Support NeoGAF

[cosmicblizzard]

Can I just ask what an Otome game is? Is it a graphic novel with relationship choices, that kinda thing? Genuine question, I'm only into SRPGs for the strategy element but curious.

Is Stella Glow basically Luminous Arc IV? I wasn't a fan of them but SG seems quite good based on the OT.

Stella Glow is an SRPG with minor visual novel/social elements. There's nothing really Otome about it.

And yeah, basically Luminous Arc IV.

 

[diaspora]

And hey Intelligent Systems, please make a new Advance Wars thx

IIRC, Days of Ruin did disastrously no?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

You responded to a post that some people, speaking on a personal level, might be upset over the removal of content with "I don't care". I don't see how that doesn't come off as abrasive or works as helpful feedback for the sake of the current discussion.

You're stripping all the previous context here. The "I don't care" was in response to a series of arguments that vaguely attempted to to guilt-trip someone (or calling them "irrational") for not wanting content they considered shitty in games they enjoy.

 

[Dimmle]

IIRC, Days of Ruin did disastrously no?

ruinously

 

[MHWilliams]

In that case, the removal is purely a cost-cutting/time-saving method and has nothing to do with offending or not offending people or harming the brand.

That kind of changes the entire dynamic of the conversation. Rather than fearing controversy, it just makes Treehouse look lazy.

And since it's Nintendo, we'll likely never know which reason is the correct one, or if it's a blending of the two.

 

[Venfayth]

Yes, it is selfish to want a game to be changed to cater to you, but that's what every consumer is. Every consumer wants things to be best for them.

With that being said, the content we're talking about is optional. It seems reasonable to say that the removal of optional content is a bad trade for people who wanted it there, in terms of how much value is gained by the people who don't want it there.

Optional content is engaged with as a matter of desire, and is at worst a negative tinge at the periphery of the experience for those who don't want it there. The removal of it serves to get rid of that tinge, but also completely guts a positive experience that someone who wants it there would actively engage with.

There's a disproportionate trade happening in terms of which party is gaining and losing value in the game.

--

Also, it's fine to be happy about it. It's also fine to not be happy about it. Where I think a line is crossed is when you express your opinion in a way that attempts to shame people that have a different opinion.

RM8, I recognize that people attempt to call you prude because of your distaste for fanservice, and that's shitty. But look at the volume of that kind of talk that happened near the beginning of this thread, where people were being called weirdos/insane/creeps/pervs/gamergaters, etc, for having the opposite opinion. Clearly you must recognize the opposite is happening just as much, and is just as shitty.

I'd also like to thank Steve Youngblood for quelling those posts somewhat by calling it out.

I mean, yes, obviously anything that makes the game more like the thing you want is good for you, and it's fine for you to want that and be happy that things go that way.

If you're trying to defend yourself from people who say you shouldn't be happy about it, that's not me.

I am arguing, though, in my above post, that the loss of the minigame is worse for people who enjoy it - or, even at the very least just want to TRY it - than removing it is beneficial for people who dislike it.

You're stripping all the previous context here. The "I don't care" was in response to a series of arguments that vaguely attempted to to guilt-trip someone (or calling them "irrational") for not wanting content they considered shitty in games they enjoy.

Where am I calling them irrational? I positioned an argument to say "hey I think this should stay in the game because for me and people like me it has value above what you're losing"

I know that the people I'm talking to probably disagree, that doesn't mean I'm calling them irrational.

 

[redcrayon]

An otome game is a visual novel game where the player character (usually female) can choose to date an array of (usually) male characters. So the gameplay is pretty much reading text and picking choices most of the time.

I think bishoujo game is the same thing but aimed towards men. Otome games are aimed towards women.

Stella Glow is an SRPG with minor visual novel/social elements. There's nothing really Otome about it.

And yeah, basically Luminous Arc IV.

Thanks gaffers, much appreciated.

 

[Kaiterra]

IIRC, Days of Ruin did disastrously no?

Yeah that sucked It's actually the game that got me into the franchise. >_>

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Where am I calling them irrational? I positioned an argument to say "hey I think this should stay in the game because for me and people like me it has value above what you're losing"

I know that the people I'm talking to probably disagree, that doesn't mean I'm calling them irrational.

I wasn't referring to you...

 

[Violet_0]

Nintendo thinks Westerners are all casuals
wait this thread is closing in on 4000 posts. Can someone give me the highlights?

