I think the post equating bikini outfits of virtual under-age female characters in a Japanese horror game to Michelangelo's David deserved a mention in that article.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How much does censorship bother you?
- Thread starter Jonneh3003
- Start date
I think the post equating bikini outfits of virtual under-age female characters in a Japanese horror game to Michelangelo's David deserved a mention in that article.
I can think of a lot of things, actually...
But that doesn't make censorship suck any less.
For a lot of us, video game censorship brings back bad memories of a time when everyone assumed games were for kids, and a rather mediocre (and totally harmless) game was raked over the coals by congress and the media for it's "extreme" content.
(The game was Night Trap, and it had a few campy death scenes involving women in lingerie. Nice to see we barely progressed at all in 23 years)
MikeE21286
Member
Very little unless it dramatically changes the content
Lord British
Member
Is it really appropriate for exploring a monster-filled dungeon?
Art reflects life. Art communicates meaning, just as plain words do. A render of an underage girl dressed in a bikini in a haunted house is... well, what does it conjur up to you? Vulnerability, exploitation. That's what it's evoking.
Here's the thing - scantily-clad women are great. They are broadly popular. I like them. When I see something such as the nearly-nude characters in this Fatal Frame thing, my reaction is to cringe through the floor because I have outlets for this sort of thing and I would really prefer video games not to cross over with them.
Incidentally, I have a niece who loves horror games, and because of that I'm super glad that the bikinis have been replaced. I can just imagine her reaction, heh.
Happy to respond to any follow-up posts, but not too keen on any personal attacks so let's try to leave them out. If I've said something egregiously wrong, please correct me.
Jesus.... I mentioned a number of games that had been censored / banned in my post you half quoted, and your managed to talk about something I didn't even weigh in on.
Call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better, it's still censorship.
Here's the thing... some people do want them to cross over. And there's nothing wrong with that. The costumes were already optional, and Nintendo could have chosen to offer them as DLC and make everyone happy.
Except for that loud, vocal minority on GAF that thinks that if they don't like something, it should be banned/censored/localized out of existence.
Even without the bikinis, your niece probably shouldn't be playing mature rated games (unless she is an adult).
lol, you should know better than to expect an actual argument from someone who's hunkered down into "b-but muh virtual children (17)" mode
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
I don't know. On one hand, I don't like the idea of it. I'm an adult and can make decisions for myself. On the other hand, who wants this shit in a horror game? Makes me take the game far less seriously and makes me wonder where the devs heads were at.
Meh, stuff like that doesn't bother me at all. I just chuckle a little and keep playing. I mostly play jrpgs, so I've seen a lot of that stuff and it really isn't that bad. I watch a lot of funny animes and read mangas to, so maybe I'm just used to it.
Censorship because of a bunch of puritans pushing an agenda = outrage.
Censorship because something exists for purely negative or offensive reasons (without satire) = understand.
As a whole, censorship is such a broad issue. "Murder porn" or "sexy tween" content is something I think most of us can see being cut, as things don't have to cross certain lines to remain artistically whole or enjoyable. I generally prefer an unaltered experience, as having less content feels like a rip off even if it's nothing major.
Nintendo of America has always been the king of moronic censorship, but they have eased up over the years.
Censorship because something exists for purely negative or offensive reasons (without satire) = understand.
As a whole, censorship is such a broad issue. "Murder porn" or "sexy tween" content is something I think most of us can see being cut, as things don't have to cross certain lines to remain artistically whole or enjoyable. I generally prefer an unaltered experience, as having less content feels like a rip off even if it's nothing major.
Nintendo of America has always been the king of moronic censorship, but they have eased up over the years.
Drac84
Member
I hate it. It's condescending and paternalistic to presume to tell me, an adult, what is and isn't appropriate media for me to consume within the confines of the law. That is my choice. I hate when governments do it, and I hate when publishers do it. When a Government takes that choice away from me, I import. When a publisher does it, I refuse to buy the game at all.
I also detest the publisher argument "we're simply trying to broaden the appeal of the game so more people can enjoy it". Not every game needs to appeal to everyone. When you keep pushing down that path we get generic, formulaic games that tick focus-group boxes and become increasingly indistinguishable from each other.
I also detest the publisher argument "we're simply trying to broaden the appeal of the game so more people can enjoy it". Not every game needs to appeal to everyone. When you keep pushing down that path we get generic, formulaic games that tick focus-group boxes and become increasingly indistinguishable from each other.
I don't think anyone specifically likes censorship. The trouble is that I'm not sure we all have the same definition of what censorship is when it happens.
