Support NeoGAF

[mugwhump]

Threatening a child with a gun is pretty profane.

No it isn't, profanity there is referring to swear words.

The language is one thing, but the context of a gun held to a child's head would be a broadcast disaster. There's a reason anime with that sort of stuff in it is kept to late night. I don't even think One Piece airs uncut in the USA to this day, although I'm not 100%.

It airs on toonami, though that's not public broadcasting. Regardless of possible public outcry, the gun scene would not have been prohibited by the FCC as far as I can tell.

You may see is as "way, way beyond" but anyone can record that footage and complain.

I'm not talking about the gun change here, I'm talking about the massive quantity of other changes, often for much more innocuous things. These changes are commonly described as censorship, despite 4kids being the rights holder and making the changes without threat of outside force.

 

[dity]

No it isn't, profanity there is referring to swear words.


It airs on toonami, though that's not public broadcasting. Regardless of possible public outcry, the gun scene would not have been prohibited by the FCC as far as I can tell.


I'm not talking about the gun change here, I'm talking about the massive quantity of other changes, often for much more innocuous things. These changes are commonly described as censorship, despite 4kids being the rights holder and making the changes without threat of outside force.

You're thinking of swear words, which is the most basic form of profanity. A situation or set of language can be deemed profane as well. It includes things like "fuck" and "shit" but isn't limited to just that. That's why they bother to bring up instances of context. "Threatening a child with a whack" is much less profane than "threatening to shoot a child with a gun pointed at their head".

I'm aware 4kids made other changes. Some cultural, some to remove adult elements. But I am talking about the gun scene because you bothered to bring it up (and it's actually a part of OP I have seen).

 

[Palculator]

You have some funny ideas about free expression. That right only guarantees you the opportunity to say what you want. It does not shield you from criticism.

Well, I never said anything about freedom from criticism, so don't know where you're getting this from.

I'm not arguing right and wrong. I'm spelling out for you what is and isn't censorship. Someone telling you to shut up as loudly as they can isn't censorship. On the other hand someone stopping you from expressing your opinion (e.g. by threatening you with physical violence or otherwise preventing you from having your say) is censorship.

Both are tools of exerting pressure which can compel someone to self-censor. Public outrage and the fear of such is another one. Stop drawing arbitrary lines like physical violence. How hard is it to read even the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on self-censorship to realise it's a broad enough definition to contain alterations to due to expected outrage by people a little too sensitive about media?

 

[mugwhump]

You're thinking of swear words, which is the most basic form of profanity. A situation or set of language can be deemed profane as well. It includes things like "fuck" and "shit" but isn't limited to just that. That's why they bother to bring up instances of context. "Threatening a child with a whack" is much less profane than "threatening to shoot a child with a gun pointed at their head".

Yes, that fits the general definition of profanity, but the FCC's usage of the word in their broadcasting guidelines refers only to profane language.

I'm aware 4kids made other changes. Some cultural, some to remove adult elements. But I am talking about the gun scene because you bothered to bring it up (and it's actually a part of OP I have seen).

Fair enough.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Suddenly a screen comes up explicitly telling you that the game is censored. The best part is: this censorship was done for no reason whatsoever as the censored version is rated 18 and you can't get a higher rating than that.

Sony also loves doing this censoring bullshit with their PS exclusives for no reason. The Last of Us is 18 in its censored form too.

 

[hodgy100]

Before we can go into this topic i gues we need to define first when it stops being just localization and it becomes straight up censoring.

Removing the waifu petting minigame (regardless of the fact that i personally hate the idea of the minigame and applaud the choice to remove it) is straight up censorship, not "localization".

Kefka calling peoople "Son of a submariner" or Phoenix Wright games taking place in "america" is localization.

I think localization goes to far when the entire tone of a scene or changing the context entirely, like keeping with the FE example, turning the assassin bonding scene over their feelings about taking so many lives into a "silent cool character speak thru elipses" joke is just too removed from the original context.

This isn't censorship. its localisation

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

without some sort of authority supressing your petting minigame it is localisation.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

This is a pretty good article on the subject. Sometimes it's just not possible for a literal translation and a localization team does their best to fill in the blanks. I honestly agree with the sentiment of the article on literal translations. If you are so annoyed with localization then you should learn the language and read it yourself. I understand it takes a lot of time and effort but just a little bit each day can help you a lot with learning a new language.

