Support NeoGAF

[Madflavor]

It’s a video game.

This isn’t that serious.

No it’s not serious, but if you saw a version of an outfit in a trailer that you loved and couldn’t wait to get it in the game, then it’s kinda bullshit.

 

[ss_lemonade]

That literally would not be censorship. Do you know what the word means?

"Outrage" was the word I wanted to use.

I'm now more interested in what the developer intends to do. If they are talking about it internally and decide to revert the changes, won't that mean that this had nothing to do with external factors and was literally designs they made themselves?

 

[BiohazardX95]

Next time we won't get a AAA Game like this one because You all are crying for very small things.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

It’s a video game.

This isn’t that serious.

I really feel this "it's just a video game" sentiment is an injustice to the contribution of videos games to our culture. This sort of self-censorship is prevalent in the movie industry. It is widely derided and generally considered unacceptable. Imagine your favourite book or music album being changed simply due to moral pressure from a third party, or a concerted effort from corporate interests.

I hope some people here can reflect upon their lack of empathy.

 

[Boneless]

Have to say, a game that pushes the boundaries like this is very effective for marketing.

 

[Reallink]

That costume was never shown/advertised so they never promised that particular item. They said 30 outfits and we are getting DOUBLE of that, among other many features that usually aren't free.

Customers do a great disservice by not being able to separate the good from the bad.

By the way, Shift Up's CEO has already confirmed that this is THEIR VISION. So, by going against their vision people are literally censoring him, for the sake of "liberty".

Liberty hawks should acknowledge they are doing the dirty job of wokies in this drama. IGN France and Kotaku wouldn't do a better job.

You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.

 

[ToneyJ]

lmao the DMC5 censorship will always make me assume Sony is behind censorship cases like this one.

 

[YCoCg]

(none in the other direction)

I asked this before but no one answered but what would happen if they did do a patch where some outfits were changed to be less revealing but others were changed to be more revealing? Would that be considered censorship then or developers intent?

 

[MagiusNecros]

Pretty sure Blue Protocol could of been a great MMO at launch(initially) if it wasn't hit with the Censorship ugly stick. And then carted off to Amazon Games. Stuff being censored(faces and even a full body type) after all their talk of wanting to stick to their vision but needing to update their game for "modern" audiences and making the game more family friendly but retaining all the gambling aspects with P2W nonsense contributed to it's death on arrival.

Only censorship I approve of is when it makes the characters sexier. That's not what is happening here. Kind of an insult to Eve who wears scanty attire and then we get an update to throw a shirt on her on a couple outfits. Dunno what the reason for less gore was? Could just have a toggle in Options/Settings?

The censorship in Stellar Blade present isn't that bad. It's the fact the devs made a promise to release a uncensored game for everyone only to censor it later after release. Probably to get your preorder money before doing the old switcheroo.

I mean a better way to go about this would be to just add an option ingame via a menu with costume customization and let players how they want to dress up these characters. I think players would be all for that.

The true wrongdoing here isn't how big or small a lie or how many lies were told. It's the fact they lied at all. Aldia from Dark Souls 2 said it best. A Lie will remain a Lie.

And that's the real problem. They put out a statement that turned out to be a lie and people don't like that. Simple cut and dry.

Think people should just enjoy the game and take note that censorship is gonna happen when partnered with certain companies that get money for making these kinds of changes.

 

[DryvBy]

So all those noise about two outfits being slightly changed

C'mon

Well people can't make YouTube videos and X posts that generate money if they don't make a literal mountain out of this.

And noticing lots of posters on X, they're Xbox and PC players so I think some of them are just jumping on so they can attack their enemy platform.

This is up there with every game is censored if they ever change a graphic of any sort. It's ludicrous.

 

[Dr. Claus]

"Outrage" was the word I wanted to use.

I'm now more interested in what the developer intends to do. If they are talking about it internally and decide to revert the changes, won't that mean that this had nothing to do with external factors and was literally designs they made themselves?

Again, Devil May Cry V. Censorship pushed by Sony, confirmed by developers, and after enough blowback it was reverted.

Well people can't make YouTube videos and X posts that generate money if they don't make a literal mountain out of this.

And noticing lots of posters on X, they're Xbox and PC players so I think some of them are just jumping on so they can attack their enemy platform.

