Page 69 of 70

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:15 am
by Ringwraith
Which, in itself, is a change. Quite a large change actually, seeing as that probably leave all sorts of weird oddities in the script you'd have to either write around or just replace with equivalent phrases anyway.

Edit: This is what I get for typing out an explanation! Ninja-ing!(?)

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:37 am
by kanade2
It's true that it's still a change,but I think it's a change that would be preferred over just cutting the whole character from the game.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:40 am
by Seventh
kanade2 wrote:It's true that it's still a change,but I think it's a change that would be preferred over just cutting the whole character from the game.

That's not the point. The point is it shows that it couldn't have come through with doing nothing.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:52 am
by BDSMKane
Seventh wrote:
kanade2 wrote:It's true that it's still a change,but I think it's a change that would be preferred over just cutting the whole character from the game.

That's not the point. The point is it shows that it couldn't have come through with doing nothing.

That's not true at all. She wasn't a "child" in the JP version as such, the game was localized. She was turned into a "child" by Ghostlight, and they could have just as easily used a different term. The only way that this argument would hold any water is if Ghostlight didn't redo the entire script in another language already, but they -chose- to refer to her that way in the first place.

Now, it could be argued that, if in the Japanese version she is called a child in Japanese, that using any other term would be creative localization and would potentially upset people. But I'm pretty sure most people would prefer a word changed when translating(localizing) over content completely cut out.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:53 am
by Seventh
And that changing of a word or a term is still changing something.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:05 am
by BDSMKane
Seventh wrote:And that changing of a word or a term is still changing something.

Theoretically. We don't even know for sure if she is, in the Japanese version, called a "child" in Japanese. And while I know almost no Japanese, changing ichi > one is -also- still changing something, and the entire localization process is about changing something, but what exactly is getting changed, and how, is something that you personally have debated continuously in another thread. And if she was called "child" in Japanese, in the Japanese version, and Ghostlight would of localized that word as "young", would that have been crossing the localization line for you personally?

And what if she simply isn't called "child" in Japanese at all in the original release? What if she is just "Fiona", and they let the text and story display her growth instead of relying on expositional commentary to indicate an approximate age? What if Ghostlight truly added the word "child" on their own, when it wasn't necessary or in the Japanese version of the script, and created the entire issue on their own?

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:09 am
by Esper
Are we REALLY arguing semantics over changing the world "child" to "young"? It's localization. Going from おはよございます to "good morning" is change. The goal when localizing a game should be to change as little of the MEANING of what you're translating as possible while making it readable in the other language. Removing an entire section of a game goes completely against that.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:14 pm
by ArmyofDarkness
Seventh wrote:
kanade2 wrote:
Ringwraith wrote:They still changed it though. So not sure what you're getting at.

Clearly a change was necessary, they just had options as to what to change. It still shows the whole thing is a ebbing minefield.

I think the point that Esper is trying to make is that Ghostlight didn't have to remove the younger generation Fiona from the mini game as long as they removed any mention of the word " child" from the script .

Which is still a change.

omission of a phrase or a few numbers is infinitely better than removing mini games. If they went and changed all the characters ages in MS so that they could keep the mini game I'd probably buy it. I mean sure its dumb to change ages, but if its an option instead of removing the mini game then I'll take it.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 7:06 pm
by Seventh
Whether it's better or worse isn't the point here - I'm not arguing with that. The point is it's still a change.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 1:03 am
by Asianwarwallabe
Seventh wrote:Whether it's better or worse isn't the point here - I'm not arguing with that. The point is it's still a change.


And your point is utterly irrelevant to the topic they were discussing, wherein they deliberate that a harmless change is vastly preferable to outright removal (and would serve to adequately solve the AO issue.)

So, really, what's your point?

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:27 am
by Seventh
That a change of some kind would still have needed to take place. This has been said multiple times now.

I'm not disagreeing the point (if you can call that a point at this point) you're making, but that's a given - it doesn't have anything to do with what Ringwraith or I have been saying (which was the topic that's been being replied to here if you'll actually look at the posts, so it's actually plenty relevant as it's been what we've been saying from the start) and it certainly doesn't require repeating over and over.

Furthermore, the topic has been censorship and changes in games, and it's certainly on topic to recognize that a lesser change is still a change.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:30 am
by ArmyofDarkness
Seventh wrote:That a change of some kind would still have needed to take place. This has been said multiple times now.

I'm not disagreeing the point (if you can call that a point at this point) you're making, but that's a given - it doesn't have anything to do with what Ringwraith or I have been saying (which was the topic that's been being replied to here if you'll actually look at the posts, so it's actually plenty relevant as it's been what we've been saying from the start) and it certainly doesn't require repeating over and over.

Furthermore, the topic has been censorship and changes in games, and it's certainly on topic to recognize that a lesser change is still a change.

Don't you agree though, that at least getting the mini games in the Western retail versions is a much larger step than constantly removing them? As people have stated before you can't have everything in one go, you gotta slowly build up towards the goal. I just imagine that removing some words to allow the controversial parts of the game to remain intact is a much more progressive path.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:37 am
by neonie
ArmyofDarkness wrote:
Seventh wrote:That a change of some kind would still have needed to take place. This has been said multiple times now.

I'm not disagreeing the point (if you can call that a point at this point) you're making, but that's a given - it doesn't have anything to do with what Ringwraith or I have been saying (which was the topic that's been being replied to here if you'll actually look at the posts, so it's actually plenty relevant as it's been what we've been saying from the start) and it certainly doesn't require repeating over and over.

Furthermore, the topic has been censorship and changes in games, and it's certainly on topic to recognize that a lesser change is still a change.

Don't you agree though, that at least getting the mini games in the Western retail versions is a much larger step than constantly removing them? As people have stated before you can't have everything in one go, you gotta slowly build up towards the goal. I just imagine that removing some words to allow the controversial parts of the game to remain intact is a much more progressive path.


It's only a larger step if the loli's aren't removed from it. It every flat chested or loli type character has the CG's for her rubbing session removed then we're stuck back in status quo hell and Monomonpiece all over again.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:38 am
by Seventh
Certainly. I'd rather no changes or censorship at all if possible, even. The point that was being made though, or at least attempting to be made, was that a change at all, and of any kind, was still apparently necessary in the first place, which is something that is worth noting, even if that alternative change seems small compared to what we got.

Re: MSZ Content Editing Discussion Thread (Please Post -Here

Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:48 am
by neonie
Seventh wrote:Certainly. I'd rather no changes or censorship at all if possible, even. The point that was being made though, or at least attempting to be made, was that a change at all, and of any kind, was still apparently necessary in the first place, which is something that is worth noting, even if that alternative change seems small compared to what we got.


You're not actually making a real point here anymore you know lol. You're repeating that "a change had to be made" but everyone already knows that. We already agree with that, so why do you keep repeating it? Here let me reiterate for everyone one last time:

1.A change had to be made.
2. Yes but it didn't have to be as bad of a change.
3. Loop points one and two as necessary.