 

[Firemind]

IIRC, Days of Ruin did disastrously no?

it's because they made it grimdark instead of anime.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I disagree completely.

How exactly does removing it make it better? As far as I know It's an optional part of the game that you never have to play with. So just ignoring it would result in the exact same outcome as removing it.

It's odd that you brought up Uncharted, given that it fits that specific scenario. Uncharted Collection lacks the multiplayer features of the second and third games. Which players alternatively expressed sadness or joy over. And you can see my post above for the rest, as an un-localized release in the West doesn't really count as a finished product that the developer has completely left behind.

I don't remember anyone expressing joy over the removal of the multiplayer. It was anger if anything because fans would've liked to play U2's multiplayer at 60fps. The Collection wasn't better in any way because of its removal. As far as an unlocalized release not counting as a finished product, the game itself was done as was the minigame. The late localization doesn't change that the game has been available in its finished form since last June.

For the most part, it seems like developers of most Japanese games these days are actively trying to avoid removing or changing anything major within the games. Atlus no longer changes the race of characters and locations like they did back in the 90's, Sega isn't gutting chunks of Yakuza anymore, and Idea Factory has gone as far as to say that if they have to censor anything in a game they just simply won't bring it over. Nintendo is one of the few that's still stuck in the 90's effectively in terms of constantly changing and/or removing things.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

How exactly does removing it make it better? As far as I know It's an optional part of the game that you never have to play with. So just ignoring it would result in the exact same outcome as removing it.



I don't remember anyone expressing joy over the removal of the multiplayer. It was anger if anything because fans would've liked to play U2's multiplayer at 60fps. The Collection wasn't better in any way because of its removal. As far as an unlocalized release not counting as a finished product, the game itself was done as was the minigame. The late localization doesn't change that the game has been available in its finished form since last June.

For the most part, it seems like developers of most Japanese games these days are actively trying to avoid removing or changing anything major within the games. Atlus no longer changes the race of characters and locations like they did back in the 90's, Sega isn't gutting chunks of Yakuza anymore, and Idea Factory has gone as far as to say that if they have to censor anything in a game they just simply won't bring it over. Nintendo is one of the few that's still stuck in the 90's effectively in terms of constantly changing and/or removing things.

Mark >>>>>> Masao.

 

[SmackAttack]

Nintendo thinks Westerners are all casuals
wait this thread is closing in on 4000 posts. Can someone give me the highlights?

I haven't posted in here much but from what I gather:

Some people are mad that some people are happy/don't care that the feature is gone. Some people can't believe some people wanted that feature and are upset that it's gone. A mix of civil discussion and insults being thrown, from both sides.

 

[Korigama]

IIRC, Days of Ruin did disastrously no?

it didn't even get a Japanese release until as a Club Nintendo, digital Platinum reward in late 2013.

it's because they made it grimdark instead of anime.

Hiroaki's style is pretty anime (it's considerably more anime compared to the whimsical cartoony visuals of the older games). Though it took the setting and material seriously, it wasn't anywhere close to humorless enough to qualify as grimdark, at least not the NoA localization.

 

[Firemind]

it didn't even get a Japanese release until as a Club Nintendo, digital Platinum reward in late 2013.

japan didn't get aw1 until 2004, three years later than the north american release

it doesn't really mean anything

 

[cosmicblizzard]

You're stripping all the previous context here. The "I don't care" was in response to a series of arguments that vaguely attempted to to guilt-trip someone (or calling them "irrational") for not wanting content they considered shitty in games they enjoy.

It's not guilt-tripping, it's just giving insight on why someone wouldn't understand very well how someone can be ecstatic on a personal level when content they never have to access gets removed. It's the progression of discussion, and if the discussion point ends on "I don't care", I don't see how that's helpful or a satisfactory argument in general. It's the same as having a long back and forth and one side shutting down the other side with "lol, u mad". Just comes off as mean-spirited in general.

 

[MHWilliams]

For the most part, it seems like developers of most Japanese games these days are actively trying to avoid removing or changing anything major within the games. Atlus no longer changes the race of characters and locations like they did back in the 90's, Sega isn't gutting chunks of Yakuza anymore, and Idea Factory has gone as far as to say that if they have to censor anything in a game they just simply won't bring it over. Nintendo is one of the few that's still stuck in the 90's effectively in terms of constantly changing and/or removing things.

