'Censorship' in Gaming

[vampko]

Since the Mugen Souls thread has clearly been stated to be a topic where you can only talk about the edits that specifically occur in that game, I felt it was probably best to make a new topic to which people can direct their discussion if they still wish to discuss it. I think this is what Houk wanted?

Firstly we should probably start by clearing up some things.

Censorship = Government stepping in and using the law to ban/change/etc something.

Self-censorship = A corporation/group/company/individual/etc making those changes on their own accord.

Edits = Changes made to the work in question.

These are not textbook definitions, but they get the point across that needs to be gotten.

What I was trying to do in the Mugen Souls thread, was present a situation which hardly anyone could see as something they wanted in the game, and find out if they were really against 'censorship' as a whole, or they actually just didn't want the minigame taken out in the first place. I probably worded some things wrong, and for that I apologize. I could have handled that post much better.

Now, the biggest problem also seems to be: what constitutes 'censorship' and what constitutes edits?

Discuss away! (I will be linking this in the Mugen Souls thread so people can find it easier.)

[BDSMKane]

I think that censorship can be defined in another way as well. As I said in a post previously, I tend to view censorship as those with power telling those without what is appropriate. If we assume that NISA would of wanted to leave the mini-game intact for example, they were not able to because of the ESRB, Sony, and in the case of EU for sure, the law. They weren't actually censored, but they made a preemptive decision to avoid being censored.

Censorship often involves editing, and editing often involves self-censorship, so the meaning can become tangled. All localization is editing, but not all localization is censorship. The sadistic personality changes would qualify as both edits and self-censorship, regardless of the intent.

Generally speaking, since censorship is done to filter out objectionable content, any act that is removing objectionable content is going to automatically fall into inclusion with censorship. While the intent of adjusting Sadie's personality was not stated to be because of the language, the fact that her language was altered still constitutes as censorship.

Where the line should be drawn does become blurry though. If someone draws a picture of Neptune with clothes on is that censorship? What about the instance of the steam in the mini-game? The best way I can express my own point of view on the matter is that when you remove objectional content from a version of any media it meets the requirements for censorship of art.

On the larger scheme though, censorship is ever present in all aspects of our world as it restricts everything we see or hear. However, if you were to remove the censorship at the smallest level in individual forms of media, it would eventually be removed in all aspects of our life. So while censorship is affecting all creative works now, objecting to it on a smaller scale would achieve the same results eventually.

Edit: spelling correction.

[CheeseKao]

I don't really mind censorship if it's done on a small level. IMO, people these days are far too 'vocal' but hey, freedom of speech. The Mugen Souls thing isn't really a big deal. I've learned to be tolerant with things like this since there is no such thing as true freedom of speech in my country. I hope more people will learn to be more tolerant and understanding about companies' decisions to censor stuff. However, I think that 4kids level of censorship should be spoken against. I am in no way promoting the censorship of media but it's a bit disheartening to see people bash companies for the smallest bit of censorship.

[vampko]

I think it's just a matter of time before the media/etc find a new toy to bug. First, it was books, then it was movies, and then it was TV, and now it's videogames. If you'll notice, books don't face the same sort of oppression they did, nor do movies. TV even has pretty much gotten to do whatever it wanted. Neither of those are as free as books, but they're definitely more free than video games.

So, I really think it's only a matter of time till a new entertainment medium is found which will make it so video games are left alone for the most part.

@Cheese
Yes, 4Kids took things waaay too far. Yet I find it funny that when Nintendo does it, it's suddenly 'A-okay!'

[CheeseKao]

@Cheese
Yes, 4Kids took things waaay too far. Yet I find it funny that when Nintendo does it, it's suddenly 'A-okay!'

Mind if I ask what shows did Nintendo censor?

[rockmypunkk]

I'm okay with censorship as long as it doesn't take any from the core of the product

[vampko]

@Cheese
Yes, 4Kids took things waaay too far. Yet I find it funny that when Nintendo does it, it's suddenly 'A-okay!'

Mind if I ask what shows did Nintendo censor?

