Support NeoGAF

[ambientmystic]

She was saying she wanted a scene to be pulled from the game. That's a call for censorship.

That's the crux of the matter right there. If she had just voiced her opinion and made it a personal choice to disavow the game and not to buy it herself, it'd would've been far less of a talking point and a veritable non-issue. She crossed the line when she advocated that the developers pull the scene from the game, thus ruining their own artistic vision for the game and denying the complete experience of the game from many others who may not be bothered with the "offensive" content.

It's one thing to say, I will not partake in it because this disturbs me. (personal choice)

It's another to say, I will not allow others to partake in it because this disturbs me. (making the choice for others whether they like it or not)

When you (the journalist) start thinking that your morals and views represent a large majority of the userbase and that developers should conform to what you think is right and fashion their content according to your moral and social sensibilities, everything starts to crumble.

 

[Sneds]

When you have an incredibly vocal minority that can cause a big uproar online, asking someone to remove something can be a thinly veiled threat.

Didn't the Bioshock Infinite developers make Elizabeth's breasts smaller after complains from @femfreq?

Incredibly vocal minority? One person wrote one article. Kat didn't even directly ask Konami to remove the scene, she just expressed hope that they do of their own volition.

I don't know the answer to your Bioshock question.

 

[Valnen]

Incredibly vocal minority? One person wrote one article. Kat didn't even directly ask Konami to remove the scene, she just expressed hope that they do of their own volition.

That's the same damn thing.

 

[Sneds]

That's the same damn thing.

No, it isn't.

 

[Thorgi]

When you have an incredibly vocal minority that can cause a big uproar online, asking someone to remove something can be a thinly veiled threat.

Didn't the Bioshock Infinite developers make Elizabeth's breasts smaller after complains from @femfreq?

Oh, please, she was simply expressing her opinion. There's no threat or blackmail involved.

As for the latter, do you have any real proof?

 

[Valnen]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. She wouldn't have said anything if she wanted the scene in the game.

 

[Finaika]

Konami just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about rape culture (I'm an expert), but vampires and fangs are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in Japan where you can become successful by making a game about rape. If even one person feels they were raped while playing your game, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is that Kotaku, after hearing about this, is not going to want to review Castlevania LoS 2 for either system, nor will they cover any of Konami's games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Konami has alienated an entire market with this move.

Konami, publicly apologize and cancel Castlevania LoS 2 or you can kiss your business goodbye.

You're a rape expert?

 

[Sneds]

Yes it is. She wouldn't have said anything if she wanted the scene in the game.

Huh? She doesn't want the scene to be in the game. But she didn't ask, or demand, that Konami remove it. Can you see the distinction?

 

[Thorgi]

When you (the journalist) start thinking that your morals and views represent a large majority of the userbase and that developers should conform to what you think is right and fashion their content according to your moral and social sensibilities is where everything starts to crumble.

Now you're just putting words into her mouth. She did nothing of the sort.

This whole thread is filled with people trying to stir up hate and fear for someone simply expressing her opinion and it's making me sick.

 

[Valnen]

Huh? She doesn't want the scene to be in the game.

Meaning she wants it removed. Otherwise she wouldn't publicly state that she doesn't want it in the game.

 

[Sneds]

Meaning she wants it removed.

Yeah.

But she didn't ask Konami to remove the scene. Again, can you see the distinction?

 

[Valnen]

Yeah.

But she didn't ask Konami to remove the scene. Again, can you see the distinction?

There is literally no difference.

 

[Orayn]

When you have an incredibly vocal minority that can cause a big uproar online, asking someone to remove something can be a thinly veiled threat.

Thinly veiled threat of what, though? A mass boycott? A request that the game actually be banned? That's inferring a bit much.

Didn't the Bioshock Infinite developers make Elizabeth's breasts smaller after complains from @femfreq?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the timeline matches up in such a way that her specific complaints could have been the reason. Elizabeth and Bioshock Infinite in general went through a lot of drastic changes in that timeline.

