Speaking of censorship, I never understoop why people were pissed off Conker censorship in Live & Reloaded. What's the difference between fuck off and f*** off ?
I feel it is sometimes minimzed when cesnorship is not the primariy goal but just a "side effect". Case in point, localization and dapting a product to make it more likeable. Yes it is understandable, but when you remove content, you remove the opportuity for an idea to be expressed.
In fact, ywe could make difference between basic censorship= censoring an idea because you do not want it to be expressed, and "collateral censorship"= censoring a content to generate profits, even though the prmiary intention is to generate profits.
Collateral censorship is harder to judge and looks more like a case per case issuewhich is why it is bound to be questioned so often.
Generally, when you're referring to censorship it means the enacting of laws by a government to control specific content. Such as Germany creating laws under which games can be released.
Editing games for content, clarity, cultural issues, etc., happens all the time. It is something entirely separate and distinct from censorship. It occurs for myriad reasons, but is done by an individual developer or publisher and is not the result of legislation.
Generally, when you're referring to censorship it means the enacting of laws by a government to control specific content. Such as Germany creating laws under which games can be released.
Editing games for content, clarity, cultural issues, etc., happens all the time. It is something entirely separate and distinct from censorship. It occurs for myriad reasons, but is done by an individual developer or publisher and is not the result of legislation.
Well that is true that the basic definition of censorship limits the word to enacting of laws by government. But i feel this definition is a bit limited in our modern world. When government censors, it does it because it disapproves the ideas. If a company doe salter content, you may argue that it "anticipates the disapproval/negative reactions" of people.
Speaking of censorship, I never understoop why people were pissed off Conker censorship in Live & Reloaded. What's the difference between fuck off and f*** off ?
iirc, the game was originally announced and shown off (with a logo) as Conker: Live and Uncut. So it always seemed like a step back, and I guess covering up swears with bleeps isn't really the same, especially if you've played it on N64.
This always gets into a semantics thing, but I mean is it localization or censorship when a gay couple gets changed into a hetero one by changing the sex of one of the partners?
Well that is true that the basic definition of censorship limits the word to enacting of laws by government. But i feel this definition is a bit limited in our modern world. When government censors, it does it because it disapproves the ideas. If a company doe salter content, you may argue that it "anticipates the disapproval/negative reactions" of people.
The problem is separating that from the fact that games (especially ones from big companies) are often as much or more about being a product than being art. And when you make a product, you want to make sure it appeals widely (or narrowly, but to the audience you're looking for), and I don't think tinkering with the product to ensure that is really censorship.
Gore, blood, etc then yeah it's shitty. Original RE1 intro, green blood, Last of Us mutilations in multiplayer, shit like how European players couldn't shoot the plane down in Twisted Metal Black etc.
Complete gameplay segments like Yakuza 3 missing the hostess stuff? Was that classed as censorship? It's shitty but I still had a blast with Yakuza 3.
Nazi imagery and flags? Pretty meh about it. Would rather see the nazi flags tbh.
Putting pants on little anime girls? Could not give a fuck. Watching manbabies scream about it is hilarious.
People have gone crazy with the word though, localisation now means censorship apparently. Everything needs to be a direct 1:1 literal translation.
And this happens so frequently to virtually any aspect of a game being sold by a larger publisher, it often even comes down to such mundane things as the protagonist's hair color being changed because marketing told them to. If you take this to its logical conclusion, you may as well question whether there is any truly artistic expression there at all to begin with. Because they are first and foremost products to be sold to an audience, and as a creator that's what you knowingly sign up for unless you work independently.
Well that is true that the basic definition of censorship limits the word to enacting of laws by government. But i feel this definition is a bit limited in our modern world. When government censors, it does it because it disapproves the ideas. If a company doe salter content, you may argue that it "anticipates the disapproval/negative reactions" of people.
Anticipating the reactions of people isn't an accident or a problem. It's literally how companies make money.
I'll add ________ content to my game because I feel it will resonate with players and make them (realistically) pay me or even (ideally but not as important) enjoy the game. If I want to sell the game in another market and such content would make players enjoy the game less, or more importantly, less likely to give me money, it goes out the window.
It's not a problem. Worst case scenario is a company mistakes their target audience and in adapting a product for a different market, loses whatever appeal the product has in the first place. That's business risk, not much to be done about it except studying your market better and trying harder.
Censorship is an issue when for instance a hypothetical AAA title has an LBGT protagonist some day and entire markets ban it (maybe Russia, other markets with laws against these portrayals). Or if somebody wants to make a WW2 campaign where you fight as Nazis and the game has to be either banned or bastardized in a particular market.