They turned Ace Attorney into a game set in Japan, to a game set in America. The only difference being that Ninty pulled it off in a much more complete and skillfull manner so most don't realize it was meant to be in Japan from the beginning. Though it was pretty obvious to me.

[CheeseKao]

They turned Ace Attorney into a show set in Japan, to a show set in America. The only difference being that Ninty pulled it off in a much more complete and skillfull manner so most don't realize it was meant to be in Japan from the beginning. Though it was pretty obvious to me.

I can't seem to find anything relevant on youtube. Got any links?

[myskaros]

While the intent of adjusting Sadie's personality was not stated to be because of the language, the fact that her language was altered still constitutes as censorship.

I'm only responding to this specific statement, since I don't really have time to devote to a lengthy response at the moment.

So if you're defining this as censorship, are you objecting it? If so, do you disagree on the mere premise that it's "technically" censorship or do you disagree because of the specific content being edited?

Let's pretend the character was not Sadie but, for example, Smarty. In the Japanese version, they used a lot of archaic Japanese and threw in random Latin words. NISA decided that this type of speech doesn't really portray a smart personality in Western culture and localized the script so that Smarty instead used a lot of technical and scientific terms.

I tried to think of a similar situation where it's not objectionable material being changed but the purpose behind the change was the same; if that didn't come across correctly... well, at least you understand my goal.

Point being, I disagree that the two cases should be considered differently because of what was being changed. I think the intent is more important than classification based on a technicality. In other words, if the intent is to create a smoother script for a particular audience, and you agree with that intent, it shouldn't matter what was being changed from the source material.

EDIT: Wow, this turned out longer than I thought it would... good thing I didn't try to respond to more points >_>

[vampko]

They turned Ace Attorney into a show set in Japan, to a show set in America. The only difference being that Ninty pulled it off in a much more complete and skillfull manner so most don't realize it was meant to be in Japan from the beginning. Though it was pretty obvious to me.

I can't seem to find anything relevant on youtube. Got any links?

Whoops xD

I meant to say 'Game', not 'show'
They're known as the 'Phoenix Wright' games

[rockmypunkk]

They turned Ace Attorney into a show set in Japan, to a show set in America. The only difference being that Ninty pulled it off in a much more complete and skillfull manner so most don't realize it was meant to be in Japan from the beginning. Though it was pretty obvious to me.

I can't seem to find anything relevant on youtube. Got any links?

Whoops xD

I meant to say 'Game', not 'show'
They're known as the 'Phoenix Wright' games

Aren't they also going to do a live action version of phoenix wright?

[CheeseKao]

I meant to say 'Game', not 'show'
They're known as the 'Phoenix Wright' games

I guess I can't really know what you're talking about then.

[BDSMKane]

Spoiler:

While the intent of adjusting Sadie's personality was not stated to be because of the language, the fact that her language was altered still constitutes as censorship.

I'm only responding to this specific statement, since I don't really have time to devote to a lengthy response at the moment.

So if you're defining this as censorship, are you objecting it? If so, do you disagree on the mere premise that it's "technically" censorship or do you disagree because of the specific content being edited?

Let's pretend the character was not Sadie but, for example, Smarty. In the Japanese version, they used a lot of archaic Japanese and threw in random Latin words. NISA decided that this type of speech doesn't really portray a smart personality in Western culture and localized the script so that Smarty instead used a lot of technical and scientific terms.

I tried to think of a similar situation where it's not objectionable material being changed but the purpose behind the change was the same; if that didn't come across correctly... well, at least you understand my goal.

Point being, I disagree that the two cases should be considered differently because of what was being changed. I think the intent is more important than classification based on a technicality. In other words, if the intent is to create a smoother script for a particular audience, and you agree with that intent, it shouldn't matter what was being changed from the source material.

EDIT: Wow, this turned out longer than I thought it would... good thing I didn't try to respond to more points >_>

You are right, that was quite a lengthy post, but a good one.