 

[Sneds]

There is literally no difference.

Yes, there is.

One is a request, one is a hope.

 

[Valnen]

Yes, there is.

One is a request, one is a hope.

And when you publicly state that "hope", it's literally the same thing as asking for it to be removed. Otherwise she would have kept it to herself.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Yes, there is.

One is a request, one isn't.

Okay, then call it a "request for censorship," if bullshit semantics make you feel better about your point of view. Such arguments only serve to derail threads and shift the focus from the topic (in this case, the overstated rapeyness of Dracula's brutal multi-murder scene) to a focus on the definition of the words we are using.

 

[Sneds]

And when you publicly state that "hope", it's literally the same thing as asking for it to be removed. Otherwise she would have kept it to herself.

It's her job to express her opinion about video games. She's paid not to keep things to herself.

 

[AppleMIX]

Yes, there is.

One is a request, one isn't.

re·quest: To ask (a person) to do something.

Both scenarios are a request. In both scenarios she is asking Konami to do something.

The only difference is on is direct and the other is indirect.

The end goal is the same.

It's her job to express her opinion about video games. She's paid not to keep things to herself.

It's her job to give her opinion/criticize it's not her job to ask Konami to change their game.

 

[Thorgi]

Both scenarios are a request. In both scenarios she is asking Konami to do something.

The only difference is on is direct and the other is indirect.

The end goal is the same.



It's her job to give her opinion, it's not her job to as Konami to change their game.

Well, it's not censorship, and there's nothing wrong with stating that you'd prefer it if the scene didn't exist at all. Only in this fantasy world y'all have concocted where everyone is out to hurt your poor little video games is this actually an issue.

 

[Jomjom]

When did she say that Konami shouldn't have the right to include the scene in the game? She never said Konami should be forced to remove it. She hopes Konami make the decision to remove it

She worded her entire article quite a bit stronger than that. Obviously she's not the dictator of some country writing this, so yes it's not technically censorship but she sure was hell calling for it.

 

[Orayn]

Well, it's not censorship, and there's nothing wrong with stating that you'd prefer it if the scene didn't exist at all. Only in this fantasy world y'all have concocted where everyone is out to hurt your poor little video games is this actually an issue.

AppleMIX is hung up on the idea of never asking anyone to change anything about their work. At all. Ever.

If you played a completely terrible demo of a game, hated every aspect of it, and explicitly told the developers how much you think it sucks, it would be unequivocally wrong for them to act on any criticism, because that would be compromising the art of the game. Art, you see, means going with your first attempt and never listening to anyone's input under any circumstances. Because art springs fully fucking formed out of one person's brain and isn't a collaborative process that involves stupid bullshit like revisions, editors, and drafts.

 

[Sneds]

Both scenarios are a request. In both scenarios she is asking Konami to do something.

The only difference is on is direct and the other is indirect.

The end goal is the same.

It's her job to give her opinion, it's not her job to as Konami to change their game.

Why are you asserting that Kat has an "end goal"? Have you asked her? She hopes that a scene is removed that doesn't mean it's her goal to have the scene removed.

Okay, then call it a "request for censorship," if bullshit semantics make you feel better about your point of view. Such arguments only serve to derail threads and shift the focus from the topic (in this case, the overstated rapeyness of Dracula's brutal multi-murder scene) to a focus on the definition of the words we are using.

Huh? My whole point is that she isn't making a "request for censorship". And in relation to semantics, if you're going to accuse someone of requesting censorship I think you should have a idea of what a request is and what censorship is.

Anyway, I can't make myself any clearer and am just repeating myself at this point so this will be my last post on the topic.

 

[Crayons]

Incredibly vocal minority? One person wrote one article. Kat didn't even directly ask Konami to remove the scene, she just expressed hope that they do of their own volition.

I don't know the answer to your Bioshock question.

I'm saying the 5 people who care about the alleged vampire rape could have caused up a real ruckus and publicity disaster to Konami if they were somehow able to convince people to rage against it.