This is up there with every game is censored if they ever change a graphic of any sort. It's ludicrous.

Extremists on either side will use whatever they can to get eyes and create reactionary content. We shouldn't try to dismiss legitimate concerns by pointing at the extremist shitstains on either side of the aisle.

 

[Three]

You do know censorship isn't an all or nothing thing, right? To use a more well known example that was eventually changed after pushback, DMCV. They didn't cover everyone up in Burkas, but they still actively censored parts of the game. Enforced by Sony themselves, as stated by the devs.

Where was this ever stated by the devs? The devs said these 1.0.0.2 versions are the costumes they wanted in the game. Are you making shit up or what? The argument falls apart when people say something is being censored from the game because the developers tweaked their own designs to what they themselves say they wanted. Censorship would be the developers not being allowed something they wanted. There clearly isn't a problem with cleavage or arse in the game. You get a full on skin suit, you can get a nice looking lingerie outfit with cleavage for collecting all 49 collectibles.

They only said that they're aware of the people upset at the design of the 2 changed costumes and will answer whether they will add options for the old design soon nothing about it being enforced and nothing to suggest tits or ass is being censored in the game.

That literally would not be censorship. Do you know what the word means?

Yes it would if the developer made a change enforced by the publisher who saw it as a threat to sales but the developer preferred less skin in the original design of a costume that they had to change. That's the point. It works both ways.

Say I as a developer decided that I wanted to make a change to a costume that made it less revealing than the costume I consider a payoff for collecting all the collectibles in the game but a publisher decided that they don't want to allow this because it's a threat to sales or users don't like what the developer prefers. Who's getting censored there?

It's absolutely asnine. the developer has told people these are the designs they wanted. There clearly isn't a problem with exposed tits and ass in the game since it's in every other costume. Yet people keep trying to ignore this. They can't even say it's to make the game more prude because there's far more revealing things left in the game. people just want to go apeshit about some minor costume change that the developer wanted and is even suggesting they might give options on soon. The design changes would have meant nothing if it exposed more in a patch, nobody would have been shouting 'censorship' even though it would be the case there too if automatically assumed to be enforced by somebody else. Now some really crazy people are biting the hand that has fed them one of the very few AAA games that cater to them by making a mountain out of a molehill, it's astonishing really.

 

[Dr. Claus]

You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.

Exactly.

Whether or not someone considers it an issue, it cannot argue that it was changed after promises were made. It was changed in a very short time period between when the gold master was released/discs were pressed and when it was pushed in an update (indicating it was not due to ratings boards and it wasn't because "oh this was the vision we always had in mind!" nonsense). The fact is, it *was* censored. For what reason is anyone's guess (personally, I am of the belief it was a last minute mandate from Sony considering the history of similar situations involving the company and other eastern games), but trying to dismiss the concerns people have is a bit silly. If this was not an issue, why censor it to begin with? If it isn't important, why enter the thread and not just play the game?

 

[Crayon]

And the HARD R swap? That is even worse in my opinion. I want the HARD R version of the game.

 

[LegendOfKage]

If that's the game the developer wanted to release who's being censored exactly?

Go complain about actual censorship like not being able to say the words 'Jellyfish', 'poncho' or 'lmao' if you actually care about censorship.

Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.

So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.

Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.

If censorship was a thing here. Every fucking outfit would have been censored.

I once thought something similar, but again: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935

At least some of the outfits censored were changed for a reason that doesn't apply to the other outfits.

Somehow, I doubt there would be people complaining about censorship if it was the other way around, where the patch would make some outfits more revealing.

If it wasn't optional, I'd think people would complain, and I think they'd have a right to complain. I'm sure a lot of people don't really need or want the more sexually explicit versions of these outfits in order to enjoy this game, they just reject the idea of people imposing their moral values and deciding for them. I know when I play this game, I'll be using whatever outfits I think make the character look cool and stylish rather than whatever shows the most skin.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.

So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.

Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.


I once thought something similar, but again: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935

At least some of the outfits censored were changed for a reason that doesn't apply to the other outfits.




If it wasn't optional, I'd think people would complain, and I think they'd have a right to complain. I'm sure a lot of people don't really need or want the more sexually explicit versions of these outfits in order to enjoy this game, they just reject the idea of people imposing their moral values and deciding for them. I know when I play this game, I'll be using whatever outfits I think make the character look cool and stylish rather than whatever shows the most skin.