Camp A sees Creation X as a product of an artist's vision. The director or scriptwriter were trying to express a particular concept and in doing so made certain design choices that are incompatible with a certain parameter. In FF's case, there's a seventeen-year-old character that dresses in a bikini and poses for pictures that are distributed via certain channels that invariably have exploitive and objective components to them, which the character hates, but puts up with in order to hopefully improve their lot in life. The director/scriptwriter is well aware that this is exploitive and is specifically using it to make the player feel uncomfortable as that is their vision. Thus when this vision is compromised, it's decried as censorship on the artist's desires by the company that funded the game.
Camp B sees Creation X as a product manufactured by a team in order to be sold for profit. They respect the artistry in the game, but believe the company that funded the game should be able to make adjustments to improve sales in the territories the content is consumed in. Thus the changes aren't censorship, they're marketing alterations.
It's a little tough to debate the pros and cons of censorship when that debate is complicated by whether we even believe something is censorship or not, or who owns the creation in the first place. When the script leaves the writer's pen, does it still belong to them, or does it belong instead to the studio that had them write it in the first place? And I don't mean in the legal sense.
Camp A sees Creation X as a product of an artist's vision. The director or scriptwriter were trying to express a particular concept and in doing so made certain design choices that are incompatible with a certain parameter. In FF's case, there's a seventeen-year-old character that dresses in a bikini and poses for pictures that are distributed via certain channels that invariably have exploitive and objective components to them, which the character hates, but puts up with in order to hopefully improve their lot in life. The director/scriptwriter is well aware that this is exploitive and is specifically using it to make the player feel uncomfortable as that is their vision. Thus when this vision is compromised, it's decried as censorship on the artist's desires by the company that funded the game.
Camp B sees Creation X as a product manufactured by a team in order to be sold for profit. They respect the artistry in the game, but believe the company that funded the game should be able to make adjustments to improve sales in the territories the content is consumed in. Thus the changes aren't censorship, they're marketing alterations.
It's a little tough to debate the pros and cons of censorship when that debate is complicated by whether we even believe something is censorship or not, or who owns the creation in the first place. When the script leaves the writer's pen, does it still belong to them, or does it belong instead to the studio that had them write it in the first place? And I don't mean in the legal sense.
AlimNassor
Banned
Women are not sex objects nor objects to be won. I don't want my porn full of violence.
Lord British
Member
I agree with you about the DLC; I hadn't considered that. I mean, I wouldn't buy it because like almost all sexualised game stuff it gives me the heebs, but that's not a bad idea.
She's not, she's about fourteen, but we made the call because she loves the genre. You're probably not wrong technically, but I know I saw a lot of horror films when I was that age!
I guess I'm just trying to evade my own discomfort! I would personally rather that the skimpy, pandering stuff wasn't in video games because I find it adolescent in a kind of ugly, skeevy way. Perhaps hypocritically I have less problems with something as overt as Senran Kagura, which wears its tits on its sleeve, so to speak. But with Fatal Frame, it's more like they're degrading the characters into objects as a "reward", so it's a little more insidious to me. I hope that makes sense.
I don't advocate censorship, I do advocate stricter controls on adult content, because with kids we've got to try and keep a handle on the sexualised stuff. When I say controls, I literally mean things like pin codes locking out access to this sort of content, nothing more obfuscating.
I would be happier if that stuff wasn't in there in the first place, but games don't have any obligation to cater to me, and I shouldn't expect them to.
finalflame
Banned
Nobody is trying to objectify women specifically here. However, it's a hilarious double standard if you can indulge yourself in porn, yet become critical when video game characters are scantily clad. Perhaps it's time to revisit the basis of your morals.
Basketball
Member
Incoming 2.99 DLC
Monocle
Member
I'm outraged by censorship as a concept. Censorship is the ultimate insult to my personal agency as a thinking person. Nobody should get to decide what's appropriate for me to see. I'm not a child or a fool; I can decide for myself without the imposition of someone else's values, thanks.
The Spoony Hou
Member
I don't know, but now the problem isn't "little girl in bikini", just bikinis in general. Which, hey, I agree it's dumb, but it's not my world, but I'll respect the people who made the game and allow it to exist as they made it.
Kirye
Member
Depends on what it is I guess. I would not have played the gimped down version of South Park: Stick of Truth, but I honestly don't care in the slightest about the Fatal Frame censoring. You wanna reduce some cleavage, be my guest. Dumb bikini costumes in a horror game getting replaced with some Nintendo suits? I vastly prefer that.
It doesn't affect the way I enjoy the game.
It doesn't affect the way I enjoy the game.
Pellegri Testament
Member
Depends on if that monster filled dungeon is also full of half dressed lady monsters....and fruits for whatever reason. There's a lot of poor logic the moment you start looking at anything game related, little girl belly dancers in a dungeon probably aren't even close to the worst of it.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
This statement is hilarious.