I could say "I really hope you remove that scene", and sure it's not a demand just by reading it, but think of what could happen if they don't.

Oh, please, she was simply expressing her opinion. There's no threat or blackmail involved.

As for the latter, do you have any real proof?

People like to get outraged at everything, it's fun. If Kat was able to gain enough support she could have been a threat to Konami's marketing. Good thing we're not at that point yet where we're asking for vampires to be removed from video games.

And that may have been a rumor, that's why I asked it as a question.

I apologize if I sound bitter, I'm only frustrated that "gaming" "journalists" think that the way to stop rape is to remove vampires from a video game. It's incredibly myopic. Why do video games have to follow a different standard than film, literature and music? The truth is that gaming journalists are supposed to cover games, not look for rape allusions that don't exist. Gaming journalism has gone so far (I'm looking at you, Kotaku), it feels like it no longer represents the community that it's based on. If these people truly cared about women, why aren't they volunterring in the community to help domestically abused women instead of complaining about things that don't matter.

 

[Gaz_RB]

You're a rape expert?

it's a joke. An old meme

 

[ambientmystic]

Only in this fantasy world y'all have concocted where everyone is out to hurt your poor little video games is this actually an issue.

Not so much a fantasy but reality when developers/publishers have acted upon 'suggestions and requests' given by those journos given to moral outrage for the littlest of things in videogames. This is not unprecendented.

 

[Valnen]

Why are you asserting that Kat has an "end goal"? Have you asked her? She hopes that a scene is removed that doesn't mean it's her goal to have the scene removed.

That's exactly her goal. If you deny this you deny common sense.

 

[AppleMIX]

Why are you asserting that Kat has an "end goal"? Have you asked her? She hopes that a scene is removed that doesn't mean it's her goal to have the scene removed..

I don't know...

She says David Cox is trivializing sexual assault and thus is not a particularly large jump in logic to say she wants the scene removed because she feels it is harmful to society.

While certainly it may not be the only reason. It is very clear in the article that is one of the reasons.

AppleMIX is hung up on the idea of never asking anyone to change anything about their work. At all. Ever.

If you played a completely terrible demo of a game, hated every aspect of it, and explicitly told the developers how much you think it sucks, it would be unequivocally wrong for them to act on any criticism, because that would be compromising the art of the game. Art, you see, means going with your first attempt and never listening to anyone's input under any circumstances. Because art springs fully fucking formed out of one person's brain and isn't a collaborative process that involves stupid bullshit like revisions, editors, and drafts.

I wrote up a post explaining the difference between criticism and a call for censorship.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97841717&postcount=59

Make sure to watch the video in the post too.

Well, it's not censorship, and there's nothing wrong with stating that you'd prefer it if the scene didn't exist at all. Only in this fantasy world y'all have concocted where everyone is out to hurt your poor little video games is this actually an issue.

It is self-censorship, which is a form of censorship.

 

[Thorgi]

Not so much a fantasy but reality when developers/publishers have acted upon 'suggestions and requests' given by those journos given to moral outrage for the littlest of things in videogames. This is not unprecendented.

Why are you putting "suggestions and requests" in scare quotes? They simply stated why that trophy made them feel uncomfortable, and it was changed. You are making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Jomjom]

That's exactly her goal. If you deny this you deny common sense.

Yeah her whole article was basically just about this. If that wasn't her goal I dunno what was. It's not like she wrote a long article examining the entirety of what she played and this alleged tape thing was just a side note. Her review of the game was the side note.

 

[Thorgi]

It is self-censorship, which is a form of censorship.

Oh God, you're one of the people who attacked The Stanley Parable for changing a joke. Even when the creator himself says he changed it to better match his own ideal form for the game, you still call "Censorship, PC Police" and all that bullshit, and THEN you people start attacking the creator for daring to do what they want with their own creation.

There's just no reasoning with that line of logic. It's like trying to debate a brick wall.

