAF

[YianGaruga]

I would implore you to look inward if you sincerely wish to continue to characterize people who criticize sexist portrayals as you do. Are the examples you used a thing? Sure. It has happened. Rarely but it has. Are they really truthful to how these conversations go and how the people who voice criticism of this kind of thing generally behave? Not really in my experience.

I'd ask the same of you because saying shit like this

. It's a train of thought that comes from a certain kind of people who very much do not like others having voices on gaming

is exactly the kind of generalization that you're calling him out for. It splits the argument into convenient sides so you don't have to actually engage with the other.

I am all for better representation in gaming. I engaged with the people in the discussion about Quiet and came around to the fact that she was handled poorly, and a better characterization would have improved the game. People can learn and of you're reasonable you'll convince them in time. And there are improvements being made and better content being created, wouldn't you agree?

But I'm not going to let you rip apart and demonize every single piece of media that you don't agree with. That's not how this works.

 

[Christhor]

This change literally adds nothing. Why, Nintendo?

 

[Elaugaufein]

With regards to many recent events within gaming culture, I don't really tolerate people who connotate criticism of sexism/poor portrayals of women (and men frankly) within games as "you are someone with a morality complex, puritan, and believe games are making gamers want to shoot up schools, etc. etc. insert extreme slippery slope argument here that literally no one was making". Which is what Mik is essentially arguing here. And it's not the first time they've made this very same argument either if I'm going to be perfectly honest. It's a train of thought that comes from a certain kind of people who very much do not like others having voices on gaming.

His statements are frankly ironic to me because they come from a place where he doesn't understand why people make the statements they do, he purposefully and grossly misrepresents what they say, and behaves in an extremely hypocritical manner while doing so.

Criticism is a part of art. It always has been. Talking about it is precisely how new forms are made. That doesn't mean the old is erased from the present form period.

Aren't you being disingenuous now ? This thread is literally about a piece of a game being erased in the present, so the claim that the old isn't being erased seems weak. And the general approval for it, rather suggests that the attitude would be identical if say Idea Factory International announced they were only making CoD style shooters from now on. So the claims that nothing is being erased / aren't calling for eraure also seems questionable.

 

[captainpat]

Worth noting they added this in the first place because the dev team wanted to use Live2D for big occasions between couples. The idea was to have the character's chosen romantic interest confess to them face to face. Parts of the team disagreed, there were debates, and ultimately a compromise between both sides.
The idea this was added to cater to "inhuman weirdos" is pretty crazy. Maybe developers just like adding features to their games that appeal to them rather than being obsessed with the bottom line?

A lot of posters on gaf have a hard believing that something from Japan they find "creepy" or "offensive", is actually fine or liked by a mainstream over there (and here as well). So whenever that thing is successful they just point to the "otaku crowd".

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Was it that strange?

All the "Hell yeah" responses from the 1st page alone should tell you why they decided to do this.

Really, really lame, in my honest opinion. It's basically harmless, optional content, and there are people here that are happy with the fact that those who want to enjoy it now are unable to do so, just because they don't like the content being presented.

Really, really lame.

It's shitty content and the game is better without it.

If they introduced an optional doll petting mini-game in Bloodborne I sure as shit would want the localized version to remove that, too.

 

[Drop]

I would implore you to look inward if you sincerely wish to continue to characterize people who criticize sexist portrayals as you do. Are the examples you used a thing? Sure. It has happened. Rarely but it has. Are they really truthful to how these conversations go and how the people who voice criticism of this kind of thing generally behave? Not really in my experience.

I don't even know what to say, it's almost as if we read different threads, I'm not saying that people who just want to have a genuine discussions aren't here, because I've definitely seen reasonable people explaining their point of view without resorting to offensive generalizations, but they're absolutely a small minority.

You are literally arguing for "let's not start on a bad foot" while you insult people who criticize sexism within gaming and characterize them as people who equating gaming to causing school violence. Do you get why that screams dissonance to me?