People should also learn what censorship means. If a game is refused certification because of it's content and has to be changed then that is censorship. If a developer changes their own game because of how it will be seen in another country, that is localization.

 

[dity]

Suddenly a screen comes up explicitly telling you that the game is censored. The best part is: this censorship was done for no reason whatsoever as the censored version is rated 18 and you can't get a higher rating than that.

Sony also loves doing this censoring bullshit with their PS exclusives for no reason. The Last of Us is 18 in its censored form too.

In regards to South Park... I heard the censored mini-games were actually a bitch to complete.

Yes, that fits the general definition of profanity, but the FCC's usage of the word in their broadcasting guidelines refers only to profane language.


Fair enough.

An angry viewer is, well, an angry viewer.

 

[redcrayon]

Back when the story could change entirely (Streets of Rage 3, various Contra titles) and even the characters could be replaced (Contra/Probotector) as games were butchered by regional departments that didn't talk to each other, and they just thought that dumb kids would never know, that was a bit too far for me.

Where it's just minor text changes and minigames that make up a miniscule portion of the game, that's nothing in comparison as far as I'm concerned, and falls well under the remit of localisation. Whenever these arguments have come up recently regarding costumes in Bravely Default/Xenoblade and conversations/minigames in Fire Emblem, it's all really minor changes that makes up such a small part of the game these days.

 

[hodgy100]

is doki doki panic being changed to mario bros 2 for the US censorship, or localisation?

 

[Palculator]

is doki doki panic being changed to mario bros 2 for the US censorship, or localisation?

Neither.

 

[Servbot24]

It's impossible for it to go too far because it's literally a game that belongs to Nintendo and they can do whatever they want with it.

If the government mandated the standards for localizations I would consider that going too far.

 

[dity]

is doki doki panic being changed to mario bros 2 for the US censorship, or localisation?

It's actually a dream.

 

[hodgy100]

Neither.

well it's a game being changed to be more palatable to a different audience. like what's happened with bravery second and FE, just to a more extreme degree.

It's actually a dream.

 

[Zafir]

Well, it's arguable because half the time they're removing something which Japan itself took one step to far with.

I feel like localisation is in a much better place than where it used to be. You used to get sweeping changes.

Either way I still feel the best way to localise is to translate it in a way where it is still close to the original meaning, but is understandable to the western culture as well.

 

[antennaehead]

If you are so annoyed with localization then you should learn the language and read it yourself.

It's funny that people keep bringing this up. If I went to the restaurant and get bad food, I'm not allowed to criticize the chef, I should make better food myself!

It's impossible for it to go too far because it's literally a game that belongs to Nintendo and they can do whatever they want with it.

Again, the fact that they can do whatever they want with their game does not make them immune from criticism.

 

[Kaisos]

People saying heavy changes are often because localization companies don't want to run afoul of broadcasters/European laws/angry parents have the right of it.

It's funny that people keep bringing this up. If I went to the restaurant and get bad food, I'm not allowed to criticize the chef, I should make better food myself!

This analogy doesn't really work, since languages aren't anything like cooking a meal.

 

[antennaehead]

This analogy doesn't really work, since languages aren't anything like cooking a meal.

Oh but it does. The meal in this example equals translation, and if I'm not satisfied with the translation, I should be able to criticize it, instead of learning new language.

 

[mugwhump]

This isn't censorship. its localisation



without some sort of authority supressing your petting minigame it is localisation.

See my post above. Definitions that require the suppression come from an authority are the minority. Even the Merriam-Webster definition you chose could be interpreted the other way, as the localizers being the media outlet or other group or institution suppressing the speech of the developer (or their own speech). If you want a conflicting definition, try Cambridge's:

censor verb [T] uk /ˈsen.sər/ us /ˈsen.sɚ/
› to ​remove anything ​offensive from ​books, ​films, etc., or to ​remove ​parts ​considered ​unsuitable from ​private ​letters, ​especially ​ones ​sent during ​war or from a ​prison:

And when it comes to the specific context of translating foreign content, using "censorship" to describe content removal is extremely common, and has been for a long time. If I search the rec.games.video.nintendo newsgroup two decades back, I find lots of instances of people referring to games changed in localization (or during porting) as censorship:
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
and that's just from the first 5 months of 1996. On the other side, I found exactly one post which disagrees with that usage.

People should also learn what censorship means. If a game is refused certification because of it's content and has to be changed then that is censorship. If a developer changes their own game because of how it will be seen in another country, that is localization.