I actually prefer this state of smaller publishers bringing games over mostly unchanged and intact. I just don't have as much an issue when things do change. (On a case-by-case basis of course.)

Note, Monster Monpiece's Steam release will have the uncensored artwork, but won't have multiplayer. Cuts and changes happen.

 

[Korigama]

japan didn't get aw1 until 2004, three years later than the north american release

it doesn't really mean anything

I'd say that cutting out an entire region to sell something in is noteworthy, especially when said region is the home market of the game's developer. Either way, as enjoyable as it was, the end result was that it failed to revitalize Advance Wars in the same way that Awakening managed to for Fire Emblem.

 

[Ekai]

Damn it looks like the thread came to a bit of an understanding, I am actually pretty impressed.

I don't really see that much. Palculator and a few others are rallying around a "you are irrational if you don't want this feature" argument. It's disingenuous and ignores the arguments others have brought to the discussion.

Definitely! I'm seeing this too (helps I'm involved in the community though). I'm also a moderator over on one of the popular HM/SoS fansites that's comprised of mostly girls and women, and there's been so many of them just really disappointed with the whole thing.

I don't know. As an otome fan myself I'm not particularly saddened by it's absence. Mostly cause I don't care for the feature in the first place. Could be there, could not be for most of what I care. It does feel somewhat out of place that being said. That also said it was an optional feature so I can see the converse and it's a shame that that happened.

 

[Firemind]

Hiroaki's style is pretty anime (it's considerably more anime compared to the whimsical cartoony visuals of the older games). Though it took the setting and material seriously, it wasn't anywhere close to humorless enough to qualify as grimdark, at least not the NoA localization.

you have a pretty twisted definition of anime. i was talking about the older era of anime which were whimsical.

I'd say that cutting out an entire region to sell something in is noteworthy, especially when said region is the home market of the game's developer. Either way, as enjoyable as it was, the end result was that it failed to revitalize Advance Wars in the same way that Awakening managed to for Fire Emblem.

they tried to westernize days of ruin. they said it themselves. the comparison to awakening is faulty at best.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

One thing I want to touch on is that it's important to understand how content is integrated into the game. I think how some people are approaching this is that they feel that development is done, so therefore it makes no sense to cut. And I understand that sentiment, but feel like we need to explore how the content works with the game to understand whether or not it's indeed 100% innocuous and won't affect people who don't want to play it.

One example is a multiplayer mode. At the concept phase, it's easy to understand why people who view a game as single-player focused wouldn't want resources devoted to it. But if the work is done anyway, does it make sense to leave it on the cutting room floor if there's sufficient backlash? Perhaps not.

However, I want to address a bit just how this content works in the main game here. One thing I keep seeing is the argument that "if this bothers you, why not just ignore it? It doesn't hurt anything." And while that may largely be true, I don't know if I can agree entirely. It's a system in the main game alongside everything else. Sure, I understand that petting sessions don't spontaneously break out in the middle of battle, but it's not like it's something hidden completely away that you have to go out of your way to seek out. And there is incentive to do it in terms slight boosts to the relationship ranks and some dialogue therein.

The next part to question is "will people have a strong, negative reaction to this?" And this is where we can only speculate. Many suspect that it's mostly harmless and not a very big deal even if they are taken aback by it. It's not really a dealbreaker for me personally. I'd probably check it out once to just see it for myself in action, chalk it up as stupid, and never use it again. But I'm not going to lie. My reaction upon seeing it the first time was "what the hell is this shit!?" If it's offputting to a sizable portion of your audience, I think that should give them pause and wonder whether it's worth keeping.

Again, I can't prove that. I don't have the data to back me up and suggest that buyers are X% less likely to buy the game upon seeing skinship stuff. But I know that my reaction was extremely negative. I know others here share that view. I know that still others are positive on it. I know some are indifferent. We run the range of emotions here in terms of what impact this has on the title. All I'm doing in this rambling here is suggesting that I don't think you can necessarily write off negative feedback to a feature just because it's arguably optional by thinking that it can't possibly reflect negatively on the product as a whole.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I don't really see that much. Palculator and a few others are rallying around a "you are irrational if you don't want this feature" argument. It's disingenuous and ignores the arguments others have brought to the discussion.