As to your question, yes, I am objecting to it and yes I qualify the Sadie change as censorship. I am also against it simply because it is censorship. I would have to compare the two to know for sure, but there is a chance I would actually prefer the new script; I still object to it though. You bring up a valid point though and a tricky one. As I said, the lines kind of blur sometimes, and that was only my own opinion about censorship. The reason I stick to only objectionable material is because of the potential for it being an unspoken or ulterior motive in those cases.

I posted on GameFAQs a while ago that if Mugen Souls passed with a T, the reasoning behind Sadie's change would be questioned by those who aren't very trusting. Since I never believe the motives of a company, I of course never trust their stated intent; nothing personal against NISA, they are higher on my trust level than most. Anytime the content is edited in a way that would potentially alter the rating though, my mind instantly thinks marketing and censorship.

However, as vampko said in the opening post, this is kind of about the differences between censorship and edits. That is my opinion on it, and I honestly don't think it is going to change anytime soon, but feel free to make more good posts if you want and I'll get around to them later; going to try to sleep for now.

[vampko]

Spoiler:

While the intent of adjusting Sadie's personality was not stated to be because of the language, the fact that her language was altered still constitutes as censorship.

I'm only responding to this specific statement, since I don't really have time to devote to a lengthy response at the moment.

So if you're defining this as censorship, are you objecting it? If so, do you disagree on the mere premise that it's "technically" censorship or do you disagree because of the specific content being edited?

Let's pretend the character was not Sadie but, for example, Smarty. In the Japanese version, they used a lot of archaic Japanese and threw in random Latin words. NISA decided that this type of speech doesn't really portray a smart personality in Western culture and localized the script so that Smarty instead used a lot of technical and scientific terms.

I tried to think of a similar situation where it's not objectionable material being changed but the purpose behind the change was the same; if that didn't come across correctly... well, at least you understand my goal.

Point being, I disagree that the two cases should be considered differently because of what was being changed. I think the intent is more important than classification based on a technicality. In other words, if the intent is to create a smoother script for a particular audience, and you agree with that intent, it shouldn't matter what was being changed from the source material.

EDIT: Wow, this turned out longer than I thought it would... good thing I didn't try to respond to more points >_>

You are right, that was quite a lengthy post, but a good one.

As to your question, yes, I am objecting to it and yes I qualify the Sadie change as censorship. I am also against it simply because it is censorship. I would have to compare the two to know for sure, but there is a chance I would actually prefer the new script; I still object to it though. You bring up a valid point though and a tricky one. As I said, the lines kind of blur sometimes, and that was only my own opinion about censorship. The reason I stick to only objectionable material is because of the potential for it being an unspoken or ulterior motive in those cases.

I posted on GameFAQs a while ago that if Mugen Souls passed with a T, the reasoning behind Sadie's change would be questioned by those who aren't very trusting. Since I never believe the motives of a company, I of course never trust their stated intent; nothing personal against NISA, they are higher on my trust level than most. Anytime the content is edited in a way that would potentially alter the rating though, my mind instantly thinks marketing and censorship.

However, as vampko said in the opening post, this is kind of about the differences between censorship and edits. That is my opinion on it, and I honestly don't think it is going to change anytime soon, but feel free to make more good posts if you want and I'll get around to them later; going to try to sleep for now.

No, this is about 'censorship' in gaming in general. Don't feel so limited in what you can talk about.

[Lyner Barfless]

I posted on GameFAQs a while ago that if Mugen Souls passed with a T, the reasoning behind Sadie's change would be questioned by those who aren't very trusting. Since I never believe the motives of a company, I of course never trust their stated intent; nothing personal against NISA, they are higher on my trust level than most. Anytime the content is edited in a way that would potentially alter the rating though, my mind instantly thinks marketing and censorship.

Keep in mind that ratings do not exist on a "sliding scale." That is to say, and I posted this elsewhere, but if you have a movie, say Toy Story, which was rated what, PG? Add two f-bombs to it and it HAS to get rated "R." Now edit out those two f-bombs. It doesn't "slide" down to PG-13, it goes to PG because the perceived offensive content is no longer in the title, and what remains is relatively tame.

So something getting rated Teen in the video game world is under the same set of rules. It doesn't mean "well it would've gotten Mature," at all. It's not a sliding scale.