Says who? Says you? We've established that the majority doesn't feel that way, and the dictionaries are split. So what makes all of them wrong, and you right?

I also take issue with you conflating the localizer with the original developer.

 

[Danneee]

Made the game 100x more aweome!

 

[UrbanRats]

This is a pretty good article on the subject. Sometimes it's just not possible for a literal translation and a localization team does their best to fill in the blanks.

There's a difference between wanting a literal translation, and translators being immune to criticism.

It's a complicated job, like most jobs, and through criticism you, hopefully, get it better every time.

"learn the language" is not a good response at all, since most people annoyed by *some* translations, are more annoyed by wild creative leaps in adaptations, rather than minute details in the translation.

 

[Alex]

When the spirit of the original scene is blatantly and intentionally altered is generally when I take issue.

To use Fire Emblem Fates as an example of what I mean, the dialogue changes for Kana that everyone brings up, are actually what I'd consider a proper localization change. She speaks childlike in the Japanese version, and thus the English version's lines are perfectly acceptable in portraying how a child would act in English. Especially with the fact that the original Japanese dialogue is a little stifled to begin with, and a direct translation would only make it more so. On the other hand, you have stuff like the Saizo and Beruka support, where the entire dialogue was replaced with nothing but ellipses. This is an example of a blatant disregard for the spirit of the scene. It may or may not have been a localization change done with the approval of the original team, but the scene has been altered completely in a way that no longer conveys the same message. It also draws attention to the fact that the scene is out of place, even if you didn't know it was localized a specific way. That's not acceptable.

Localization is a difficult job, to say the least. Your end goal is to make it as appealing as possible to the intended audience while preserving the spirit of the original dialogue. When you add in the nuances that come with translating something from Japanese to English, it can be really hard to preserve everything. Knowing this, I look at what is a clear difference between a localization that merely has errors, and a localization that has disregarded the original script. It also says a lot to how well localization teams are today that we only have a few standout examples. Back in the SNES era, such alternations were the norm.

As an aside: FFXIV was also a game where the localization team, working directly with the original developers, did a liberal translation. And it's a very "love it or hate it" affair too. In many cases, it actively improved the game, as the localization efforts made it more appealing to western players. However there were a few times where such changes harmed the spirit of the original scene. The team behind the localization did apologize for these issues tho, and did work harder to make sure the spirit of the scene was kept intact for future content.

XIV's localization is pretty incredible, genuinely some of the best work I've ever seen. The amount of flavor text is really impressive and everything is just so lovingly preened. Sometimes they dig on the archaic English a little too much but in general it's always a treat. As of Heavensward the voice work matches the text in quality, as well, in my opinion.

My only complaint resided with the changes to spell/ability names. Some of them are fine but I did take a bit of annoyance with the cases where they jettisoned actual Final Fantasy names or naming conventions, a few of which don't even make sense.

 

[Palculator]

well it's a game being changed to be more palatable to a different audience. like what's happened with bravery second and FE, just to a more extreme degree.

If I had to find a term I'd probably use "salvaging." But there's no point getting hung up over "localisation" versus "censorship" because the two don't mutually exclude each other. See Germany where censorship of Nazi symbols is essential to the localisation. In any case, if you want to label it censorship, go ahead because the term's broad enough, but I don't see the problem because it doesn't seem like Doki Doki Panic was changed out of fear that people who need their precious morals pandered to are going to grab the pitchforks otherwise, because that's the sort of spinelessness I can't stand (and yes, this includes the ban on Nazi symbols. Fucking stand up for your work and get it recognised like films which are free to use those symbols.)

 

[HGH]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't FFXIV's localization so well liked by the Japanese devs, it wrapped back around into the English loc team cooperating with the devs to actually write the game themselves? This sort of cooperation between branches seems like it could be really effective elsewhere as well.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Oh but it does. The meal in this example equals translation, and if I'm not satisfied with the translation, I should be able to criticize it, instead of learning new language.

It's a bad analogy.

One, you don't know if you're not satisfied with the translation unless you have a decent knowledge of the source language. At that point, what the hell are you even doing?

Two, you may not like the end result, and that's fine to criticize, but it has nothing to do with the process of getting to that end result. If you weren't satisfied with the meal, you're probably not going to start your complaint by criticizing the ingredients and cooking methods employed.