I just want to make clear that I am not directly accusing anyone of being irrational or selfish or whatnot. I'm just trying to understand how someone that isn't offended by an optional feature, but is also happy that it's gone can have that viewpoint that doesn't involve spiting those that did want the feature. So far, the best explanation I've seen is from MHWilliams with a ton of other explanations before it that I personally don't see as understandable.

 

[Kirie]

I don't know. As an otome fan myself I'm not particularly saddened by it's absence. Mostly cause I don't care for the feature in the first place. Could be there, could not be for most of what I care. It does feel somewhat out of place that being said. That also said it was an optional feature so I can see the converse and it's a shame that that happened.

Of course, I wasn't certainly trying to speak for all fans Just what I've seen and the ones I know personally. My best friend is actually rather indifferent (she's actually more upset about some of the name changes, lol)

I guess what does actually upset me is when people throw around that the mode is only for basement dwellers, otaku, etc (people can be rather mean-spirited) but that's just because I'm probably way too sensitive. Regardless, I understand the opinions and viewpoints of those who don't like it, but I'm still just disappointed overall. Which is fine of course, just wanted to add on another viewpoint!

 

[Busaiku]

However, I want to address a bit just how this content works in the main game here. One thing I keep seeing is the argument that "if this bothers you, why not just ignore it? It doesn't hurt anything." And while that may largely be true, I don't know if I can agree entirely. It's a system in the main game alongside everything else. Sure, I understand that petting sessions don't spontaneously break out in the middle of battle, but it's not like it's something hidden completely away that you have to go out of your way to seek out. And there is incentive to do it in terms slight boosts to the relationship ranks and some dialogue therein.

But with it being cut and having nothing to replace it, nobody gets access to that content. Not people fine with it or not.
As you say, for better or worse, this content already exists.

Like I said in response to the dialogue change, it's acceptable, since we are still getting something. Her character is changed, but we now have a new character.
That is proper localization. Cutting something, and offering nothing in response just to appease a market, is not.

 

[Ekai]

I just want to make clear that I am not directly accusing anyone of being irrational or selfish or whatnot. I'm just trying to understand how someone that isn't offended by an optional feature, but is also happy that it's gone can have that viewpoint that doesn't involve spiting those that did want the feature. So far, the best explanation I've seen is from MHWilliams with a ton of other explanations before it that I personally don't see as understandable.

I sent you a brief PM regarding this but let me address it briefly here as well. Looking back through the topic, I would say there's varied forms of responses. MHWilliams wouldn't be the only one that falls under that. From my understanding/memory. It would be a bit more than that in my view. Are there ones in the former who are? Sure. I'm not denying that. But it feels a bit of a blanketed statement to act like only a very small number of people aren't. I can see where you are coming from, however, in some regards.

Of course, I wasn't certainly trying to speak for all fans Just what I've seen and the ones I know personally. My best friend is actually rather indifferent (she's actually more upset about some of the name changes, lol)

I guess what does actually upset me is when people throw around that the mode is only for basement dwellers, otaku, etc (people can be rather mean-spirited) but that's just because I'm probably way too sensitive. Regardless, I understand the opinions and viewpoints of those who don't like it, but I'm still just disappointed overall. Which is fine of course, just wanted to add on another viewpoint!

And it's appreciated! The otome viewpoint hasn't really been mentioned much in the topic. I've briefly mentioned how I don't mind it either way and how I'm an otome fan but it's nice to have more input on it.

 

[Venfayth]

Yeah, I agree that it's not something you can ignore 100% and not have it affect you at all. In general if you're ignoring something there's still a modicum of effort you're putting in to the avoidance. I wouldn't enjoy having an element in a game that I didn't want there, even if it was something I could ignore.

I still feel that cutting it isn't the best option. I think it's better for that content to exist, for people to have a chance to try it. Cutting it removes the ability for people to have their minds changed, removes their ability for them to reinforce their opinions about why it sucks. Feedback can still be provided and received for the next game where this stuff hasn't already been made.

I'm hoping there's a happy middle ground coming where it's altered in a way where at least not everyone loses.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

I sent you a brief PM regarding this but let me address i briefly here as well. Looking back through the topic, I would say there's varied forms of responses. MHWilliams wouldn't be the only one that falls under that. From my understanding/memory. It would be a bit more than that in my view. Are there ones in the former who are? Sure. I'm not denying that. But it feel a bit blankety to act like only a very small number of people aren't.