 

[AppleMIX]

Oh God, you're one of the people who attacked The Stanley Parable for changing a joke. Even when the creator himself says he changed it to better match his own ideal form for the game, you still call "Censorship, PC Police" and all that bullshit, and THEN you people start attacking the creator for daring to do what they want with their own creation.

There's just no reasoning with that line of logic. It's like trying to debate a brick wall.

I am criticizing for having a lack of artistic integrity and caving into pressure from a vocal minority.

I go more indepth in this post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97841717&postcount=59

TLDR: Art is largely subjective and people are going to have different tatses than you. It is down right regressive to change art to better suit you needs. You live on a planet with 7 billion people and where each persona has individually tastes and personal offences.

 

[Spoo]

It should be obvious, but I'll go ahead and say it:

This woman is really undermining the plight of other women by taking to task a game which does very little in the grand scheme to offend.

There are games that degrade and devalue women. There are games that are so wrapped up in the male audience, they utterly demand explanation for it -- you can be an artsy fartsy game all you want (ie: Heavy Rain), but if you're writing in horrible female characters whose purpose it is to actually be degraded, then whoever dreamed up that scenario ought to be under scrutiny.

This is not one of those games.

It's not that the sexuality of vampires just magically gets a pass, but the keyword is "vampires" - this is not some real-world scenario in which a woman (or a man) reacts realistically, or realistic reactions are demanded; it's fantasy based on sexuality, and it always has been. And if you want to take *that* to task, fine, but it creates a straw man for others to use when a company comes around and actually does majorly fuck up a sensitive topic.

What straw man? Well, before I was a feminist, I wasn't -- and that meant trying to gather up all the pure, steaming bullshit that bad writers would write (take, for example, when a woman writes about how she ought not to have the right to make choices about her own body), and I would fling that shit in their faces and say "THERE! Your argument is just as bad as this one, therefore all women are just complainers and we should stop fucking listening to you!"

That's what will surely happen for this woman who, out of all the games out there, or media in general, makes such a bullshit comparison as fucking RapeLay. RAPE-fucking-LAY. I mean, this reeks of stupid. Oh shit, a woman is holding her child -- RAPELAY alert!

That's not a battle to have. It's not worth it. Castlevania isn't worth it, neither is high fantasy of basically any variety. There are actual battles to have, to engage in, and in writing such a petty (and poor) argument, she disturbs the integrity of a cause that I strongly believe in. We should be having the discussion -- but we need the discussion to be around games that actually fuck up a way that matters; Vampires and their sexual escapades don't.

So, meanwhile, David Cage gets off to writing in weak female characters that get drugged and nearly date-raped/molested/killed, and also has to get naked for a pervert, and he wins awards. Dracula goes and does what Dracula has historically been known to do in his world of high fantasy hijinks, and we're calling it the next RapeLay. Fuck that noise. It's too important of a conversation to have it wasted on goddamn Castlevania.

 

[ambientmystic]

I am criticizing for having a lack of artistic integrity and caving into pressure from a vocal minority.

I go more indepth in this post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97841717&postcount=59

Thanks for that linked post. I wish I could articulate myself as well as you did in that post, it underlines perfectly what I've been trying to say, vis a vis the demands and concerns of the vocal few (in this case, gaming journalists indulging in a bit or moralistic activism) vs the previous indifference of the gaming community at large when it came to same issues outlined in those games.

 

[Thorgi]

I am criticizing for having a lack of artistic integrity and caving into pressure from a vocal minority.

I go more indepth in this post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97841717&postcount=59

How do you distinguish self-censorship from willful choice, then? We make decisions based on the interests of others regularly. Are we constantly self-censoring ourselves, then? If any display of compassion is self-censorship, then I see nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

 

[Orayn]

How do you distinguish self-censorship from willful choice, then? We make decisions based on the interests of others regularly. Are we constantly self-censoring ourselves, then? If any display of compassion is self-censorship, then I see nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

What I'm getting out of AppleMIX and the video: "Censorship is when I don't approve of proposed changes or the people proposing them. Changes are valid, willful, and productive when I don't mind."