 

[Crayon]

I have a question to throw out there. Do the two outfits censorship look like the work of modern woke pressure or the kind of changes that have always been around?

I understand a hypersensitivity because of the way things are these days, but the changes to the two costumes look to me like the type of thing that has happened in every visual media all my life.

I thought of this because I think someone mentioned last night that these type of changes are what led to ugly MJ in sm2. Obviously two very different phenomenon, but of course that's how it felt to them. In other words, salt on a wound.

 

[SolidQ]

That costume still fine

 

[Three]

Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.

So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.

Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.

I'd argue it's a matter of who because it's the initial intent of somebody who has to be suppressed. when there is no logically visible moral, political, or religious reason nobody is being surpressed and all you're doing is just destroying artistic intent.

I'll use your example of Prince. Say prince was writing an album. while writing it he removes a line that had the word fuck in it because he didn't like the way it sounded there but keeps fuck and other profanities in other parts where he thinks it's good. He edits that line before release date. People go apeshit and assume it's censorship even though profanity still exists in the album. Is it censorship? Is he still pushing a religious or moral view that he clearly didn't have?

Is there a religious or moral view in stellar blade considering the things people are saying are being censored still exists in the game aplenty everywhere else?

Now imagine it the other way too because it works the other way, Prince became a Jehovah's Witness and wanted to include a song about Jehovah in his album and removed the profanity in his song before release. the publisher said no because it would hurt sales, is this censorship or not too? For censorship to occur you have to supress somebody's point of view, speech or art.

 

[Thorpe]

From the days of pre-split GAF to now, it amazes me on how these threads/topics (everywhere) attract the attention of people who say they don't really care about the changes and dismiss it with whatever logic that is sound for them. It's like the word "Censorship" attracts a specific set of users that end up thread shitting or resorting to generalizations to prove their point. Just like every fucking word on the internet, the word has lost its exact meaning. If you want to defend the honor of that word, suit yourself - I just hope you do the same for just about every word out there too. It's why meta commentary or arguing over the semantics of the word usually results in derailing a thread.

At this point, unless you are young as fuck and just started social media on the internet, most folks should be able to understand the point of these threads/topics as they are common nowadays. They are usually talking about changes that either appeared in production at some point or is limited to a specific region, but changed elsewhere. Of course, you have the extreme side of users that go too far in their accusations or conspiracies (It's not one sided either). At the same time, you have users that have nothing to do with either of the extreme sides - but are still annoyed or curious why it was done? Unfortunately, this stuff gets drowned out by the loud vocal minorities. In most of the cases, folks from all sides just get fixated on the word or just result to garbage insults being thrown around for no damn reason. These types of lewd games also make it easier to throw generalizations out there too.

Most of the time, you'd have regional differences which would spawn such topics. You would also notice a trend that instead of the word being used, the word "Localization/Localized" is used instead.

In this case, you have a worldwide version that is the same across all regions. Whether the word actually applies is pointless at this point, the main argument is that the final printed release on the physical version (1.0) contains content that is patched out once updated. The digital versions are already updated (aside from still needing the Day One patch).

As far as the promotional media/trailers/advertising/etc. content that doesn't appear in the game (in any version) - that is likely a result of just changes in the game up to production (or future DLC if they do anything). You really won't have much leverage on this in terms of content being changed as this is normal of the development cycle (Since it's a worldwide release, any regional/screening requirements will impact it for everyone). It's fine to criticize Shift Up that even the the most recent trailers/previews don't have content that is in any of the released versions, but don't go overboard on it either. You may also have subtle/minor evidence like the outfit icons that don't necessarily match up with some of the final outfit designs (likely changed), but you don't have any production versions to compare them to unfortunately for the most part. Some of the outfits also look like they had additional modifications applied on them too, so they don't really match up with the overall look either.

The blood splatter not covering EVE in more detail seems to not have been seen in production at all too (all versions). Likewise, the bunny suit was more of a pinkish/beige type color in the promos/trailers, but is a different color now. For those, it's likely to have changed for whatever reason before they went Gold/Production.

