Do you guys think that, in the case of Wolfenstein, they are going to start using the real thing? I mean, there is a already a stablished universe.
It would be nice to have the option, but I feel that it's going to be inconsequential going from "the regime" in part 1 to, out of nowhere, the Nazis in new Colossus.
Wolfenstein was one of the biggest reasons the initial ban came about (for games in specific out of any other creative medium), and then why the practice is being dissolved right now by the rating boards internally, instead of waiting for a lawsuit contesting the situation that no company will bother with its negative PR to initiate (or want to, in Bethesda's case).
It seems there was considerable frustration internally by USK employees about the Wolfenstein series' censorship, who shared the common sense opinion that they cut more than they needed to. Even Nintendo of America allowed drugs and a Hitler headshot in their NES censorship heydays (when it extended to all games on their consoles as opposed to just their first party games these days) because of the general context being a message they approve of, but the german self-censorship in response to censorship laws lacked that subtlety.
Bundes Fighter was a game that received government funding yet fell afoul of the current ban, that might have been a significant factor as well.
That means that an execution is not a murder if it's mandated by the government, thus being legal. In the same way, if something is illegal, then it's not protected under free-speech, therefor it is not censorship. Censorship only occurs when something is legal, but someone is impeaching or infringing on a guaranteed speech.
So what you're saying about censorship, ah excuse me, content
adjustments and
enhancements to
localize and
update it to
modern standards of
tastefulness and
mass appeal.
When content is cut by private companies, it's not censorship. Because they are private entities and can do whatever they want, and are not obligated to allow speech of their own creatives and guests (if they're a TV station, movie production, book publisher, game developer, etc), or that of anyone using their comment section (if they're running a site with user submitted content of any sort)
When content is cut by the government, it's not censorship because that content is illegal and a crime in progress.
Got it.
Seems we're well past arguing about the definition of what counts as censorship, and at the point the word's existence in dictionnaries is in question.