Basically there's a case to be made about censorship in media but most of the times the word is thrown around its not so much censorship as it is fan disapproval of business-oriented localization efforts. That's got nothing to do with censorship and is entirely a consumer preference scenario.
This always gets into a semantics thing, but I mean is it localization or censorship when a gay couple gets changed into a hetero one by changing the sex of one of the partners?
What about this situation?
Showing blood was banned in Germany, developers couldn't sell it there, so they changed it to green goo.
vs.
Getting ESRB rating for children forbids showing blood, developers cannot sell the game to younger demographic, so they changed it to green goo.
Both of these situations are marketing based to reach wider audience and are pretty smart way to get around bans, the only difference is the institution issuing the rules. So, are these both considered censorship?
What about this situation?
Showing blood was banned in Germany, developers couldn't sell it there, so they changed it to green goo.
vs.
Getting ESRB rating for children forbids showing blood, developers cannot sell the game to younger demographic, so they changed it to green goo.
Both of these situations are marketing based to reach wider audience and are pretty smart way to get around bans, the only difference is the institution issuing the rules. So, are these both considered censorship?
Smart, maybe, and definitely unavoidable in a market where players are out to make money. But this is a form of soft censorship that is hard to define and still possibly very serious in how it can limit creative freedom. Not much to do about it, though, except to debate examples as they come up and hope that creators can afford to go independent if they have something they want to tell outside of this window.
This is why the rise of alternative distribution channels over the Internet is a good thing.
Unfortunately video games as an art form are so complicated and expensive to make that most of the art comes from corporations. And corporations are usually more concerned with their bottom line than they are with artistic expression. So they're going to censor their art whenever they feel it's needed to appeal/sell more to a certain market.
I don't really like that that's the position video games are in from an artistic perspective, but that's the way it is.
I'll admit I kinda skimmed the thread. But this is like the first reply that actually bothers defining censorship in a discussion about censorship.
Germany literally banning Nazi logos through legislation = censorship
Australia refusing classification and thereby not allowing the sale of certain games due to their content = censorship
Companies making characters more clothed for certain markets = not censorship
People complaining about the content or portrayal of characters in videogames = not censorship
Censorship requires a government agency or legislation as a framework for what is allowed to be published or not. If that doesn't occur, it's not fricking censorship. We've been over this. So. Many. Times.
Actual censorship is a shitty practice in general and should, if allowed at all, be used exclusively against clear and unambiguous hate speech. Using it for moralist reasons (sex, violence etc.) is pointless.
I'll admit I kinda skimmed the thread. But this is like the first reply that actually bothers defining censorship in a discussion about censorship.
Germany literally banning Nazi logos through legislation = censorship
Australia refusing classification and thereby not allowing the sale of certain games due to their content = censorship
Companies making characters more clothed for certain markets = not censorship
People complaining about the content or portrayal of characters in videogames = not censorship
Censorship requires a government agency or legislation as a framework for what is allowed to be published or not. If that doesn't occur, it's not fricking censorship. We've been over this. So. Many. Times.
Actual censorship is a shitty practice in general and should, if allowed at all, be used exclusively against clear and unambiguous hate speech. Using it for moralist reasons (sex, violence etc.) is pointless.
This isn't true at all. Governmental censorship is the most common form of censorship, but something doesn't need to be banned by a government to be censorship.
You're essentially saying that self censorship doesn't exist. Which is obviously not true.
Smart, maybe, and definitely unavoidable in a market where players are out to make money. But this is a form of soft censorship that is hard to define and
It's not hard to define: Changes in content made in order to better adapt to the values and norms of another market and increase profitability. That's your definition.
still possibly very serious in how it can limit creative freedom. Not much to do about it, though, except to debate examples as they come up and hope that creators can afford to go independent if they have something they want to tell outside of this window.
Out of interest, do you have any examples of developers being censored out of doing stuff that would actually have artistic merit? As in, what stories do you know that people wanted to tell through videogames, but couldn't, due to these different forms of censorship (assuming you use your own definition of censorship)?
Something changed or removed because it was deemed too offensive or too inappropriate while it was it was deemed none of those in the country of origin.
Not in the US, but probably in other countries. I haven't heard much about Australian game censorship as of late but I also haven't heard anything that suggests that it stopped?
This isn't true at all. Governmental censorship is the most common form of censorship, but something doesn't need to be banned by a government to be censorship.
You're essentially saying that self censorship doesn't exist. Which is obviously not true.