The main issue is the outfit changes from 1.0 to Day One Patch. Only users who have the physical version and don't patch can use the two (maybe more?) outfits as they were up to that point. It gets exacerbated since Shift Up even released an X/Twitter post saying all countries will receive the same uncensored version. You interpret that how you want, including the Director's comment of them being aware of the issues and the statement regarding their true intentions. Sony nor Shift Up will point fingers at each other. If anything, you may get an official PR comment saying the final content is what they consider final and they'll leave it at that.

Why some designs got changed in patches will likely never be confirmed, leaving it up to speculation from those annoyed by the content changes (regardless of patch level) and those that honestly don't care (but feel the need to comment on why they shouldn't care or are wrong).


Ultimately, I hope they bring those outfits back (including some of those seen in the trailers/promos). Plus, this game is ripe for outfits to be added for DLC. I think I recall them saying no DLC is planned, but that wouldn't be the first time we heard a developer say that. It's a great game, but unfortunately Shift Up/Sony did make some blunders regarding this. If the physical version didn't have those outfits that looked different post patch, I honestly think most complaints (no where at this level) would be comparisons with final build vs promos/trailers - likely just leaving speculation to future DLC or discussing potential changes (Outfits changed to make regional/ratings limit).

 

[Clear]

Censorship is not a matter of who, it is a matter of what and why. To give you an example, pretty much every album released in the 80s and 90s by the musician Prince contains sexually explicit lyrics and profanity. Later in life, Prince decided that such content violated his religious principles, and after that his newer albums no longer had sexually graphic or profane lyrics.

So hypothetically, if Prince decided that he would only allow edited versions of all his older albums to be sold as a result, that would have still been censorship, because he'd be changing content to conform to his religious values. It's not about the creative vision of the artist. He can change his mind, but if the content itself changes to suit his moral views, that still censorship.

Again, censorship mean imposing your moral, political, or religious views on others by changing content to conform with your moral, political, or religious values.

No its not. That's a poor definition.

Censorship in its most common understanding is the modification/proscription of a thing by an external party, typically to conform to legal, social and/or market conditions.

However, censorship does not need to be direct, or to be motivated by any sort of moral/political/religious value judgement. Censorship can be financially motivated such as cutting content in order to get a lower age rating and thus sell to a wider audience. Another great historical example is the way that the French authorities in the 1970's controlled pornographic movies through heightened taxation. (Tthe 1976 Law of Finances (known as the Loi X) imposed a 20% tax on pornographic films and required the complete segregation of cinemas screening pornographic films from those screening non-porno, marginalizing distribution/exhibition opportunities).

Censorship in its truest form comes from a legal imperative. Because when its not enforced by threat or sanction we shift into the domain of self-censorship. And people do this routinely as part of general social contracts. Like modifying your language in front of a parent or boss or teacher etc. The pressure comes from a desire to "fit-in", or at least not present antagonistically.

In the case of Stellar Blade we're looking at self censorship because there's no legal threat. Sony, or Shift-Up or whoever you want to blame are complying in order not to create unnecessary friction. Friction which the fear is that might cost them sales and/or bad-press.

This is why kicking up a stink over the "censorship" of Stellar Blade is going to be ineffective, and in fact in the long term is likely to make Sony even more gun-shy about publishing anything edgy in future! The bigger the fuss kicked-up the more it hammers home the message that its not worth the hassle, because no matter what they do somebody is going to come after them and attempt to cause them reputational damage.

 

[ManaByte]

change of two outfits

Some people are saying seven total outfits changed, but haven’t seen pics of all seven.

 

[BiohazardX95]

First time I agree with this dude:

 

[Mr Moose]

Yes it was censored, no it doesn't make sense because other outfits show more booba than that.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I'd argue it's a matter of who because it's the initial intent of somebody who has to be suppressed. when there is no logically visible moral, political, or religious reason nobody is being surpressed and all you're doing is just destroying artistic intent.

The person being suppressed is generally the person who doesn't want others to decide what content they should be allowed to access based on someone else's moral preferences.

I'll use your example of Prince. Say prince was writing an album. while writing it he removes a line that had the word fuck in it because he didn't like the way it sounded there but keeps fuck and other profanities in other parts where he thinks it's good. He edits that line before release date. People go apeshit and assume it's censorship even though profanity still exists in the album. Is it censorship? Is he still pushing a religious or moral view that he clearly didn't have?