I'm really not seeing this behavior on his part, could you direct me to it?

 

[Nanashrew]

Worth noting they added this in the first place because the dev team wanted to use Live2D for big occasions between couples. The idea was to have the character's chosen romantic interest confess to them face to face. Parts of the team disagreed, there were debates, and ultimately a compromise between both sides.
The idea this was added to cater to "inhuman weirdos" is pretty crazy. Maybe developers just like adding features to their games that appeal to them rather than being obsessed with the bottom line?

I honestly wonder why it was disagreed against because I honestly like the idea of your chosen love interest speaking to you face to face better overall like some VN.

 

[Kaisos]

It's shitty content and the game is better without it.

Lots of games have shitty, meaningless content that only appeals to a few people even if the game as a whole appeals to a lot more.

Should that content be removed, even if only a few people will be upset by it?

 

[kuroneko0509]

I honestly wonder why it was disagreed against because I honestly like the idea of your chosen love interest speaking to you face to face better overall like some VN.

non-live2d confessing scene is still better imo
also the part where disagreement isn't the face-to-face part, it's the implementation of the minigame

 

[GamerJM]

because yes I don't like other people having voices on gaming.

dude really?

I just don't like people getting attacked or passive aggressively called names because they like something.

I like reading other peoples POVs. I often dissagree with a lot of stuff in these threads but I have also often gained new insight. If I didn't like other people having voices, i wouldn't be in this fucking thread at 5am. I love reading other people views...I don't like reading people call other people names (either openly or inferred) because they like a thing.

miss me with that shit bro

I would implore you to look inward if you sincerely wish to continue to characterize people who criticize sexist portrayals as you do. Are the examples you used a thing? Sure. It has happened. Rarely but it has. Are they really truthful to how these conversations go and how the people who voice criticism of this kind of thing generally behave? Not really in my experience.

You are literally arguing for "let's not start on a bad foot" while you insult people who criticize sexism within gaming and characterize them as people who equate gaming to causing school violence. Do you get why that screams dissonance to me?

I'd ask the same of you because saying shit like this

is exactly the kind of generalization that you're calling him out for. It splits the argument into convenient sides so you don't have to actually engage with the other.

This conversation is silly. It feels like it ultimately comes down to "who started it first," (i.e. whether the people criticizing portrayals of women in gaming calling the people who enjoy said portrayals creepy otakus first, or if the people who do like said portrayals bringing out the Jack Thompson comparisons and unironically using the phrase "SJW," first). Can we all just agree that:

1) Gaming has (or at the very least there's a very valid argument for there being) a lot of issues with sexism/misogyny, portrayals of women and of people in general.
2) Some people still enjoy and find value in these portrayals despite the flaws.
3) Namecalling and bringing up strawman arguments (directed towards anyone) when discussing this is shitposting.
4) People deserve to have their perspectives respected.

 

[Christhor]

It's shitty content and the game is better without it.

If they introduced an optional doll petting mini-game in Bloodborne I sure as shit would want the localized version to remove that, too.

You might as well say that the latest Fire Emblem gaems are shitty content then, since the petting minigame would fit in quite nicely with the feel of the rest of the game.

 

[toddhunter]

Lots of games have shitty, meaningless content that only appeals to a few people even if the game as a whole appeals to a lot more.

Should that content be removed, even if only a few people will be upset by it?

Yes shitty content should be removed. What is the confusion here?

This was shitty content, it isn't censorship, just smart editing.

You might as well say that the latest Fire Emblem gaems are shitty content then, since the petting minigame would fit in quite nicely with the feel of the rest of the game.

Well yes? Lots of people have been saying that. This is a good start.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Lots of games have shitty, meaningless content that only appeals to a few people even if the game as a whole appeals to a lot more.

Should that content be removed, even if only a few people will be upset by it?