Battlechili
Banned
I detest even the slightest mark of censorship. It doesn't matter what the content is, and even if I actively dislike the original version of something I still stand against any censorship that may be placed upon a work, with my only exception to this being that the original content is still accessible in-game via patches provided to the public by the official localization company themselves should a work actually wind up censored (something that happens mostly with just some porn games).
Censorship is dangerous to artwork, as it allows the dictation of what someone can and cannot do with a work, and this in turn can discourage one from taking certain creative actions in games, which may in turn affect the quality of a title. It also creates a precedent for what localization companies can do with games. One might say "Well these people did it and got away with it, so we can do this". And, as with localization, I find that its disrespectful to the creators of a game and to the culture of the country in which a localized work came from to censor such works. A localized work should be as close to the original product as possible in my eye.
I would prefer it if everyone throughout the world got the same game, with the only differences being the language being spoken/read.
Censorship is dangerous to artwork, as it allows the dictation of what someone can and cannot do with a work, and this in turn can discourage one from taking certain creative actions in games, which may in turn affect the quality of a title. It also creates a precedent for what localization companies can do with games. One might say "Well these people did it and got away with it, so we can do this". And, as with localization, I find that its disrespectful to the creators of a game and to the culture of the country in which a localized work came from to censor such works. A localized work should be as close to the original product as possible in my eye.
I would prefer it if everyone throughout the world got the same game, with the only differences being the language being spoken/read.
Not every game has violence against women . Not every game treats women as something to be won. Heavily sexualised doesn't exclusively mean that they're objectified.
I still don't see the reason to lock "heavily sexualised" women out of the game medium. Especially when you're apparently okay with porn.
ScatheZombie
Member
The people in Camp A have a very unrealistically romantic idea of how game development works. They are creating a hypothetical situation, with no real basis in reality, that would justify keeping the original scantily clad young girl because that's what they ultimately want. A situation in which the game is made by one artist and their vision is so deep and complex that there is this huge underlying expose' on societal conventions that the player is supposed to take away from a 17 year old in a bikini.
Except the game is made by hundreds of artists paid by a corporation to make a product. Their vision is nothing more than marketing jargon meant to inject higher meaning into a consumer good. And the 17 year old in a bikini was only there in the first place because someone in the process, at some point, wanted to see a 17 year old in a bikini without any overt expression of underlying meaning whatsoever.
Speak for yourself. I love that movie. I love that scene. I appreciate the self awareness of the movie and how stuck in character Jason was.
The reason they cut it wasn't localization differences, it was because they felt it was not appropriate for a diferent region, therefore LOCALIZATION DEFFERENCES
Pellegri Testament
Member
Some of the best dark comedy out there, haters are just missing out.
Well, considering western fan's tastes in horror:
I would prefer companies have better self-censorship though. A lot of games, not just Japanese ones, don't have a lot of creative restraint, even when it's not exactly beneficial or progressive.
I never played Fatal Frame 1 and thought "you know what this game needs? Exposed butt-crack lingerie, boob jiggle, and wet T-shirts!"... and yet that happened somehow.
An horror fan knows that if the girl is objectified she is the next in "who will die" list.
A a woman main character of a movie will never be objectified. Even when Ripley wore only panties and a shirt she was never objectified in a "sexy" way
I don't see a problem if that's what they wanted to do. If it's optional, you can just, you know, not get the bikini if it bothers you for some weird abstract reason. The people that don't mind seeing the bikini will get the bikini.
Expression, the vision, they wanted some tiddy in the game, whatever. Beyond any reason of a doubt the single only person who should say i shouldn't see it is myself, and no one else.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
It bothers me tremendously. I don't want anyone dictating for me what media is good and bad for me.
I'm not sure if I'll buy FFV because I don't wanna support NoA's choices here.
I'm not sure if I'll buy FFV because I don't wanna support NoA's choices here.
Moon_frogger
Member
the more underage and inappropriately sexy the character being censored, the louder the uproar and outrage. this is what bothers me.
in the olden days, it was kind of endearing while horrifying at the same time. Maniac Mansion on NES was censored to death.
in the olden days, it was kind of endearing while horrifying at the same time. Maniac Mansion on NES was censored to death.
I can think of Jessica Biel in Texas chainsaw massacre who is clearly the eye candy of the movie.
Though in the particular case outlined, the bikini is not optional. Seeing the seventeen-year-old in the bikini is part of the original game's storyline. It WILL happen. Not over the course of the entire game, but for a particular cutscene. That cutscene is absolutely intended to be lavicious and vile, yet ultimately titilating. You're supposed to enjoy it and feel disgusted because of that.