That example doesn't follow the situation of this game, because this game was sold as a finished product and then changed after the fact. Also, the most noticeable change that I've seen reduces the outline of female anatomy in a way that isn't present in any other outfit, so the "but it still has the word fuck in other places" analogy doesn't quite work either.

To take the example you wrote at face value, though, it's still only censorship if it's done for reasons related to morality. For example, if Prince made the changes because he was afraid of getting a parental advisory label, that would be self-censorship to appease someone else's limits of what should be regarded as morally acceptable.

To quote the ACLU on what censorship is:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression."

Is there a religious or moral view in stellar blade considering the things people are saying are being censored still exists in the game aplenty everywhere else?

This doesn't seem to be accurate: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935

Now imagine it the other way too because it works the other way, Prince became a Jehovah's Witness and wanted to include a song about Jehovah in his album and removed the profanity in his song before release. the publisher said no because it would hurt sales, is this censorship or not too? For censorship to occur you have to supress somebody's point of view, speech or art.

If "it would hurt sales" is due to the perceptions of people who would be offended by the content, then yes, it's censorship. But it's also understandable because the publisher also has to release a product that they're happy with, and I don't think an artist should be able to force their values on their publisher either.

But you're getting into some of the more debatable issues of self-censorship that don't really apply to content that was released and then censored after the fact, which was the case with Stellar Blade.


Regardless of the more extreme edges that are being toned down, Sony did just release a video game with a very sexy main protagonist. Censorship sucks, but overall, I think that's still a win.

 

[midnightAI]

First time I agree with this dude:

Huh, whaddaya know, he's saying exactly what I've been saying, you're right, normally I don't agree with much of what he says either, feels strange.

 

[Doomtrain]

Is it possible ShiftUp deliberately chose to tone down certain outfits in order to more fully accentuate others by comparison?

 

[GHound]

Patch the game to make the previous 1.0 versions accessible. Problem solved in a day by some underpaid intern.

To all the people running defense and saying that's unreasonable, I hope you have a wonderful evening.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Guys, this is super censored, I can't believe Sony did this:

Spoiler: Game cutscene

Spoiler: Gameplay clip Bunny outfit

 

[Three]

The person being suppressed is generally the person who doesn't want others to decide what content they should be allowed to access based on someone else's moral preferences.

But you're talking about the content creator here and it's clear that the 'moral preference' is not present at all in the creator or game. The accusation hinges solely on when the creator made the design change while still working on the game when the disc was pressed.

That example doesn't follow the situation of this game, because this game was sold as a finished product and then changed after the fact.

The "finished product" wasn't finished though. Between the disc pressed build and the day one release it's clear they were still working on the game. The day one patch includes NG+, more costumes and suits, fixes to animation latency, new skills, and level expansions. It's semantics about the "finished product" being the time they pressed discs. It becomes worse that the 'finished product' is exactly as it released and can be played exactly as released. So it's just people disagreeing on changes.

Also, the most noticeable change that I've seen reduces the outline of female anatomy in a way that isn't present in any other outfit, so the "but it still has the word fuck in other places" analogy doesn't quite work either. This doesn't seem to be accurate: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/stel...this-internally.1669912/page-7#post-269135935

I don't follow. What outline of female anatomy are you talking about, cameltoe? It's still there.

It even has more revealing costumes in the Skin Suit and Black Pearl Nano suit. It's clear there's no moral preference being pushed as it does still have the things people are suggesting are not 'preferred morally'. What morals are they trying to push when there exists other designs that completely betray that moral?

To take the example you wrote at face value, though, it's still only censorship if it's done for reasons related to morality. For example, if Prince made the changes because he was afraid of getting a parental advisory label, that would be self-censorship to appease someone else's limits of what should be regarded as morally acceptable.

To quote the ACLU on what censorship is:

"Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression."








If "it would hurt sales" is due to the perceptions of people who would be offended by the content, then yes, it's censorship. But it's also understandable because the publisher also has to release a product that they're happy with, and I don't think an artist should be able to force their values on their publisher either.

But you're getting into some of the more debatable issues of self-censorship that don't really apply to content that was released and then censored after the fact, which was the case with Stellar Blade.


Regardless of the more extreme edges that are being toned down, Sony did just release a video game with a very sexy main protagonist. Censorship sucks, but overall, I think that's still a win.