A lot of people have voiced their views and I respect that. Some have put more thought into it than others. MHWilliams just happens to be the only one that has at least partially changed my mind and added another reason on to why someone that isn't offended would want the content removed, whereas I've found the other reasons proposed (on an individual level only) mostly pretty shoddy.

As elegantly as he put it, I see Steve's as essentially just an extension of the very VERY minor inconvenience I posted about before, which I don't see as a wholly valid reason beyond, well, people that don't want to be mildly inconvenienced at the expense of people that would be majorly inconvenienced.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I just want to make clear that I am not directly accusing anyone of being irrational or selfish or whatnot. I'm just trying to understand how someone that isn't offended by an optional feature, but is also happy that it's gone can have that viewpoint that doesn't involve spiting those that did want the feature. So far, the best explanation I've seen is from MHWilliams with a ton of other explanations before it that I personally don't see as understandable.

I think there's plenty of irrational behavior underlying all arguments here. Here's one more: NOA cutting this content could be seen as the company as a whole saying "yeah patting soldiers on the head is dumb" even if there probably wasn't a consensus at NOA and it might even have been done with the company as a whole not feeling that way at all and just trying to predict a market reaction. Nevertheless, fans always get emotionally invested not only in the games themselves but the people who make the games, and so to fans who like patting soldiers on the head this decision seems like a rejection from the company, whereas to people who do not like patting soldiers on the head this seems like an affirmation.

 

[Draxal]

it's because they made it grimdark instead of anime.

Let's not like act like this game was Hearts of Iron or Panzer General with characters like Penny in the game.

 

[Firemind]

Let's not like act like this game was Hearts of Iron or Panzer General with characters like Penny in the game.

they used amnesia as a plot device

i rest my case

 

[WildEagle18]

Of course, I wasn't certainly trying to speak for all fans Just what I've seen and the ones I know personally. My best friend is actually rather indifferent (she's actually more upset about some of the name changes, lol)

I guess what does actually upset me is when people throw around that the mode is only for basement dwellers, otaku, etc (people can be rather mean-spirited) but that's just because I'm probably way too sensitive. Regardless, I understand the opinions and viewpoints of those who don't like it, but I'm still just disappointed overall. Which is fine of course, just wanted to add on another viewpoint!

Yep, it sucks when you have people saying that the feature is more creep and one poster even went as far as saying its molestation of character. I mean i'm sure my gf are none of that and just wanted to enjoy rubbing guys face for fun.

While I can shrug off the lost of the touching feature, reading this thread and just generalizing whoever wanted feature as creep and other things are just upsetting like Kirie said.

 

[MHWilliams]

Like I said in response to the dialogue change, it's acceptable, since we are still getting something. Her character is changed, but we now have a new character.
That is proper localization. Cutting something, and offering nothing in response just to appease a market, is not.

I'd agree with that. I'd like to see something to take the place of that content, even if the final comparison may be apples to oranges.

 

[Palculator]

I'd agree with that. I'd like to see something to take the place of that content, even if the final comparison may be apples to oranges.

Yup. I guess it'd be kind of hard to find a replacement you wouldn't have to rewrite a lot of the dialogue relating to this mode for but it would be cool if they did something to replace it at least.

 

[Tiktaalik]

you have a pretty twisted definition of anime. i was talking about the older era of anime which were whimsical.


they tried to westernize days of ruin. they said it themselves. the comparison to awakening is faulty at best.

The attempt of Intelligent Systems to "westernize" Advance Wars were laughably off base, which pretty much always seems to be the case when a Japanese company tries to make something for a western audience. The gritty and dark Days of Ruin featured a goth loli general and a bare chested sniper. Not something you'd see in a western game.

It's a shame the game didn't do well, and was not released in Japan, because it's actually fantastic.

 

[Korigama]

you have a pretty twisted definition of anime. i was talking about the older era of anime which were whimsical.

...Okay? Don't believe this was called for. Pretty sure I was referring to the general aesthetic being in line with what most would associate with anime sensibilities. I don't really think anime with the older style, but if comparing to the '70s era, then I suppose I could see it.

they tried to westernize days of ruin. they said it themselves. the comparison to awakening is faulty at best.