Playing devil's advocate here, does your right to view what you feel is appropriate for you and the right of the creators to express their vision trump the company's right to make a buck? The only reason the company ponied up the funds in the first place was to profit from it, after all, and without that money the artist's vision would never have been crafted in the first place.
I honestly don't care a lot about censorship. IMHO, we often get a superior product if trashy, pandering stuff is removed. But then I don't play games because of their violence or sexual content.
Massive upgrade, this is a good example!
About this game in particular, if NOA believes this will make it more palatable for this audience, then it's more of a business decision and less Nintendo telling you what's appropriate for you and what's not.
Massive upgrade, this is a good example!
About this game in particular, if NOA believes this will make it more palatable for this audience, then it's more of a business decision and less Nintendo telling you what's appropriate for you and what's not.Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Both the lingerie and the Nintendo costumes just seem out of place. Too bad
Battlechili
Banned
Wouldn't it have been a massive upgrade if nothing was removed and Nintendo outfits were added? There would be more content, and all of the costumes were optional post-game outfits to begin with, so they never had any effect on the game's intended story and messages.I honestly don't care a lot about censorship. IMHO, we often get a superior product if trashy, pandering stuff is removed. But then I don't play games because of their violence or sexual content.
Massive upgrade, this is a good example!
Yeah, more content is always better. But personally, I prefer when games are not fanservice-y, so strictly from my perspective, I'm okay with this.
No, because that would have unequivocally stirred up controversy Nintendo doesn't want. If there was some over this:
They don't really impose censors on thrid party games anymore, but their own games are a different story. They're very careful with their brand, even though I feel this whole "nintendo is kiddy shit" mindshare isn't exactly the most beneficial for them.
I despise censorship. Even if it has no effect on the game it's the principle of the matter. I especially don't like it when it is cultural censorship (though in cases like woolseyism it is justified and might not really warrant being called censorship anyway).
Though I hit an interesting dilemma when it comes to things that were redesigned for the purpose of it and come out looking better.
It looks more like a cultural festival outfit for dances than anything to me.
Though I hit an interesting dilemma when it comes to things that were redesigned for the purpose of it and come out looking better.
I really don't see the sexuality of that character design unless you (in the sense of the general "you") find young girls like that attractive. The outfit itself has elements of sexuality yes, but in the context of putting it on a kid it loses that element.I don't mind when censorship is accounting for cultural differences/dissonance.
I generally agree with games imported from Japan that alter character's costumes/designs to try to give them a shred of dignity.
This little girl needs to put on some clothes.
It looks more like a cultural festival outfit for dances than anything to me.
No, you don't understand what I mean
If they wanted me to feel feelings by using some method, great. Perfect. That's what in the end I want them to do, what they want.
The problem comes from when it goes from one side of the world to the other, and someone else decides for me, 'you don't get to feel those feelings because of our feelings', and changes it. No, fuck that. It's not their choice. You don't get to tell me what I'm supposed to be offended by, then censor what you think I'm supposed to be offended by. If i'm going to be offended, then fuckin let it come at me full blast 100% raw.
From what i heard, and then saw a video of, that scene is fucking mutilated, end of story.
No one tells me what I'm supposed to be offended by, and no one tells me what I'm supposed to like. Only I can make those decisions.
Lord British
Member
There's been an idea expressed that enjoying pornography and objecting to the adolescent wank fantasies that populate videogames is somehow a double standard.
Should porn and videogames be viewed in the same context? Do they serve the same purpose?
Should porn and videogames be viewed in the same context? Do they serve the same purpose?
Plenty of works have been made knowing that they were only going to lose money. This is not censorship. It is a business decision. Believe what you like, but games are a business first, and a relative few way way down the line have any sort of artistic vision they're trying to preserve the integrity of.
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
I think censorship is a wonderful thing because I know in my heart that those doing the censoring are looking out for my best interests. They know that seeing a virtual 3D representation of a young girl in a swimsuit could traumatize me for the rest of my life. I could literally get PTSD from it, or worse, become a child rapist or molester with PTSD. Seeing a real live young girl in a swimsuit could "trigger" my PTSD Rapist desires that have been subliminally implanted into my brain from an uncensored game. Luckily, games with lots of killing, guns, explosions, blood, and splattering guts are fine and don't pose any threat to my well being and usually don't get censored.
Making America great again, one game at a time.
Making America great again, one game at a time.
I refuse to support any product that's had its content censored due to being deemed objectionable in some manner. It isn't the loss of any particular content, it's that I object to another group/corporation/individual making a determination on what content I should be able to partake in. I can make that decision for myself thanks.