You're right in that there are other forms of censorship. I'll concede that point. I made way too categorical a statement.
However, I still think then we're talking about two different things here, and I think people conflate self censorship with censorship in a way that makes the discussion way too messy. And when you use self censorship to talk about marketing decisions and equating that to the type of thought policing that goes on in authoritarian societies, the picture you're presenting isn't exactly nuanced.
Bringing up Germany banning Nazi logos as one example of censorship (government censorship), and outfits changed in localisation (self censorship) have almost completely different causes, effects and motivations. They're not the same issue.
Self censorship can be both a negative thing and a good thing. It depends on what is being censored, how the pressure to censor is being applied and so on. The phenomenon is much broader than just being "what people do when they're afraid the Gestapo/KGB is listening".
And if you want to apply the label of self censorship to "any change in any piece of media brought on by social pressures to conform", then anything that's focus-group-tested is by definition censored. If a company wants to go in one direction but the focus groups dislike that and they switch, are they being censored?
I'm not saying you personally are making that point, but that's kind of where these arguments tend to end up. People basically apply the censorship-label to any change that they themselves don't think should have been made, while ignoring all other changes made for exactly the same reasons.
Out of interest, do you have any examples of developers being censored out of doing stuff that would actually have artistic merit? As in, what stories do you know that people wanted to tell through videogames, but couldn't, due to these different forms of censorship (assuming you use your own definition of censorship)?
The post at the top of this page references a game that was literally uncompletable due to censorship. French and German versions of I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream remove Nimdok's entire chapter, due to him working at a Nazi concentration camp.
The bigger problem is a contingent of folks that are the most vocal endlessly tweeting and beating the censorship drum because some bikinis were removed or some weird part of a script due to localization that wasn't directed by any state entity (that would actually make it censorship). Rather, reasons for it may be the developer had second thoughts or those bringing a game stateside from Japan for example didn't think it would make sense to American audiences.
It's not hard to define: Changes in content made in order to better adapt to the values and norms of another market and increase profitability. That's your definition.
Sure, I was thinking more in terms of that it's difficult to see when it's happened. Even when it happens there's also the question of how serious the change is, whether it's a minor thing or something mayor that. I think all this plays a role. For the record, most discussions that come up about censorship are about what at least I think are very minor things and don't really care for.
Out of interest, do you have any examples of developers being censored out of doing stuff that would actually have artistic merit? As in, what stories do you know that people wanted to tell through videogames, but couldn't, due to these different forms of censorship (assuming you use your own definition of censorship)?
How about the difficulties Dontnod had trying to sell Remember Me with a female lead and how they wanted Nilin, the main character in that game, to have a romance with a man but couldn't get that through because it would put off the male gaming audience?
I don't think there's any doubt that we're missing out on a lot of creative concepts because of a similar lack of marketability. I understand why and I don't think it's the same as a censorship body enforcing changes, but I think it's important to see this as a form of self censorship that by itself can be serious in what stories it allows to be told in the mainstream.
90% of the time when I see people complaining about "censorship", they're complaining about localization doing it's job of adapting a game to basic standards of cultural acceptance for wherever a game is being released. Nintendo putting out a Xenoblade X with what looks like a grossly over-sexualized 12 year old is probably a real bad look. This isn't censorship, and there's plenty argument to be made that the original is an infinitely more problematic option.
It's rare, in the West specifically, that actual censorship is taking place, or is in any way an actual concern.
When i think of censorship, I think of South Park TSOT. The guys handled it well, but it always annoyed me that this was actually a thing. "Erm guys, it's South park! Stop being dicks."
You're right in that there are other forms of censorship. I'll concede that point. I made way too categorical a statement.
However, I still think then we're talking about two different things here, and I think people conflate self censorship with censorship in a way that makes the discussion way too messy. And when you use self censorship to talk about marketing decisions and equating that to the type of thought policing that goes on in authoritarian societies, the picture you're presenting isn't exactly nuanced.
Bringing up Germany banning Nazi logos as one example of censorship (government censorship), and outfits changed in localisation (self censorship) have almost completely different causes, effects and motivations. They're not the same issue.
Self censorship can be both a negative thing and a good thing. It depends on what is being censored, how the pressure to censor is being applied and so on. The phenomenon is much broader than just being "what people do when they're afraid the Gestapo/KGB is listening".
And if you want to apply the label of self censorship to "any change in any piece of media brought on by social pressures to conform", then anything that's focus-group-tested is by definition censored. If a company wants to go in one direction but the focus groups dislike that and they switch, are they being censored?