 

[Riposte]

XIV's localization is pretty incredible, genuinely some of the best work I've ever seen. The amount of flavor text is really impressive and everything is just so lovingly preened. Sometimes they dig on the archaic English a little too much but in general it's always a treat. As of Heavensward the voice work matches the text in quality, as well, in my opinion.

My only complaint resided with the changes to spell/ability names. Some of them are fine but I did take a bit of annoyance with the cases where they jettisoned actual Final Fantasy names or naming conventions, a few of which don't even make sense.

IIRC, there's less of a translation team and more of a writing team that also handles translation. Updates are released one to one, there's no time for a localization process. This was true with FFXI. If I wasn't lazy I'll look up an interview with the lead "translator" for FFXI (who happens to be responsible for the Tarutaru speaking style), who I believe is still the lead of FFXIV, but it could be someone else.

It's worth noting the original language of FFXIV for voice and cutscenes was English. Only became multilingual with A Realm Reborn.

 

[xevis]

You're failing because your evidence is lacking. What happened to your appeal to the dictionary? Only Oxford's definition of censorship suggests that outside force is required.

You're being disingenous. Look at your own list of definitions. Every single one includes some suggestion of forceful change by an external third party in a position of authority. If you remove this requirement then any change to any work in response to any criticism could be considered censorship. Is that really what you're saying?

I myself would use censorship rather than self-censorship to describe the changes I've been discussing, as I don't consider NoA to be the author (somewhat controversial, I admit), and certainly not some western schmuck who happened to buy the rights. But surely you'll at least admit that self-censorship is an applicable term here?

In my opinion, trying to characterise a localisation team that works for the artistic rights-holder as a censor is some serious reaching. All I see is a company exercising their best judgement about how to adapt an existing work to a new audience.

Yes, I called out your ad-hom. It was dumb. If you know what it is, don't do it in the first place.

I made no ad hom. I was responding to yours. My post only expressed frustration at a particular position; not a particular person and certainly not you.

 

[Lo_Fi]

Question for anyone who thinks this sort of stuff is censorship: how do you know it's against the author's wishes? Presumably, a company at Nintendo made the game, and Nintendo has to approve the localization. How do you know it's not just how Nintendo digests feedback? An example of a potential exchange between localization team and developer:

Localization team: "You know, in America, X isn't accepted in most media, I think we should change it for the American audience if we want it to sell well."
Devs: "You're right, I agree. That seems reasonable. Let's change it."

I can't say for certain the above is how it happened, but you also can't say that's not a possibility (unless you have evidence, which seems unlikely). If the above is censorship, then aren't all changes based on feedback and constructive criticism defined as censorship, by your definition?

Another scenario:
Let's say I'm not from America. I go to America on vacation. Everywhere I go, I raise my middle finger at people. In my culture it's just something we do. I am informed that, in America, this is offensive. For the rest of my vacation, I don't flip people off unless I aim to send a specific message to them, as now I know that if I were to do that it would send a specific message. Am I being censored? Or am I operating in a culture based on my new knowledge of their societal rules?

 

[Funyarinpa]

Question for anyone who thinks this sort of stuff is censorship: how do you know it's against the author's wishes? Presumably, a company at Nintendo made the game, and Nintendo has to approve the localization. How do you know it's not just how Nintendo digests feedback? An example of a potential exchange between localization team and developer:

Localization team: "You know, in America, X isn't accepted in most media, I think we should change it for the American audience if we want it to sell well."
Devs: "You're right, I agree. That seems reasonable. Let's change it."

I can't say for certain the above is how it happened, but you also can't say that's not a possibility (unless you have evidence, which seems unlikely). If the above is censorship, then aren't all changes based on feedback and constructive criticism defined as censorship, by your definition?

Another scenario:
Let's say I'm not from America. I go to America on vacation. Everywhere I go, I raise my middle finger at people. In my culture it's just something we do. I am informed that, in America, this is offensive. For the rest of my vacation, I don't flip people off unless I aim to send a specific message to them, as now I know that if I were to do that it would send a specific message. Am I being censored? Or am I operating in a culture based on my new knowledge of their societal rules?

1) I'd call devs censoring their own work because of it being possibly offensive self-censorship. It's a move I'd disagree with, but one I would respect to an extent.

2) People you flip off don't necessarily know that the middle finger is meant to convey its meaning from another culture. Not the case with games.

 

[RM8]

Made the game 100x more aweome!