If we all get to remove all the content we disapprove of from all games , it'd be interesting to see what survives , though probably not very interesting to play what survived.

 

[Kaisos]

You might as well say that the latest Fire Emblem gaems are shitty content then, since the petting minigame would fit in quite nicely with the feel of the rest of the game.

Lots of people in here have already argued that, lol.

This was shitty content, it isn't censorship, just smart editing.

I'm not saying it's censorship, I'm saying that there are people that actually enjoy, say, Smash Tour.

 

[Palculator]

It's shitty content and the game is better without it.

You wouldn't have to use it, you're just being egocentric.

 

[Nanashrew]

non-live2d confessing scene is still better imo

Well, yeah, but if they wanted Live2D for the confessing, I wouldn't be too bothered by the change. The disagreement just feels odd to me.

 

[Ekai]

I'd ask the same of you because saying shit like this

is exactly the kind of generalization that you're calling him out for. It splits the argument into convenient sides so you don't have to actually engage with the other.

I'm calling him out on his desire to split things while acting like he's arguing for diplomacy. He literally equated those who are critical of sexism in gaming to people believing games cause kids to shoot up schools. He did that. You can't deny what literally just happened. As I stated, he's arguing in incredibly bad faith here. He's already made it about sides while acting like he doesn't want people to attack each other. It's not a genuine message to me. It's one I would agree with on some level but he's not at all being genuine by arguing the way he has.

Well, just look at all the posts in the thread celebrating the removal of an optional feature, one that was partially intended for female players as well. That looks a lot more like repugnance than criticism, you know?

As a woman, this didn't really appeal to me. As I already stated, I don't really care if it's in but also don't really care that it's gone as I wasn't ever going to use it. I do find it to be a stupid but mostly harmless feature. The husbando gif at the start of the topic did make me giggle at the very least.

I'm sure others may have enjoyed it. Though I know even Japan didn't like this much. I can see why people would be fine with it being gone, frankly. On the otherhand, I can see how it's just optional content and it's not exactly the worst thing ever as some have argued.

because yes I don't like other people having voices on gaming.

dude really?

I just don't like people getting attacked or passive aggressively called names because they like something.

I like reading other peoples POVs. I often dissagree with a lot of stuff in these threads but I have also often gained new insight. If I didn't like other people having voices, i wouldn't be in this fucking thread at 5am. I love reading other people views...I don't like reading people call other people names (either openly or inferred) because they like a thing.

miss me with that shit bro

It's fine if you don't like that. What I'm not fine with is your hypocrisy here. You say you don't like people being on bad footing yet you literally made an argument disparaging people and inaccurately describing them while making a "we shouldn't be on bad footing" argument.

 

[Mik317]

I would implore you to look inward if you sincerely wish to continue to characterize people who criticize sexist portrayals as you do. Are the examples you used a thing? Sure. It has happened. Rarely but it has. Are they really truthful to how these conversations go and how the people who voice criticism of this kind of thing generally behave? Not really in my experience.

You are literally arguing for "let's not start on a bad foot" while you insult people who criticize sexism within gaming and characterize them as people who equate gaming to causing school violence. Do you get why that screams dissonance to me?

The shooting up school thing was an example of poor reasoning for games being changed in the past that we fought against. I am saying it is funny how we pushed against that (rightfully) yet are okay with changes here. If that was silly, then why is this suddenly not.

you are also missing my main point here for some reason. Don't insult folks just because you don't like a thing. Any anime/japan related thread is full of passive agressive barbs.

words like

Pedo, Sexist, Perver, Basement Dwelling Nerd, otaku

and statements like

"masterbation fodder" or "this is for nerd to jerk off to" or "this was created by a 14 year old boy"

are often used and reused constantly. Those are loaded words and statements (and yes the flipside of prudes and childish and "grow up" are too)

And whether or not that was ones intention is makes it seem like "any one who enjoys this falls into the above categories" and that is unfair. I am into these games for the team building and stats and stuff. I'm not into it for waifus or whatever. I am sure there is a dude/dudette out there that is. In any case, just liking the game should not vilify either of us by association.