I don't recall ever reading that (not saying that it couldn't be true, just not something that sounds familiar to me). With both games, you have a narrative that treats war and its consequences with a reasonable amount of gravity, yet is injected with moments of levity both in and out of the main story, all involving a very colorful cast of characters. There's certainly nothing particularly Western about its gameplay or presentation, so if making something that was happened to be their objective, then they definitely missed the point.

The underlying mechanics and the options available to the player differed, of course, but I'm fairly certain that the goal for Days of Ruin was to expand the franchise's appeal by retooling it, which ultimately did not attain Awakening's success, as already stated. It's clear that you feel rather strongly about it, which isn't too surprising considering that the decisions made to change it from past games were divisive. Either way, considering how needlessly antagonistic you've been about it, I don't see a continuation of this discussion yielding anything constructive.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

First of all, I'll note that 21XX's comment wasn't necessary. Secondly, you're asking the questions in the last paragraph in a sardonic fashion, but I think that's kind of the crux of what people are getting at.

I mean, I'm certainly not trying to belittle anyone or their feelings. But, my questions had a sarcastic tone if you will because, frankly, the grievances some posters were expressing regarding the minigame are unreasonable.

I understand the extra feature not being everyone's cup of tea. But to feel so strongly that one would want it totally scrapped when it's optional...no matter how I try to approach this stance, it feels like nothing less than ridiculous.

I also understand the concernes regarding fanservice, etc. But I feel like this carries over into a slippery slope fallacy zone. You're petting faces and raising affinity with some cheesy suggestive dialogue. It stops there. Anything beyond that is left to the player's imagination.

Imagine the many threads we've had in the previous generation about people who dislike additional optional DLC or extra multiplayer modes for single-player titles.

Examples:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1107479
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=359699

They don't want those extra modes and content to not be a thing because they're offended by them. They just don't like them, would prefer the devs have spent their time elsewhere, and are glad they're gone. That's not offense, triggering, or whatever.

I assume this is what the poster is trying to get at.

Well the content was already made and done. It's not like if they take it out Nintendo's gonna go "Let's spend the same amount of resources used to create that, to make new stuff."

 

[Tiktaalik]

I don't recall ever reading that (not saying that it couldn't be true, just not something that sounds familiar to me). With both games, you have a narrative that treats war and its consequences with a reasonable amount of gravity, yet is injected with moments of levity both in and out of the main story, all involving a very colorful cast of characters. There's certainly nothing particularly Western about its gameplay or presentation, so if making something that was happened to be their objective, then they definitely missed the point.

The underlying mechanics and the options available to the player differed, of course, but I'm fairly certain that the goal for Days of Ruin was to expand the franchise's appeal by retooling it, which ultimately did not attain Awakening's success, as already stated. It's clear that you feel rather strongly about it, which isn't too surprising considering that the decisions made to change it from past games were divisive. Either way, considering how needlessly antagonistic you've been about it, I don't see a continuation of this discussion yielding anything constructive.

Good point. Is there actually a quote from an IS dev about Days of Ruin or is this a gamer myth?

 

[Korigama]

Good point. Is there actually a quote from an IS dev about Days of Ruin or is this a gamer myth?

Seems there was a Gamasutra interview with Treehouse citing American audience response to past titles as a factor.

The latest installment of the long-running tactical series for Nintendo's DS features some stylistic changes that O'Leary tells us were based on the American audience's response to prior titles.

As for the logic behind the art direction change...

One interesting about this title is the change in the art direction -- where did that come from?

Tim O'Leary: Sure. Well, it all comes from the team back in Japan. In the course of the series, they'd make a lot of changes to gameplay and how the system works. But they were hearing a lot of comments in the media, and things from users: "We like the game, we love the game, but it's the same thing." Where we've got the same game -- it looks like a solid game, but there's not really a lot of new things.

Their reaction was, "What? We're changing so much!" But I think a lot of the changes that they were doing were not cosmetic changes. So we were seeing that sort of feedback. They decided, "OK, well, let's make a cosmetic overhaul of the game. Let's see if that works." And it was really an organic process for them, where they said, "OK, what is 'war'?"

And they discovered that they, as Japanese people, have an idea that is different from what other audiences were looking for -- and this is all based on comments that I've heard from them -- a lot of their view of war, based on their previous games, was that they had a very light-hearted take. You know, pastel colors, quirky characters, and what-not; and they basically said, "Well, let's take that and re-envision it." You know, it's dirtier, it's darker, it's more somber.