Yup, robots > random GI Joe dudes. Europe got the better deal in this one

 

[dity]

1) I'd call devs censoring their own work because of it being possibly offensive self-censorship. It's a move I'd disagree with, but one I would respect to an extent.

2) People you flip off don't necessarily know that the middle finger is meant to convey its meaning from another culture. Not the case with games.

Things make more sense if you call it "tact" instead of "self-censorship".

 

[mugwhump]

You're being disingenous. Look at your own list of definitions. Every single one includes some suggestion of forceful change by an external third party in a position of authority.

Absolutely wrong. Only Oxford's definition suggests that a government must be behind the censorship. Merriam-Webster's could maybe be argued. And I'd love to hear you explain how Cambridge's definition supports yours:

censor verb [T] uk /ˈsen.sər/ us /ˈsen.sɚ/
› to ​remove anything ​offensive from ​books, ​films, etc., or to ​remove ​parts ​considered ​unsuitable from ​private ​letters, ​especially ​ones ​sent during ​war or from a ​prison:

If you remove this requirement then any change to any work in response to any criticism could be considered censorship. Is that really what you're saying?

No. When a party is changing their own work, particularly before it releases, it's much more rare for that to be labelled censorship. And basically nobody calls it censorship if the change isn't removing or altering offensive material.
Again, not my definition. Merely my observation of how the word has been used in practice for the last several decades. I can easily find many, many more examples for you if you want.

In my opinion, trying to characterise a localisation team that works for the artistic rights-holder as a censor is some serious reaching. All I see is a company exercising their best judgement about how to adapt an existing work to a new audience.

I myself wouldn't primarily characterize them as censors. They don't spend all their time censoring; they just happen to indulge in it once in a while.

I made no ad hom. I was responding to yours. My post only expressed frustration at a particular position; not a particular person and certainly not you.

I made no ad hom. I was merely responding to your silly attempt to mischaracterize the opposing viewpoint.

 

[Funyarinpa]

Things make more sense if you call it "tact" instead of "self-censorship".

That's one way to interpret it, however, personally I think that if the developer is willing to release a game in one region as-is, then they shouldn't cut out stuff because it would be offensive to others. Seeing the acceptance of something I would find offensive in my own culture in another culture is IMHO a fascinating method of cultural exchange.

Morally, I find the freedom to spread one's culture, with all of its facets possibly offensive or alienating to others, to take precedence over "tact" - That's my take on it though, and given how it'd probably improve the reputation and sales of a game altered to fit Western morals, I do understand and respect any company or developer's decision to alter a game's localization to be inoffensive.

 

[dity]

That's one way to interpret it, however, personally I think that if the developer is willing to release a game in one region as-is, then they shouldn't cut out stuff because it would be offensive to others. Seeing the acceptance of something I would find offensive in my own culture in another culture is IMHO a fascinating method of cultural exchange.

Morally, I find the freedom to spread one's culture, with all of its facets possibly offensive or alienating to others, to take precedence over "tact" - That's my take on it though, and given how it'd probably improve the reputation and sales of a game altered to fit Western morals, I do understand and respect any company or developer's decision to alter a game's localization to be inoffensive.

I dunno, not being tactful leads to having to clean up a mess after the fact. Like when Jynx from Pokemon caused an uproar due to her pretty-obviously-a-golliwog design.

 

[Drilbit777]

Localization goes too far when its becomes 4kids bad. Changing names, dumbing down the dialogue, and trying to americanize everything.

 

[Funyarinpa]

I dunno, not being tactful leads to having to clean up a mess after the fact. Like when Jynx from Pokemon caused an uproar due to her pretty-obviously-a-golliwog design.

That's why I specified it as "morally".

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

If it's not in the original kanji I consider it censorship.

 

[Lo_Fi]

1) I'd call devs censoring their own work because of it being possibly offensive self-censorship. It's a move I'd disagree with, but one I would respect to an extent.

2) People you flip off don't necessarily know that the middle finger is meant to convey its meaning from another culture. Not the case with games.

1) So do you realize that this has been common practice as long as the game industry has existed? Why haven't people been bringing up censorship in relation to games until now? I've never heard this complaint until the latest FE.

2) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you clarify?

I'll bring up another example. Valve CONSTANTLY makes changes to their character designs for DOTA2 in the Chinese version, as apparently things like visible bones under torn flesh is offensive there. Is that censorship? If so, why weren't people complaining about it then?