Yeah, I agree that self-censorship can exist too but a content creator who says that's what they wanted to release and people try to cancel the game, the people cancelling are the one doing the censorship of somebody elses artistic work. Let's just wait and see what comes of these internal discussions. if they happen to offer those costumes too it's clear that talk of trying to push moral preference was all bullshit.

 

[Madflavor]

Is it possible ShiftUp deliberately chose to tone down certain outfits in order to more fully accentuate others by comparison?

It's possible, but given what we know, these changes seemed to have been made at the 11th hour. I don't think any developer would care about cosmetics so close to release, they're more concerned about ironing out bugs and performance.

 

[JaksGhost]

It's possible, but given what we know, these changes seemed to have been made at the 11th hour. I don't think any developer would care about cosmetics so close to release, they're more concerned about ironing out bugs and performance.

But the patch also included the NG+ that introduced new skills, costumes, and more. Why is that being left out? How are you guys determining this was an 11th hour decision when it includes additional content. The graffiti I can see being an 11th hour change but not the costumes.

 

[Madflavor]

Objectively speaking, the correct move here by Shrift Up would be to just give these people want they want. If they don't revert these outfits back to their original form, or give the option to switch between variants, then a few tens of thousands of people will be mad. If they do give them want they want, nobody is mad. Nobody is going to actually be mad. So I dunno, just do the thing that makes everyone happy. It's not like it's going to be a costly change, I'm sure they still have the files of these outfits, just patch them in. I mean assuming Sony gives the approval.

But the patch also included the NG+ that introduced new skills, costumes, and more. Why is that being left out? How are you guys determining this was an 11th hour decision when it includes additional content. The graffiti I can see being an 11th hour change but not the costumes.

Are you suggesting it's not possible to implement additional unplanned changes to a patch close to it's release?

 

[MayauMiao]

Has there ever been any games that later patched where costumes was changed due to "artistic reason" at the 11th hour?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

did you write your latters for Sony japan and stiff Up already guys?

 

[Three]

Are you suggesting it's not possible to implement additional unplanned changes to a patch close to it's release?

He's suggesting that "11th hour" is wrong when there were far bigger changes happening between that period.

 

[GHound]

did you write your latters for Sony japan and stiff Up already guys?

No, but I wrote a letter to your mother telling her I hope that both she and you have a very nice day.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

You're free to argue it's stupid, or you don't care, but you would have to be the most retarded mother fuckers on the face of the earth to actually believe "this was the real artistic intent all along"--in that all the affected content was just coincidentally made LESS controversial (none in the other direction), also coincidentally brought to you from the platform publisher of Devil May Smoke Butt. A literal kindergartener could see through such amateur damage control. I seriously hope you guys are just disingenuous era trolls cause I don't know how you'll get through life with such naivety, you'll be homeless at the first Nigerian Prince you meet.

Since I can't read minds, I make assumptions based on confirmed facts and common sense.

Some of the tweaked costumes look much better in the patched version, no matter if they are less revealing. I am talking about the red and the Chinese ones. Those are clear enhancements. You may only care for human flesh, but I can see why artists would choose a more stylish or classy outfit. The logic "less revealing = censorship" is horny-teen level.

The only outfit that validates your argument is the bunny. Not a problem of being less revealing, it's just uglier than the previous version. Still, there might be more explanations on this particular case, even a clerical mistake.

As a general rule, I don't trust Sony, but their actions in the last two months promoting the game, with Yoshida heavily involved, and the openness of devs countering the media backlash make me give them some credit.

People are calling these devs liars and treating them as if they were some dudes from EA or Ubisoft. After they got grilled by the media and the woke crowd, now their alleged customers are calling for a boycott out of spite and some ridiculous high moral ground.

Next time SU better stick to gacha games or PC, and let console players enjoy their Mary Janes and Senuas.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

No, but I wrote a letter to your mother telling her I hope that both she and you have a very nice day.

that's noice, but that's not helping the cause.

have you sign to #FreeStellarBlade?

 

[MayauMiao]

I asked this before but no one answered but what would happen if they did do a patch where some outfits were changed to be less revealing but others were changed to be more revealing? Would that be considered censorship then or developers intent?

Its called Director's Cut.

 

[GHound]

that's noice, but that's not helping the cause.

have you sign to #FreeStellarBlade?

#FreeYourNiceDay is the thing I'm currently representing, sorry.

