Seventh wrote:neonie wrote:Seventh wrote:Tohka wrote:The age censorship in Senran was the decision of some company head, not the ESRB. It was unnecessary and stupid, but is far less of an issue than the crap NISA is pulling.
Doesn't matter - the fact is that someone, somewhere made it so that it couldn't be released without that happening.
Nope. "Wanted" it to be released that way. Couldn't implies there is no way the game could have released without it, if it was just some higher up at a company making a moral call, that's about as far from "couldn't" as humanly possible.
No, couldn't. Unless there's some version of the game out there in English with the ages still?
It if it was because of someone's want, the end result was that it couldn't be released without that change - otherwise it would have been.
No the end result is not that it couldn't be released without the change, it was that it wasn't released without that change.
What happened or didn't happen has no effect on the potential things that could have happened.
Could not means there was no possible way to release it without the change. If the change was made because an individual judgement from an executive or other staff, than that means that there were multiple possible endings.
say the one who made the decision was a single manager;
say that manager couldn't attend the meeting where this decision was made;
say that manager delegated his decision on this subject to a subordinate who did not hold the same level of conviction regarding needing to remove ages;
say this substitute manager was then convinced that keeping the ages unchanged was a better decision, and signed off on that.
In the above possible situation, the game would be released with the unchanged ages, clearly this means that it was a possibility for this to happen in the situation of a management decision to remove ages.
Thus, "could not" is not an accurate phrase to use in this situation, regardless of the probability of the above situation occurring or not.