What I'm getting at is that game development is not very transparent and it feels like a large part of the audience only now just discovered that localization isn't literal translation, even though that's been the case for years. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it feels like to me.

 

[xevis]

Absolutely wrong. Only Oxford's definition suggests that a government must be behind the censorship. Merriam-Webster's could maybe be argued. And I'd love to hear you explain how Cambridge's definition supports yours:

You're getting hung up on the idea that only government can enforce censorship but I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that censorship requires the application of forceful suppression of speech by an external third party in a position of power. The existance of such a third party is either stated explicitly or easily inferred in each of the definitions you've posted.

No. When a party is changing their own work, particularly before it releases, it's much more rare for that to be labelled censorship. And basically nobody calls it censorship if the change isn't removing or altering offensive material.
Again, not my definition. Merely my observation of how the word has been used in practice for the last several decades. I can easily find many, many more examples for you if you want.

Let me see if I have this right: if a rights-holder changes their work for whatever reason and you don't know about it then it's not censorship. But if a rights-holder willingly changes an existing work and you don't like those changes then it's censorship. Right. Got it. Let's go with that definition. Makes total sense.

I myself wouldn't primarily characterize them as censors. They don't spend all their time censoring; they just happen to indulge in it once in a while.

So localisation companies engaged by rights-holders are only sometime-censors. I see. Well, I guess you're consistent at least.

 

[Palculator]

I'll bring up another example. Valve CONSTANTLY makes changes to their character designs for DOTA2 in the Chinese version, as apparently things like visible bones under torn flesh is offensive there. Is that censorship? If so, why weren't people complaining about it then?

It is. I don't think you need to complain about something for it to be censorship but I'd just say there are too few Chinese people on here for it to have made much of an impact.

 

[Lo_Fi]

I thought about it some more and I've got more thoughts:

I once heard a story from a developer about a game he was working on. It was a flight simulator, and they had cows in it. If you flew low to the ground over the cows, they would get frightened and run away.

The game was being sold in India. And there, the cow is sacred, so scaring cows is offensive to them. So the team got some flack for it.

Now, let's say we could go back and change it with this new knowledge. Are the cows in the game intended to say "we don't respect the culture of india and so we aim to offend you?" Or are they there to say "this area is a farm and so there is livestock here to make it seem more like a farm"? My guess is the latter. So that's not censorship if they get rid of the cows in the version for India, now is it?

If the developers REALLY hated India and the message of their hate of India was being surpressed, then yes, that's censorship. But that's not what's going on. They were just making a farm area. To communicate "this is a farm" to a player from India, you would need to change it to successfully communicate that idea. The developers are being informed of how ideas are communicated in different cultures and then will change things appropriately so that the idea is still communicated in other locations.

As long as the message is preserved, I don't think it's censorship.

It is. I don't think you need to complain about something for it to be censorship but I'd just say there are too few Chinese people on here for it to have made much of an impact.

Then games have been being "censored" for their entire existence. SMB2. Angry Kirby boxart. Littlebigplanet. I could go on and on and on, there are thousands of examples, probably 100's of thousands of examples that aren't public knowledge. Why is it only now being brought up? See above earlier in my post for why I don't think the DOTA2 thing is censorship. The message Valve is trying to communicate with a skeleton character isn't "Hi China we hope to offend you", it's "this character is undead." So they change it accordingly. Is a message or idea being surpressed? No? Then it's not censorship.


Edit: another question for y'all. If you're so concerned about outside forces effecting artistic vision, why is no one criticizing Steam's 2 hour refund policy? It discourages <2 hour games. Maybe some developers want to make shorter games. With that refund policy, they're less likely to do so. That's an outside force effecting a developer's artistic vision. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really curious to know why you might be for one but not the other (besides the obvious answer of longer games being seen as good.)

 

[mugwhump]

You're getting hung up on the idea that only government can enforce censorship but I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that censorship requires the application of forceful suppression of speech by an external third party in a position of power. The existance of such a third party is either stated explicitly or easily inferred in each of the definitions you've posted.

No, it really isn't. Certainly not in such a way that would disqualify a localizer as such a third party.
Please, PLEASE tell me how the heck you got that from the Cambridge or Encarta definitions. It's just not there. The Academic American Encyclopedia states censorship in its broadest sense can be done "by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves." Wikipedia's definition would hardly excludes localizers, and vocabulary.com says "To "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience."

