Poll: Star Ocean5 censored in the west, misses the point still

[Zhukov]

When a change is made to a piece of art because of FEAR, as it was in the case of Star Ocean, that's censorship. And you're right, people aren't going to notice this, and that should be what scares you. When free expression is stifled and people don't notice, the people who are doing the oppressing can operate unchecked. People really need to start reading their history books and see how the modern authoritarian countries started to slide in to the state they are now. I'll give a hint, it started with the restriction of free speech and free expression.

Aye. Wise words my friend.

First they set about giving video game anime girls larger underwear, then the next thing you know your children are being shipped to the gulags.

When softcore porn is but a distant memory and social justice death squads roam unchecked through the streets people will cower in their homes and whisper in hushed voices, "Sylveria foretold this day. He tried to warn us! Oh why did we, in our supreme complacency, ignore his prophecy? Why did we not listen?"

Always remember. First they came for the anime panty shots.

 

[Fox12]

Yep, I'm a prude for not wanting to bang a child : /

Spoiler

I don't think Square is the only one missing the point.

It says an awful lot about about a person that their immediate reaction to the idea of a an early-teenage girl in a dress wearing underwear less modest than an adult diaper is "Well clearly this is about someone wanting to bang it!"

Yes, because I'm sure the developers put her in a thong and let you look up her skirt for thoroughly non-sexual reasons. Just own it. The people who get upset about this kind of stuff wanted to look at little girls in their underwear. I think that's fucked up, but I'm a prude, like Chris Hansen, so what do I know?

Supposedly, in this case, the characters at least 18. I wonder if she was originally 18, or if they changed it for the American release. If she is around 18 then that's at least a little better. It's still Pervy, but at least it isn't bordering on pedophilia. Most of the time, though, the girl is around 12 or 14. I'm not sure how people can defend the fetisization of children with a straight face.

 

[FPLOON]

At first, I thought about the time Woody laughed at Buzz for falling for the oldest trick in the book... But, then I was reminded of this:

Spoiler: From Toy Story 3

https://media.giphy.com/media/avFEkQo2I73fa/giphy.gif

I don't know why, but it fits much more within the context of this news...

Other than that, there's such a thing as "non-sexy panties"? An in universally "non-sexy panties"? Because I'm pretty sure anything can be "sexy" when you think about it... and I don't want to think about it...

 

[Ishigami]

Okay I will probably regret this but who or what is Captain Commando?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

This still bothers me less than the fact that Borderlands 2 dialed down the gore so as to be able to sell the game as "uncensored" everywhere.

 

[JimB]

Okay I will probably regret this but who or what is Captain Commando?

Minor Capcom character. One of the better fighters in a couple of the (Marvel franchise) vs. Capcom games. If you're asking about the option in the poll, I assume it is a reference to the euphemism "going commando," which for reasons I've never been clear on, refers to not wearing underwear with your pants.

 

[Fox12]

People don't like being called out on their actions in video games. It makes them feel bad.

Ah yes, that is precisely why noone thought Spec Ops: The Line was any good.

Strange, that was exactly one of my examples. Given the backlash people had against being called bad guys for doing what the game told them, especially the civilians incident, it sets this up exactly. People were upset that Spec Ops told them they were bad for doing what they were told.

Interestingly enough, the people who praised it also seem to have picked up on the discomfort, or these scenes wouldn't have had any emotional resonance. It relies entirely on us, the player, having a dislike of being treated like the villain even when we act like one.

It could be that some of the backlash resulted in the feeling that the player had not really a choice in the matter, but being chastised for it it anyway. In games like Skyrim, there were a lot of possibilities for the players to act evil, and I don't think I heard anyone complain about that. I know a lot of people who relish in the chance to be villains in these kind of games, or just generally an unpleasant fellow like Renegade-Sheppard.

I generally thought Skyrim had a very interesting morality system, where you could either do a certain quest and fullfill every evil task that comes with it, or simply not do it, and miss out on the rewards. Granted, I didn't exactly feel like this was planned either. I had a lot of cases where I didn't want to act evil, but had no other choice in the quest, so I had to either go totally against the morals the character I was roleplaying, or leave the quest eternally unfullfilled. Both not really desirable outcomes.

I think it's about accountability. Are you responsible if you were "just following orders?" You were still complicit in the crime. That was the primary reasoning behind the holocaust.

Alternatively, look at the Soul's games. They intentionally make you feel bad for killing a wounded animal, like Sif, or sickly Lady Astrea. Most players feel awful about this, but it's the only way to proceed. They always make the decision in the end. Think about it.

 

[ckam]

I'm of the "Don't censor shit, just translate" camp. Whatever was the original intention, it should just stay that way.

 

[Ishigami]

Okay I will probably regret this but who or what is Captain Commando?

Minor Capcom character. One of the better fighters in a couple of the (Marvel franchise) vs. Capcom games. If you're asking about the option in the poll, I assume it is a reference to the euphemism "going commando," which for reasons I've never been clear on, refers to not wearing underwear with your pants.

Okay thanks.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I think it's about accountability. Are you responsible if you were "just following orders?" You were still complicit in the crime. That was the primary reasoning behind the holocaust.

Alternatively, look at the Soul's games. They intentionally make you feel bad for killing a wounded animal, like Sif, or sickly Lady Astrea. Most players feel awful about this, but it's the only way to proceed. They always make the decision in the end. Think about it.