I'm not saying you personally are making that point, but that's kind of where these arguments tend to end up. People basically apply the censorship-label to any change that they themselves don't think should have been made, while ignoring all other changes made for exactly the same reasons.
They are absolutely self censoring and the argument could be made that the art is worse off for it in some situations. Sometimes things can be focus tested to the point of blandness, and that blandness is a result of a company censoring themselves because they believe that that censorship will make their product appeal to more people. But companies can, and have, taken that line of thinking to far and made a boring product because of it.
They might be slightly different takes on an issue, but an argument can be made about why they both can be negative for an art form. You certainly have to view the issue from a different angle, but that doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable angle for criticism. They might be done for different causes and motivations, but the end result is the same, and it's worthwhile to examine if those instances are beneficial or not from an artistic perspective.
They are absolutely self censoring and the argument could be made that the art is worse off for it in some situations. Sometimes things can be focus tested to the point of blandness, and that blandness is a result of a company censoring themselves because thry believe that that censorship will make their product appeal to more people. But companies can, and have, taken that line of thinking to far and made a boring product because of it.
They might be slightly different takes on an issue, but an argument can be made about why they both can be negative for an art form. You certainly have to view the issue from a different angle, but that doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable angle for criticism. They might be done for different causes and motivations, but the end result is the same, and it's worthwhile to examine if those instances are beneficial or not from an artistic perspective.
I disagree with you, I'm not convinced that one can construe changing directions for market or consumer trends as censorship. You're correct that focus testing can drive something into being completely bland. However, that reality has no real bearing on the state of people crying about censorship with regards to games. In most cases, what people are upset about has to do with localization. Localization is a necessary step for bringing a product designed for one market to another. This isn't censorship, if anything it's greed.
If you wanna talk about how companies are greedy, cool, lets chat. Just stop calling it censorship, they aren't being forced to change.
Something changed or removed because it was deemed too offensive or too inappropriate while it was it was deemed none of those in the country of origin.
Seems like it's more of a matter of semantics than anything else.
Calling it censorship or something else, doesn't really matter to me. It usually feel like ( I obviously can be wrong ) it's not even done because of sales for that given game, or even because they think most people buying that game will prefer that change, but to avoid criticism which would come from outside. Not doing something, not because people aren't interested in it but because outside pressure make you "afraid" to do so, comes off as something I would call censorship, but again it's only semantics.
That being said, no matter why those changes are made I wouldn't even mind them being the default, if there is the option to go back to the original content.
I disagree with you, I'm not convinced that one can construe changing directions for market or consumer trends as censorship. You're correct that focus testing can drive something into being completely bland. However, that reality has no real bearing on the state of people crying about censorship with regards to games. In most cases, what people are upset about has to do with localization. Localization is a necessary step for bringing a product designed for one market to another. This isn't censorship, if anything it's greed.
If you wanna talk about how companies are greedy, cool, lets chat. Just stop calling it censorship, they aren't being forced to change.
Again, self censorship is a thing. No one needs to force you to change something for it to be censorship.
You're acting as if greed can't be used as reasoning to censor something, which isn't true.
If you need an example of this, look at Fox News and other news outlets. There are obviously situations where these companies omit facts in order to color stories in a certain manner, and no one is making them do it. They're doing it to appeal to a viewer base, which results in more people watching their channel, which results in more advertisement interest, which leads to more money for the people running the company.
It's a tricky topic for me because it all depends on the context.
For example, I remember when there was controversy surrounding the Pokemon Jynx. The original was very ambiguous about whether it was meant to be a void with floating facial features, or literally a black skinned creature similar to blackface iconography. The censored version gave her purple skin and all future games went with that, which I think was a change for the better.
Okay so lets talk about the general course of action for developing a game. Lets say that someone is working for one of the big 3 (EA, Activision, Ubisoft). They have a game idea, they pitch it, people like it but they come back with criticism about the design direction. So the original idea is changed to accommodate the suggested design changes. [stop: is this censorship?]
So the game is in pre-production and people are working on fleshing out the core pillars of the game. While working, people start playing some new game that comes out and they fall in love with the art style. Internally people decide that they want to shift direction to this new art style away from the original because it's very well received. [stop: is this censorship?]
We make it past first playable, we have demos with the heads of the company, they are seeing how great games-as-a-service are doing and they want us to infuse the game with some of this. [stop: is this censorship?]
We finally get through to production, we're bringing in people for UX tests, people don't understand one of the game systems and so we come up with a new design to help people understand. [stop: is this censorship?]