It really shouldn't be this hard and here you are talking about shit I'm not even going on about.

I didn't think "don't be an asshole because someone likes a thing you don;t like" was a statement I needed to explain further.

 

[Christhor]

Lots of people in here have already argued that, lol

Then why are we even arguing about this? We should just go petition this game to stay in Nippon.

 

[kuroneko0509]

Well, yeah, but if they wanted Live2D for the confessing, I wouldn't be too bothered by the change. The disagreement just feels odd to me.

missed my edit (i really should learn not to post incomplete post) haha
the disagreement is the live2d use for minigame, not the usage in confession

 

[Nanashrew]

Lots of people in here have already argued that, lol.



I'm not saying it's censorship, I'm saying that there are people that actually enjoy, say, Smash Tour.

People have also given good arguments against Sakurai's point of view too. Ya gotta come up with something new here.

 

[Drop]

This conversation is silly. It feels like it ultimately comes down to "who started it first," (i.e. whether the people criticizing portrayals of women in gaming calling the people who enjoy said portrayals creepy otakus first, or if the people who do like said portrayals bringing out the Jack Thompson comparisons and unironically using the phrase "SJW," first). Can we all just agree that:

1) Gaming has (or at the very least there's a very valid argument for there being) a lot of issues with sexism/misogyny, portrayals of women and of people in general.
2) Some people still enjoy and find value in these portrayals despite the flaws.
3) Namecalling and bringing up strawman arguments (directed towards anyone) when discussing this is shitposting.
4) People deserve to have their perspectives respected.

This will never work, for it to work people would have to accept the opposite opinion is not innately wrong, you're pretty much walking on a battlefield asking people to stop shooting.

 

[Kaisos]

People have also given good arguments against Sakurai's point of view too. Ya gotta come up with something new here.

I really don't see how you can argue against "optional content is harmless and the time spent on it would not be put to anything else", but okay.

 

[Nanashrew]

missed my edit (i really should learn not to post incomplete post) haha
the disagreement is the live2d use for minigame, not the usage in confession

Oh, disagreement over the use for the mini-games? Also sorry, It's really late here so my reading is failing me.

 

[Palculator]

This conversation is silly. It feels like it ultimately comes down to "who started it first," (i.e. whether the people criticizing portrayals of women in gaming calling the people who enjoy said portrayals creepy otakus first, or if the people who do like said portrayals bringing out the Jack Thompson comparisons and unironically using the phrase "SJW," first). Can we all just agree that:

1) Gaming has (or at the very least there's a very valid argument for there being) a lot of issues with sexism/misogyny, portrayals of women and of people in general.
2) Some people still enjoy and find value in these portrayals despite the flaws.
3) Namecalling and bringing up strawman arguments (directed towards anyone) when discussing this is shitposting.
4) People deserve to have their perspectives respected.

How is this about women when the feature was for both sexes?

 

[Koeta]

It's a weird world we live in these days, where people don't like something and think because they don't like it, it shouldn't be a thing, that it should be removed or shouldn't exist.

It's kind of funny if you ask me, I remember back when people didn't like something they just didn't bother with it.

This kind of attitude is just like the people who wanted Breaking Bad Toys removed from Toys-R-Us.

 

[GamerJM]

This will never work, for it to work people would have to accept the opposite opinion is not innately wrong, you're pretty much walking on a battlefield asking people to stop shooting.

I'm not even really asking that though. I'm asking that people mutually agree not to shitpost.