Spoiler

Mostly AppleMIX, the video in that post was a reasonably well put together argument, though still pretty dismissive and tending toward painting people with a very broad brush.

 

[AppleMIX]

How do you distinguish self-censorship from willful choice, then? We make decisions based on the interests of others regularly. Are we constantly self-censoring ourselves, then? If any display of compassion is self-censorship, then I see nothing inherently wrong with the concept.

It's simple. You don't demand artist change their work.

If I say...

I think the Witcher should become a open-world RPG for reasons X,Y,Z.

Or if I say

I think the Witcher should become a open-world RPG for reasons X,Y,Z. I demand that CDprojektRED make the Witcher 3 a open-world RPG

One is criticism and the other is demand. When you criticize someone, they can listen to the argument you make and decided for themselves.

When you demand (specifically in this case), your telling a artist that they're trivializing sexual assault and then using that as leverage to ask the developer to change the game they created.

What I'm getting out of AppleMIX and the video: "Censorship is when I don't approve of proposed changes or the people proposing them. Changes are valid, willful, and productive when I don't mind."

Spoiler

Mostly AppleMIX, the video in that post was a reasonably well put together argument, though still pretty dismissive and tending toward painting people with a very broad brush.

But that is not what I'm saying at all.

Take the Bravery Default censorship thread. I explicitly stated that I preferred the new "censored" designs from a aesthetic perspective but was against the change because it goes against the original artists vision.

Even if someone demanded change that I would approve of, I would still be against the change because I don't think it is our place to demand a artist to change their work.

 

[Wensih]

It's simple. You don't demand artist change their work.


If I say...

I think the Witcher should become a open-world RPG for reasons X,Y,Z.
Or if I say

I think the Witcher should become a open-world RPG for reasons X,Y,Z. I demand that CDprojektRED make the Witcher 3 a open-world RPG

One is criticism and the other is demand. When you criticize someone, they can listen to the argument you make and decided for themselves.

When you demand (specifically in this case), your telling a artist that they're trivializing sexual assault and then using that as leverage to ask the developer to change the game they created.

So if I say, "I hope/think that Lords of Shadow 2 should remove the allusion of rape," and then they listen to my thoughts and remove it, then it's not censorship, right?

 

[AppleMIX]

So if I say, "I hope/think that Lords of Shadow 2 should remove the allusion of rape," and then they listen to my thoughts and remove it, then it's not censorship, right?

You could say "I think the allusion to rape doesn't work" or "I find the allusion to rape is offensive" or take to to a extreme and say "this game trivializes rape and empowers rapist".

Regardless of the merits of the statement above, I have no issue with people making these arguments. Its the "I think it should be removed" part I have a problem with.

 

[Wensih]

You could say "I think the allusion to rape doesn't work" or "I find the allusion to rape is offensive" or take to to a extreme and say "this game trivializes rape and empowers rapist".

Regardless of the merits of the statement above, I have no issue with people making these arguments. Its the "I think it should be removed" part I have a problem with.

So it's okay to say I think it should be added (even if it wasn't the developer's intent), but not I think it should be removed after giving reasons on why you think it should be removed?

 

[Zornack]

So it's okay to say I think it should be added (even if it wasn't the developer's intent), but not I think it should be removed after giving reasons on why you think it should be removed?

For a journalist previewing a game? Yes.

 

[AppleMIX]

So it's okay to say I think it should be added (even if it wasn't the developer's intent), but not I think it should be removed after giving reasons on why you think it should be removed?

No, your asking the artist to change their work.

Adding or subtracting, I would be against a demand for the developer to change their work.

Admittedly I should have said "I think It should be changed" but I wrote removed because that it what the author wanted to do.

 

[Wensih]

For a journalist previewing a game? Yes.