And basically what they did from that is they said, "OK, we want to give people a new idea of our vision of war. Introduce a darker palette, so it's all browns and grays and dark greens, and it's a much more somber looking game. We want a world that will inhabit that vision. And so they created this world, and then they destroyed it with this meteor strike, and so 90 percent of the population is dead; there are tsunamis, and earthquakes; and there are these giant ash and dust clouds that block out the sunlight, so the vegetation is dying. So it's a very somber, very dirty, dark world.

And then they said, "OK, who will inhabit this world?" And that's how they came up with the character creation, how they came up with the motivation for the different characters, and that of course informs the whole plot line in the whole game. It all stemmed from this much-re-envisioned take of 'war'.

That's where the art direction came from, and also like I said earlier, it seems to be a very organic process. "OK, we have a world. We crush it. What does that world look like? OK, these are the colors that display that best. Who inhabits this world? These characters. What are these characters doing? Well, what would you do if you were the last remaining 10 percent of the population? What kind of people are you going to find?" And again, it all just stemmed from that conversation. That's where this new world came from.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17079

 

[SolidSnakex]

I actually prefer this state of smaller publishers bringing games over mostly unchanged and intact. I just don't have as much an issue when things do change. (On a case-by-case basis of course.)

Note, Monster Monpiece's Steam release will have the uncensored artwork, but won't have multiplayer. Cuts and changes happen.

I actually have less of a problem with changes when publishers are open and come out and discuss in full why they made the changes, and what changes they made. Take SFV for example, Capcom has discussed why certain camera angles had changed. ESRB was also asked about it and you kinda got the impression that those angles may have pushed the game into a M rated zone, so it's entirely understandable why Capcom wouldn't want the series to slip into a higher rating over something as small as camera angles. But you really don't get that from Nintendo. They won't even specifically tell you everything that's been taken out and then they won't discuss why it had been removed. I remember that Yakuza 3's changes were brought up in an IGN article. Within two days Sega had explained exactly what had been removed and why they removed it. That gave fans a chance to specifically address the reason why it was removed (in Y3's case it was partly because of a tight localization window and because Sega believed the content wouldn't resonate with western gamers) and tell Sega that they actually did want it. Since then the content has been added in to recent editions of Yakuza. But if fans are having to speculate about why it's being removed then there's no way for them to even try to change Nintendo's mind about the decision for future games.

 

[Ridley327]

I actually have less of a problem with changes when publishers are open and come out and discuss in full why they made the changes, and what changes they made. Take SFV for example, Capcom has discussed why certain camera angles had changed. ESRB was also asked about it and you kinda got the impression that those angles may have pushed the game into a M rated zone, so it's entirely understandable why Capcom wouldn't want the series to slip into a higher rating over something as small as camera angles. But you really don't get that from Nintendo. They won't even specifically tell you everything that's been taken out and then they won't discuss why it had been removed. I remember that Yakuza 3's changes were brought up in an IGN article. Within two days Sega had explained exactly what had been removed and why they removed it. That gave fans a chance to specifically address the reason why it was removed (in Y3's case it was partly because of a tight localization window and because Sega believed the content wouldn't resonate with western gamers) and tell Sega that they actually did want it. Since then the content has been added in to recent editions of Yakuza. But if fans are having to speculate about why it's being removed then there's no way for them to even try to change Nintendo's mind about the decision for future games.

I think that's why this is a strange situation compared to the Soleil support conversation change, since Nintendo was up front about that and explained why they made the change. It didn't necessarily stop people from complaining, but their reasoning was more or less justified by the discourse that ensued. Why the 180 regarding this feature, I really couldn't say.

 

[diaspora]

it didn't even get a Japanese release until as a Club Nintendo, digital Platinum reward in late 2013.

Hiroaki's style is pretty anime (it's considerably more anime compared to the whimsical cartoony visuals of the older games). Though it took the setting and material seriously, it wasn't anywhere close to humorless enough to qualify as grimdark, at least not the NoA localization.

Japanese audience has never meant shit to the AW franchise. Honestly, the game was so good it's a little upsetting that more people didn't get it.

 

[Korigama]

Japanese audience has never meant shit to the AW franchise. Honestly, the game was so good it's a little upsetting that more people didn't get it.