 

[Ekai]

The shooting up school thing was an example of poor reasoning for games being changed in the past that we fought against. I am saying it is funny how we pushed against that (rightfully) yet are okay with changes here. If that was silly, then why is this suddenly not.

you are also missing my main point here for some reason. Don't insult folks just because you don't like a thing. Any anime/japan related thread is full of passive agressive barbs.

words like

Pedo, Sexist, Perver, Basement Dwelling Nerd, otaku

and statements like

"masterbation fodder" or "this is for nerd to jerk off to" or "this was created by a 14 year old boy"

are often used and reused constantly.

And whether or not that was ones intention is makes it seem like "any one who enjoys this falls into the above categories" and that is unfair. I am into these games for the team building and stats and stuff. I'm not into it for waifus or whatever. I am sure there is a dude/dudette out there that is. In any case, just liking the game should not vilify either of us by association.

It really shouldn't be this hard and here you are talking about shit I'm not even going on about.

I didn't think "don't be an asshole because someone likes a thing you don;t like" was a statement I needed to explain further.

No I got your main point. What I'm not fine with is you attacking people while arguing that one shouldn't attack people. You are being quite the hypocrite here. You don't need to explain your statements. I am asking that you in the future do not continue to disparage people while acting like you're deploring for people to not start on bad footing. You've done this before and I'm tired of that line of argumentation.

 

[Mik317]

This conversation is silly. It feels like it ultimately comes down to "who started it first," (i.e. whether the people criticizing portrayals of women in gaming calling the people who enjoy said portrayals creepy otakus first, or if the people who do like said portrayals bringing out the Jack Thompson comparisons and unironically using the phrase "SJW," first). Can we all just agree that:

1) Gaming has (or at the very least there's a very valid argument for there being) a lot of issues with sexism/misogyny, portrayals of women and of people in general.
2) Some people still enjoy and find value in these portrayals despite the flaws.
3) Namecalling and bringing up strawman arguments (directed towards anyone) when discussing this is shitposting.
4) People deserve to have their perspectives respected.

I agree with most of that list.

But it seems like people get stuck on small points and focus on that and miss my main point of stop being an asshole.

Yes gaming has issues. Yes people can enjoy things. Namecalling is bad. Yes both sides have truth to them. This is all shit I have been trying to say in these threads. I try to be unbiased and I have called out both sides. Perhaps I am wording it wrong but trust my point is bottomline respect each other and yet here I am being attacked as if I am not.

 

[Elaugaufein]

This will never work, for it to work people would have to accept the opposite opinion is not innately wrong, you're pretty much walking on a battlefield asking people to stop shooting.

I think this is over simplified a little. There are many situations where I don't think the opposite opinion is innately wrong. There are some where I do (I mean if you have any kind of personal code of ethics / morality then there's got to be some opinions you think are innately wrong). I mean I'm pretty sure that holds for the people who have the opposite opinion too, in most of those cases, but that doesn't mean I think they are any more correct on some kind of abstract moral plane, I just think they are mistaken. We all perceive ourselves as the heroes of our own stories and our moral judgements as being the correct ones.

 

[Drop]

I'm calling him out on his desire to split things while acting like he's arguing for diplomacy. He literally equated those who are critical of sexism in gaming to people believing games cause kids to shoot up schools. He did that. You can't deny what literally just happened. As I stated, he's arguing in incredibly bad faith here. He's already made it about sides while acting like he doesn't want people to attack each other. It's not a genuine message to me. It's one I would agree with on some level but he's not at all being genuine by arguing the way he has.

I can deny what didn't happen though, because he didn't do that, I'd ask you to reread his post because I want to believe you just misinterpreted it and are not arguing in bad faith yourself.

 

[KZXcellent]

Not shocked, it's NoA. It's expected at this point that they'd pull this.

 

[Ushojax]

It's a weird world we live in these days, where people don't like something and think because they don't like it, it shouldn't be a thing, that it should be removed or shouldn't exist.

It's kind of funny if you ask me, I remember back when people didn't like something they just didn't bother with it.

This kind of attitude is just like the people who wanted Breaking Bad Toys removed from Toys-R-Us.