 

[Moonjt9]

I believe him about the costumes being the ones they wanted, like the others were a work in progress.

Easy solution is just add the skimpier pre-patch costumes as an extra costume to get rather than reverting changes or whatever. Everyone wins.

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

Just like I thought, the PC version will be the “complete edition” lol.

This censorship stuff is so pointless because this is a mature rated game. At the end of the day, they have to draw a line, is your game for kids or adults? If it’s for adults, why are you censoring a video game for adults??? Makes no sense.

I really hate what gaming has turned into.

 

[Madflavor]

He's suggesting that "11th hour" is wrong when there were far bigger changes happening between that period.

Right but that doesn't mean they couldn't implement any other changes that the originally didn't plan on.

 

[Three]

Right but that doesn't mean they couldn't implement any other changes that the originally didn't plan on.

But the assumption is that it was too late to add or change things in the "11th hour" and so they must have done this in a hurry and without intent. when in fact in the "11th hour" they added 34 new costumes and far bigger changes. It lends credence to the fact that it wasn't exactly "11th hour" and the "unplanned" is just speculation.

 

[Madflavor]

But the assumption is that it was too late to add or change things in the "11th hour" and so they must have done this in a hurry and without intent. when in fact in the "11th hour" they added 34 new costumes and far bigger changes. It lends credence to the fact that it wasn't exactly "11th hour" and the "unplanned" is just speculation.

Oh no I can almost guarantee you NG+ was planned in advance. The additional skills, equipment, hard mode, implementing NG+, 30+ palette swaps to costumes, that's not something they cooked up in a very short amount of time. When I talk about the 11th hour, I'm talking about the period of time between the game going Gold, and release. They were most likely fully focused on QA issues and Hard Mode/NG+ features leading up to release.

 

[Three]

Oh no I can almost guarantee you NG+ was planned in advance. The additional skills, equipment, hard mode, implementing NG+, 30+ palette swaps to costumes, that's not something they cooked up in a very short amount of time. When I talk about the 11th hour, I'm talking about the period of time between the game going Gold, and release. They were most likely fully focused on QA issues and Hard Mode/NG+ features leading up to release.

You said:

It's possible, but given what we know, these changes seemed to have been made at the 11th hour. I don't think any developer would care about cosmetics so close to release, they're more concerned about ironing out bugs and performance.

And the person replied saying why do people ignore all the additional changes they made in the day 1 patch. It was clear that they cared about more than just bugs and performance close to release with the day one patch. Contrary to what you said they cared about additional cosmetics, additional modes and skills very close to release and got them out on day 1. While they were making those additional costumes they could very easily make alterations to designs to accentuate different palettes (it wasn't just palettes btw) and it would affect the original with little to no effort. It wouldn't be 11th hour unplanned stuff.

 

[Madflavor]

You said:



And the person replied saying why do people ignore all the additional changes they made in the day 1 patch. It was clear that they cared about more than just bugs and performance close to release with the day one patch. Contrary to what you said they cared about additional cosmetics, additional modes and skills very close to release and got them out on day 1. While they were making those additional costumes they could very easily make alterations to designs to accentuate different palettes (it wasn't just palattes btw) and it would affect the original with little to no effort. It wouldn't be 11th hour unplanned stuff.

Yeah I was referring to nerfing the outfits, not NG+ and all of it's changes. I'm saying I don't think they originally planned on making those changes to the outfits until they got the word from Sony. In regards to NG+ with all it's features, including the outfits, that was a decision made in advance. Not between the game going Gold and the release date.

 

[MayauMiao]

Well this Toneman's career is done.

 

[Senhua]

It’s a video game.

This isn’t that serious.

Today, in addition to trade and political issues, only globally sold American-influenced entertainment media, such as that of SIE, often contains elements like these.

When I purchase a Tesla, their automatic assisted driving system never uses non-binary pronouns.

When I buy an iPhone, Siri has never suggested that I purchase less revealing clothing when I'm shopping.

When I dine at American chain restaurants, they never offer non-binary restroom options here

When American entertainment companies decide to incorporate their agenda into their products, especially those made by companies in other countries, please keep it domestically focused only.

If you choose to sell your products globally, please refrain from including your political agendas. Overseas consumers generally prefer to avoid such content in their entertainment.