But both suggestions would change the artist's original intentions with the art. Let's change the example from something seemingly benign like making witcher open world to asking for the inclusion of multiplayer in something that is specifically made for singleplayer. Why is one suggestion okay to be making, the adding of some feature/scene, but the other suggestion taboo, the removal of a feature/scene?

 

[Wensih]

No, your asking the artist to change their work.

Adding or subtracting, I would be against a demand for the developer to change their work.

Admittedly I should have said "I think It should be changed" but I wrote removed because that it what the author wanted to do.

Okay so you criticize them, saying why you think they should change it (changing includes adding/removing). They decide hey that's good criticism we'll take that advice.... why/how is that censorship?

 

[AppleMIX]

Okay so you criticize them, saying why you think they should change it (changing includes adding/removing). They decide hey that's good criticism we'll take that advice.... why/how is that censorship?

In that specific case, they're not listening to the demand... they're listening to the criticism. If they change the game because someone demanded it, that would be censorship. If they changed their game because of criticism, that completely fine. However, the demand shouldn't of been made in the first place. It's not our place to demand artist change their work, only to criticize.

Thanks for that linked post. I wish I could articulate myself as well as you did in that post, it underlines perfectly what I've been trying to say, vis a vis the demands and concerns of the vocal few (in this case, gaming journalists indulging in a bit or moralistic activism) vs the previous indifference of the gaming community at large when it came to same issues outlined in those games.

You're welcome.

 

[Wensih]

In that specific case, they're not listening to the demand... they're listening to the criticism. If they change the game because someone demanded it, that would be censorship. However, the demand shouldn't of been made in the first place.

Okay so back to the article the journalist gave examples and said 'I hope [think they should] remove [change] this scene before its released'. She gave criticism, the developer wasn't forced/demanded to act. She gave her opinion and a suggestion. They didn't even change the scene; there's nothing really to argue for or against in this scenario. Other than whether or not to call something that wasn't censored censorship.

 

[Orayn]

In that specific case, they're not listening to the demand... they're listening to the criticism. If they change the game because someone demanded it, that would be censorship. If they changed their game because of criticism, that completely fine. However, the demand shouldn't of been made in the first place. It's not our place to demand artist change their work, only to criticize.

The criticism you gave an example of earlier is just an implicit demand.

I think the Witcher should become a open-world RPG for reasons X,Y,Z.

"I'm not happy with this thing the way it is, I think it would be better if it were this way instead."

It's expressing a desire to see something changed, just not making an detailed request. So I can demand anything I want as long as I'm indirect about it. Correct?

 

[Necromanti]

No, your asking the artist to change their work.

Adding or subtracting, I would be against a demand for the developer to change their work.

Admittedly I should have said "I think It should be changed" but I wrote removed because that it what the author wanted to do.

But it's up the discretion of the artist to decide to reject or acknowledge the criticism or feedback levied against their work. Take the relationship between, say, an indie developer on Kickstarter, and their backers. If people contributed their ideas and the developer takes them to heart and changes their original vision, how is that censorship? That may not be such an extreme example, but a large part of a majority of games is that they exist to not only follow a director's vision, but to have the player in mind.

Things change in reaction to what works and what doesn't all the time. I criticized Kat's weakly-constructed argument, but she, without a doubt, has the right to say what she does and does not like about something, and whether she feels that something would be better off not being in the final product. Heck, she even has the right to rally people up and request that it is changed. But that has nothing to do with censorship. And people can likewise offer counter-criticisms.

 

[DeaviL]

Well someone noticed, just wasn't anyone big.

Spoiler

link

"FFXIV uses the sort of "mythic" language where "man" means "all people.""

This is pure gold, comedy at its finest.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Although thoroughly unrelated, I get a kick out of this thread after just having one where someone was criticized for not speaking up when something offended them.

I'm not sure that ESRB ratings are as informative as they are frequently hilarious.

 

[Wensih]

Although thoroughly unrelated, I get a kick out of this thread after just having one where someone was criticized for not speaking up when something offended them.

Which thread? I'd like to get a kick out of this.