The only ones that agree with you are Oxford and Merriam-Webster's expanded definition (which I didn't see before). You can't lean on the dictionary as support for your argument. Which leaves you with basically nothing to refute an apparent majority who are, according to you, using the word wrong.

Let me see if I have this right: if a rights-holder changes their work for whatever reason and you don't know about it then it's not censorship. But if a rights-holder willingly changes an existing work and you don't like those changes then it's censorship. Right. Got it. Let's go with that definition. Makes total sense.

No. What? Seriously, what? It's not changes "for whatever reason," it's changes to remove offensive content. That's been stated multiple times. And the key point of my first sentence wasn't that the changes be made in secret, it was that the changes be made by the original authors before they release a final, definitive version.

And, from what I've seen, people don't give a fat flying fuck who owns the rights. If you weren't strongly involved in the original creative process, you will not be considered one of the original authors.

Also, for me at least (and several other gaffers), it's got nothing to do with me not liking the changes. I wouldn't have used the costumes in Fatal Frame, I thought Lin's outfits in XCX were creepy, and I thought face-rubbing was bloody stupid in Fire Emblem. But I still see their removal as censorship.

So localisation companies engaged by rights-holders are only sometime-censors. I see. Well, I guess you're consistent at least.

Fuck, I don't know (or care). Exactly how much censoring do you have to do before you become "a censor"? Does it matter? I don't think it does.

 

[Lo_Fi]

And, from what I've seen, people don't give a fat flying fuck who owns the rights. If you weren't strongly involved in the original creative process, you will not be considered one of the original authors.

But as long as the intended message is maintained, is it censorship?

Also, censorship typically isn't enjoyed by the person it's pushed on. But I've never seen a developer complain about it, only players. That leads me to think that it's just a misunderstanding of how games are made. Has anyone in this thread ever seen an example of a developer complain about their game being censored? I would honestly be fascinated to see a link, I've only ever seen non-game-developers complain about this.

 

[mugwhump]

If the developers REALLY hated India and the message of their hate of India was being surpressed, then yes, that's censorship. But that's not what's going on. They were just making a farm area. To communicate "this is a farm" to a player from India, you would need to change it to successfully communicate that idea. The developers are being informed of how ideas are communicated in different cultures and then will change things appropriately so that the idea is still communicated in other locations.

As long as the message is preserved, I don't think it's censorship.

Artists aren't concerned only with the message; they also care deeply for how that message is delivered. Many would argue that you can't arbitrarily change how something is communicated without affecting the meaning of the work itself. I find I agree with that point of view.

Then games have been being "censored" for their entire existence. SMB2. Angry Kirby boxart. Littlebigplanet. I could go on and on and on, there are thousands of examples, probably 100's of thousands of examples that aren't public knowledge. Why is it only now being brought up?

Yeah, we know. No, it's not "only now being brought up". People have been calling the removal and alteration of offensive content in video game localizations "censorship" since there have been localizations. See this post for examples. The changes are not a new thing, nor are people complaining about the changes a new thing. If you're wondering why it's been such a hot topic recently, I'd say it's because of NoA releasing 3 games with very controversial censorship in a 4-month span, and #FE apparently continuing the trend.

Edit: another question for y'all. If you're so concerned about outside forces effecting artistic vision, why is no one criticizing Steam's 2 hour refund policy? It discourages <2 hour games. Maybe some developers want to make shorter games. With that refund policy, they're less likely to do so. That's an outside force effecting a developer's artistic vision. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm really curious to know why you might be for one but not the other (besides the obvious answer of longer games being seen as good.)

People DO criticize that policy as discouraging short games. I imagine people don't call it censorship because it only affects games very indirectly, and because the games targeted are short ones rather than "offensive" ones. I've never seen anyone call steam's rating system a method of censoring bad games, either.

 

[Palculator]

Let me see if I have this right: if a rights-holder changes their work for whatever reason and you don't know about it then it's not censorship. But if a rights-holder willingly changes an existing work and you don't like those changes then it's censorship. Right. Got it. Let's go with that definition. Makes total sense.

You see the same nonsense from people saying things aren't censorship because they happen to approve of the changes. They just want to disassociate themselves from a nasty term.

And stop getting hung up over rightsholders because no one cares about paperwork. Warner Bros. own most of Kubrick's films and if they had altered A Clockwork Orange in response to its controvery we would still have called it censorship of Kubrick's work. Not rocket science.