The game is being prepared for ship, we're localizing for Spanish and German speakers but we have to change the UI to accommodate German (german words are huge). [stop: is this censorship?]
We're about to ship but then we hear from Germany that because we have Nazi logos in the game we can't sell the game there. [stop: is this censorship?]
Each step along the way of developing a game here, could be construed as self censorship couldn't it? Doesn't it seem a little absurd to call it that though, when really these changes are motivated by a desire to make more money.
Also, I got a question from someone after I reviewed Prey. After mentioning that language includes a four-letter word or two, I was asked if there are any f-bombs, because they would not play the game if it had any.
Also, I got a question from someone after I reviewed Prey. After mentioning that language includes a four-letter word or two, I was asked if there are any f-bombs, because they would not play the game if it had any.
Neither ESRB nor PEGI enforce any kind of censorship. They are self-regulating entities within the video game industry that rate content based on certain features to provide guidance for buyers. Developers are free to accept those ratings, make the changes they deem necessary or avoid them altogether. But nowhere in the process either entity forces any kind of censorship upon the content being examined.
In your case, the reaction you got from that person is exactly why the PEGI and the ESRB are needed: the customer was able to make an informed decision.
Okay so lets talk about the general course of action for developing a game. Lets say that someone is working for one of the big 3 (EA, Activision, Ubisoft). They have a game idea, they pitch it, people like it but they come back with criticism about the design direction. So the original idea is changed to accommodate the suggested design changes. [stop: is this censorship?]
So the game is in pre-production and people are working on fleshing out the core pillars of the game. While working, people start playing some new game that comes out and they fall in love with the art style. Internally people decide that they want to shift direction to this new art style away from the original because it's very well received. [stop: is this censorship?]
We make it past first playable, we have demos with the heads of the company, they are seeing how great games-as-a-service are doing and they want us to infuse the game with some of this. [stop: is this censorship?]
We finally get through to production, we're bringing in people for UX tests, people don't understand one of the game systems and so we come up with a new design to help people understand. [stop: is this censorship?]
The game is being prepared for ship, we're localizing for Spanish and German speakers but we have to change the UI to accommodate German (german words are huge). [stop: is this censorship?]
We're about to ship but then we hear from Germany that because we have Nazi logos in the game we can't sell the game there. [stop: is this censorship?]
Each step along the way of developing a game here, could be construed as self censorship couldn't it? Doesn't it seem a little absurd to call it that though, when really these changes are motivated by a desire to make more money.
Most of what you said isn't censorship because they aren't omitting anything because of how they think it will influence society. Which is a basic tenet of censorship.
Honesty it seems like you just need to read up on what censorship entails before engaging in this discussion.
If you simply looked up the definition of censorship it would become blatantly obvious why omitting a Nazi flag is censorship while changing an art style or UI probably isn't.
so far the government hasn't told makers what they can make and what they can't. they tried w Mortal Kombat but all we got is the ratings system. which isn't government censorship, it is self-regulation.
most cries i see of censorship have to do with localizing a game from another country. person from country A wants to play game from country B. only they don't literally want to play country B's game, they want the complete script re-written for a different language, then to play THAT game. when things change during localization -- despite this being the nature of localization -- they cry censorship. in all seriousness if they want to experience the original "uncensored" they are free to learn the language (or learn it while playing) and import the game as is. otherwise be prepared for compromises to be made.
there is no reason to expect every version of a game to be exactly the same. this is completely unrealistic.
Neither ESRB nor PEGI enforce any kind of censorship. They are self-regulating entities within the video game industry that rate content based on certain features to provide guidance for buyers. Developers are free to accept those ratings, make the changes they deem necessary or avoid them altogether. But nowhere in the process either entity forces any kind of censorship upon the content being examined.
In your case, the reaction you got from that person is exactly why the PEGI and the ESRB are needed: the customer was able to make an informed decision.
But they do enforce censorship. Voluntary, but still, developers cannot choose any rating they want. Rating is forced upon the game by these authorities.
How that rating is used by the customer is completely different topic.
Of course, videogames, like any other piece of art, should not be censored, or at least two different versions should be available to all consumers. i.e. Stick of Truth should have been available in this manner in Europe, the way it's censored made me have to import a US copy
Given the choice, how many of you would play a censored version of a game over the original? Cause I can't imagine I ever would, even if I agreed that the censored content was deeply objectionable.
People are right to feel annoyed and patronized knowing that a product has been tampered with in order to hide something away from them. The problem with censorship in the internet age is that people know.