This content wasn't removed due to pressure from 'people' though. During localisation Nintendo decided that it was a very awkward feature to include in a Western version of the game, their Japanese testers also felt that it was too much and toned it down during development of the original version.

When Nintendo released Tomodachi Life in the West, they were rightly criticised for not including same sex relationship options in the game, they then promised to do so for any future entries. Do the people up in arms at this Fire Emblem alteration also care about that? That Nintendo agreed that Tomodachi's traditionally Japanese depiction of relationships was inappropriate and promised to change it? Or should they not be 'censored' by Western tastes?

 

[Ekai]

I can deny what didn't happen though, because he didn't do that, I'd ask you to reread his post because I want to believe you just misinterpreted it and are not arguing in bad faith yourself.

But it did happen.
"Its funny to see all of the same methods used in the crusade against videogame violence and its effects on the youth being used again. "its creepy, its sexist, its problematic" is very close to MK and GTA make people shoot up schools and worship Beelzebub.."
His exact words. They're literally a page ago.

He equated critiques of sexism in gaming to people who spread the belief that games cause people to shoot up schools. It's ridiculous. I agree with his message. I do not appreciate that equation in a message that proclaims we need to not be on bad footing.

 

[Kaisos]

This content wasn't removed due to pressure from 'people' though. During localisation Nintendo decided that it was a very awkward feature to include in a Western version of the game, their Japanese testers also that it was too much and toned it down during development of the original version.

He's not talking about NoA, he's talking about the attitudes in this thread.

 

[GamerJM]

Yes both sides have truth to them.

To be clear this isn't the point that I'm trying to get across. I think the whole "both sides have truth to them," logic is used way too frequently, especially in cases where it's not the case at all. For example I think the Soleil conversation is very plainly and clearly gross and that NoA made the right decision there. The reason I posted that was because I feel like it's good list of guidelines for posting in these types of threads that most people should be able to agree upon.

 

[Mik317]

No I got your main point. What I'm not fine with is you attacking people while arguing that one shouldn't attack people. You are being quite the hypocrite here. You don't need to explain your statements. I am asking that you in the future do not continue to disparage people while acting like you're deploring for people to not start on bad footing. You've done this before and I'm tired of that line of argumentation.

You are frustrating the hell out of me right now.

where the hell did I attack anyone? I have not called anyone names. I have respected peoples opinions even when I may not agree.

I having a real hard time seeing where I attacked someone.

I was not saying those. If it was the those against violence thing...then no that wasn't an attack. I don't even think they are completely wrong btw just that we pushed back against it hard because we did't think there was the correlation they said it was and yet many of the folks who was against those edits are for this edit...I find that ironic.

and still that was completely divorced from the main point.

please point out the attack because I am close to losing it right now.

 

[Drop]

I think this is over simplified a little. There are many situations where I don't think the opposite opinion is innately wrong. There are some where I do (I mean if you have any kind of personal code of ethics / morality then there's got to be some opinions you think are innately wrong). I mean I'm pretty sure that holds for the people who have the opposite opinion too, in most of those cases, but that doesn't mean I think they are any more correct on some kind of abstract moral plane, I just think they are mistaken. We all perceive ourselves as the heroes of our own stories and our moral judgements as being the correct ones.

I'm not even really asking that though. I'm asking that people mutually agree not to shitpost.

What I mean is that I find it kind of disingenuous, because I believe it won't have any effect on anyone that message would be directed to.

 

[Yoshi]

Lots of games have shitty, meaningless content that only appeals to a few people even if the game as a whole appeals to a lot more.

Should that content be removed, even if only a few people will be upset by it?

If to more people that content is distracting and there is a danger of damaging the brand - and I think this face-touching bs has that potential - then yes, better delete that content. Also a game is not better for just having more content, if the added content is supreme shit (like face touching for instance), it lessens the game.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Those games lacking supports is one reason why they're generally disliked, lol. All I'm suggesting though is that Tiki has never not been portrayed in a similar way to Nowi, it's just that she wears more clothes and can't be married off to anyone.