Then games have been being "censored" for their entire existence. SMB2. Angry Kirby boxart. Littlebigplanet. I could go on and on and on, there are thousands of examples, probably 100's of thousands of examples that aren't public knowledge. Why is it only now being brought up? See above earlier in my post for why I don't think the DOTA2 thing is censorship. The message Valve is trying to communicate with a skeleton character isn't "Hi China we hope to offend you", it's "this character is undead." So they change it accordingly. Is a message or idea being surpressed? No? Then it's not censorship.

Yeah, they have. And I don't get what you're going on about with it "only being brought up now" because I've been speaking out against censorship since my early teens (though not on GAF, wasn't a member yet) and we even had success getting most of the censorship regarding violence rid of here in Germany by now. Or at least, have newer games not be censored, obviously the old ones still are. And Nazi stuff still isn't kosher either. There's even a site that has been going for 16 years now indexing around 9000 cases of censorship. Sad to see the pendulum swinging back from the people instead of idiotic politicians. Especially because nowadays it's mostly about sexualisation, which is even more stupid to get upset about than violence.

Simple fact is that art can offend, and it's within its rights to do so. If you give in, it's censorship, self- or otherwise, and for better or worse.

 

[Lo_Fi]

RE: "just being brought up now": until a few months ago, I have only ever seen discussion of censorship in relation to games in relation to things like Australia banning L4D and that sort of thing (notice how in those cases it's a country or location forcing the changes). Guess it's just an anecdotal thing.

Artists aren't concerned only with the message; they also care deeply for how that message is delivered. Many would argue that you can't arbitrarily change how something is communicated without affecting the meaning of the work itself. I find I agree with that point of view.

Who said anything about arbitrary? To localize something, you have to change some things. The developers or someone associated with them (in this case, a localization team which is chosen, not forced upon them) will work to make those changes. Do you think changing the cows to horses really substantially changes how the message of "this is a farm" is communicated? If you don't want anything changed, you don't want localization.

How would you like to have seen the cow example changed?

 

[mugwhump]

Who said anything about arbitrary? To localize something, you have to change some things. If you don't want anything changed, you don't want localization.

People generally make an exception for linguistic content, which is obviously going to need to be changed. See the second half of this post.

How would you like to have seen the cow example changed?

I would like for it to not have been changed at all. I don't like games being changed because people get offended for really stupid reasons. I suspect many Indian gamers feel the same way. I know tons of German and Australian gamers hate it. And I don't speak Chinese, but I'm sure you can look on weibo or something and find lots of Chinese gamers upset over their government's skellophobia.

 

[Lo_Fi]

And I don't get what you're going on about with it "only being brought up now" because I've been speaking out against censorship since my early teens (though not on GAF, wasn't a member yet)

Again, have you ever seen a developer complain about it?

 

[Palculator]

I know tons of German and Australian gamers hate it.

Fucking backing this up as hard as I can. People don't know how it's like when you let this idiocy actually become the norm.

 

[xevis]

No, it really isn't. Certainly not in such a way that would disqualify a localizer as such a third party.

Bloody hell mate.

The localiser works for the rights holder. They're not a third party and it's fucking stupid to keep suggesting such a company could act as a censor. They suggest changes and those changes need to be approved. Ergo localisation is not censorship.

Please, PLEASE tell me how the heck you got that from the Cambridge or Encarta definitions. It's just not there.

The Encarta entry talks about suppression. Suppression means forcibly putting an end to something. The Cambridge definition talks about removing anything offensive. It implies the application of an externally mandated standard; i.e. an external force.

The Academic American Encyclopedia states...

The word suppression appears in the second sentence of that definition. I didn't provide it. You did.

No. What? Seriously, what? It's not changes "for whatever reason," it's changes to remove offensive content. That's been stated multiple times. And the key point of my first sentence wasn't that the changes be made in secret, it was that the changes be made by the original authors before they release a final, definitive version.

"Offensive content" is entirely subjective. Your offensive is not my offensive is not someone else's offensive. For censorship to happen there needs to be an external standard that is enforced upon the rights holder. A localiser suggesting to change a bit of content after concluding it might be misunderstood outside its original context does not fit the definition of censorship.

And, from what I've seen, people don't give a fat flying fuck who owns the rights. If you weren't strongly involved in the original creative process, you will not be considered one of the original authors.

OK, I've had enough. You're just being dense.