To elaborate on this, I never claimed that it failed because it didn't get a Japanese release when the game came out (just felt like sharing some interesting trivia). It certainly wouldn't have helped, yet considering that apparently the West specifically pushed Fire Emblem sales over the top with Awakening (not that the Japanese sales were any slouch), I'm not too surprised that Advance Wars was of more interest to audiences outside of Japan. And yes, I agree that it deserved to do better than it did.

 

[RM8]

Jeez, it's depressing to remember Advance Wars was a thing that existed

 

[Firemind]

...Okay? Don't believe this was called for. Pretty sure I was referring to the general aesthetic being in line with what most would associate with anime sensibilities. I don't really think anime with the older style, but if comparing to the '70s era, then I suppose I could see it.

I don't recall ever reading that (not saying that it couldn't be true, just not something that sounds familiar to me). With both games, you have a narrative that treats war and its consequences with a reasonable amount of gravity, yet is injected with moments of levity both in and out of the main story, all involving a very colorful cast of characters. There's certainly nothing particularly Western about its gameplay or presentation, so if making something that was happened to be their objective, then they definitely missed the point.

The underlying mechanics and the options available to the player differed, of course, but I'm fairly certain that the goal for Days of Ruin was to expand the franchise's appeal by retooling it, which ultimately did not attain Awakening's success, as already stated. It's clear that you feel rather strongly about it, which isn't too surprising considering that the decisions made to change it from past games were divisive. Either way, considering how needlessly antagonistic you've been about it, I don't see a continuation of this discussion yielding anything constructive.

Don't get your knickers in a twist. It's clear as day that IS tried to make the series more accessible to the general audience, which in effect ironically alienated that same group by introducing needlessly complicated and restricting game mechanics. Presentation isn't everything. Some people loved to level up and gain powerful skills in Dual Strike. Same thing what they did with Awakening: people love freedom (changing base classes) and achieving progression (higher stats and better skills). What they should have done was make the series more ridiculous than it already was. Dual Strike already had pairing up; they could have gone even further. Claiming that the series has no future just because Day of Ruin failed expectations is a bit short sighted.

 

[synce]

Studying Japanese pays off again

 

[Korigama]

Don't get your knickers in a twist. It's clear as day that IS tried to make the series more accessible to the general audience, which in effect ironically alienated that same group by introducing needlessly complicated and restricting game mechanics. Presentation isn't everything. Some people loved to level up and gain powerful skills in Dual Strike. Same thing what they did with Awakening: people love freedom (changing base classes) and achieving progression (higher stats and better skills). What they should have done was make the series more ridiculous than it already was. Dual Strike already had pairing up; they could have gone even further. Claiming that the series has no future just because Day of Ruin failed expectations is a bit short sighted.

Yet I never said it had no future. Not sure where you got that.

 

[Dimmle]

We're talking about the quiet decline of Advance Wars now? Did cosmicblizzard take a TO?

 

[Firemind]

I'd say that cutting out an entire region to sell something in is noteworthy, especially when said region is the home market of the game's developer. Either way, as enjoyable as it was, the end result was that it failed to revitalize Advance Wars in the same way that Awakening managed to for Fire Emblem.

The underlying mechanics and the options available to the player differed, of course, but I'm fairly certain that the goal for Days of Ruin was to expand the franchise's appeal by retooling it, which ultimately did not attain Awakening's success, as already stated.

Why did you think that happened?

 

[Korigama]

Why did you think that happened?

Why? Could be any number of reasons. As it is, the focus with AW is with the COs, whereas it's the individual units themselves in FE. Yet even then, neither Days of Ruin nor Awakening lacked for entertaining interactions between cast members. Very good for increasing appeal. Of course, with something like Awakening, there's a focus on matchmaking between characters that was a factor in older FE games and given increased focus with that game specifically, something that was never a thing with AW. Then there's the issue of gameplay balance, with CO powers having been nerfed significantly in Days of Ruin, whereas Awakening had much simpler maps and was easy to break for anyone interested in doing so.

Certainly can't blame marketing, as Days of Ruin, much like Awakening, had no shortage of it, up to and including televised ads. Unless I were to survey a reasonably large sample of people familiar with Days of Ruin and ask them why they didn't buy it, I see any conclusions as little more than idle speculation. In the event that they were to revisit the franchise, they could just as well make another game with an art style and lighter tone comparable to the older games, then see if not sticking with those things was a factor in chasing everyone away.