The argument is that if you were really going to be mad at Nowi's inclusion, you should also be mad at Tiki for being much the same character, I think? But because that aspect of Tiki could be easily ignored, it's not a problem for anyone.

They're only the same character when you take them out of context.

 

[toddhunter]

If to more people that content is distracting and there is a danger of damaging the brand - and I think this face-touching bs has that potential - then yes, better delete that content. Also a game is not better for just having more content, if the added content is supreme shit (like face touching for instance), it lessens the game.

The related issue is that the only way you can communicate that face touching content in fire emblem is bs is via your wallet.

This sort of works, but doesn't help if the series is killed for good.

Removing bs first is far more win, win.

 

[JazzmanZ]

I wonder if there was ever this much outrage when Path of radiance had an entire Difficulty setting removed

 

[Ekai]

You are frustrating the hell out of me right now.

where the hell did I attack anyone? I have not called anyone names. I have respected peoples opinions even when I may not agree.

I having a real hard time seeing where I attacked someone.

I was not saying those. If it was the those against violence thing...then no that wasn't an attack. I don't even think they are completely wrong btw just that we pushed back against it hard because we did't think there was the correlation they said it was and yet many of the folks who was against those edits are for this edit...I find that ironic.

and still that was completely divorced from the main point.

please point out the attack because I am close to losing it right now.

Equating critique of sexism in gaming to the whole violence hooplah reads to me as an insult. That's what I'm pointing out. The reason why is because it's dismissive of what people who make critiques of sexism in gaming actually say and a hyberbole of what those critiques generally entail. I am not at all aiming to upset you here and that is not what I wish. I am however frustrated myself when arguments for positivity feel like they come across in bad faith. I want to believe you do not mean to cause that frustration either.

We are going in circles at this point and it's really not worth it. If you don't see it, then this is pointless. And if you don't mean offense either then fine. I'm simply explaining to you why your statement feels insulting. By all means, I agree with and support good footing. I respect that. Keep on that as much as you want. I just hope you don't make such statements again while deploring for no bad footing. It makes your message feel far less genuine.

 

[WrenchNinja]

I wonder if there was ever this much outrage when Path of radiance had an entire Difficulty setting removed

There wasn't. I was on NSider back then, hardly anyone gave that much of a shit.

 

[ffdgh]

you guys should've just paired Nowi with Ricken. Hell its the only thing he's good for.
Also problem solved.

Something something Galeforce
Something something Donnel or Gaius

Gotta admit Ricken as Nah's dad really pushes the family resemblance lol.

 

[Yoshi]

The related issue is that the only way you can communicate that face touching content in fire emblem is bs is via your wallet.

This sort of works, but doesn't help if the series is killed for good.

Removing bs first is far more win, win.

Yeah, but I would never do that, Fire Emblem is one of my favourite series and now they added another grinding-free installment to the series, I certainly would buy the game even with full on nude body touching and if needs to be explicit sex, even if it was mandatory, but I would be furious. Nevertheless I'm very happy the face touching is out.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I wonder if there was ever this much outrage when Path of radiance had an entire Difficulty setting removed

I doubt it ? Firstly, who on earth is going to defend the removal of a difficult setting in order to spark a mutli-page thread. Secondly Path of Radiance didn't generate as much interest just in general if sales figures are anything to go by.

 

[ZombAid82]

I think, this is the first time, i'm happy, to get a content cut from a Game.
And I live in Germany, the Land of the Censors!

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I wonder if there was ever this much outrage when Path of radiance had an entire Difficulty setting removed

There was literally more outrage over the sequel's lack of Mii support.

 

[kuroneko0509]

I wonder if there was ever this much outrage when Path of radiance had an entire Difficulty setting removed

lol no