Well, if it is the only way to proceed, then it is not really a choice, is it? The "Decision" is not "Do I want to finish off this animal", but "Do I want to proceed with this game?" I don't think I ever felt guilty for doing something in a game when it was the only option I had. Now, if there were a way to spare them, and take a longer, more difficult part or something, then it would be a decision the player could feel guilty about.

 

[Fox12]

I think it's about accountability. Are you responsible if you were "just following orders?" You were still complicit in the crime. That was the primary reasoning behind the holocaust.

Alternatively, look at the Soul's games. They intentionally make you feel bad for killing a wounded animal, like Sif, or sickly Lady Astrea. Most players feel awful about this, but it's the only way to proceed. They always make the decision in the end. Think about it.

Well, if it is the only way to proceed, then it is not really a choice, is it? The "Decision" is not "Do I want to finish off this animal", but "Do I want to proceed with this game?" I don't think I ever felt guilty for doing something in a game when it was the only option I had. Now, if there were a way to spare them, and take a longer, more difficult part or something, then it would be a decision the player could feel guilty about.

I get what you're saying, but think of it this way. If you were a Nazi soldier, and you were ordered to shoot a Jew, would you really have a choice? Technically you could refuse, but the consequences could be dire. Especially if you had family to support. Is that really so different from Spec Ops? You're just following orders, after all. Like the ending says, someone has to take accountability. Are you really innocent, just because you're the player? And what if the White Phosphorus scene was an accident? Does that change the outcome? It's food for thought.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I think it's about accountability. Are you responsible if you were "just following orders?" You were still complicit in the crime. That was the primary reasoning behind the holocaust.

Alternatively, look at the Soul's games. They intentionally make you feel bad for killing a wounded animal, like Sif, or sickly Lady Astrea. Most players feel awful about this, but it's the only way to proceed. They always make the decision in the end. Think about it.

Well, if it is the only way to proceed, then it is not really a choice, is it? The "Decision" is not "Do I want to finish off this animal", but "Do I want to proceed with this game?" I don't think I ever felt guilty for doing something in a game when it was the only option I had. Now, if there were a way to spare them, and take a longer, more difficult part or something, then it would be a decision the player could feel guilty about.

I get what you're saying, but think of it this way. If you were a Nazi soldier, and you were ordered to shoot a Jew, would you really have a choice? Technically you could refuse, but the consequences could be dire. Especially if you had family to support. Is that really so different from Spec Ops? You're just following orders, after all. Like the ending says, someone has to take accountability. Are you really innocent, just because you're the player? And what if the White Phosphorus scene was an accident? Does that change the outcome? It's food for thought.

Don't talk to me about Nazis, boy, I AM german.

But jest aside, we are still talking about video games. More often than not you only have the choice between "do what the game tells you" or "shut the thing off and go mastur... *ahem* meet some friends". This artificality of choice does normally not revoke the same feelings as any real life situation, much less those of one of the greatest disasters in human history.

Undertale works better in my opinion, because the player HAS the options available for a desirable outcome, the first time around he is just not gonna realize it, especially if he is genre-savy.

 

[loa]

All I see is a heads up that star ocean 5 is not for me because it's full of annoying, unwanted fanservice.
I'm just weird and don't pop in a shin megami tensei game to see panties, I would like a story first and build my characters to do tons of damage.

He explained why the game's spellcaster, Fiore, is wearing such a revealing outfit. "Fiore uses a lot of displayed crests on her skin to cast curses. That was part of her setting."

"She's breathing through her skin."
Yeah right. Where are her sweet tats she's covered in then? I don't see any.

That said, etna didn't ruin disgaea for me nor did I particularly care about her but that character actually had a reason behind her being "titillating" since her design is inspired by a succubus and the game plays in the underworld. You'd run into that and to some extent, making you uncomfortable is arguably the point.

Spoiler

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The culture is one where the chars are portrayed to be solely devoted to their fans so they kinda bring it upon themselves with making that type of character and then changing it up half way through.

Maybe that's just plain creepy anyways. The culture where that's expected is the problem, not failing to meet its expectations.

The thing is that you can't really say this. There's a chicken and egg dynamic at play here. It is not clear if the culture existed first and this stuff is made to fill it or if they created the culture themselves in how they develop characters and simply failed to go through with it in that instance.

In my experience, at one point blaming the fans would have made sense but now the companies promoting this culture are too predatory and exploititive to garner any sympathy at all. Like, I appreciate parts of it but I am not the type of person to lose contact with reality and can just enjoy the fantasy for what it is, so in my mind the fan side is good, it's fueled by passion. Something like idol groups and in a much lesser degree certain anime stuff are designed with the expectation of an irrational degree of devotion from the fans, which is used to profit. Ah well, no anime has anything as bad as Idol cds with handshake event tickets in them, so I can feel happy supporting them still lol.

 

[Phasmal]

Okay I know I need better glasses but I honestly can't see the difference between the two pictures in the link in the OP.

So... yeah, I doubt it's that extreme.
Also kinda what the fuck. I can honestly say I've never felt the need to check out a video game character's panties before.
I mean, to each their own but also.... pfffffffffffffffft.

 

[loa]

I think they might only show up when she's casting the curses; I think I see one right here:

Well if that truly was so integral to her design they should've gone full jack from mass effect 2 to leave no doubt about it.
Like, why even give her some weirdo schoolgirl uniform inspired armor that covers her chest.

At least then that character would have definition and wouldn't look so generic and forgettable and maybe we would come close to the "sci fi" scenario star ocean claims to be.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I'm of the "Don't censor shit, just translate" camp. Whatever was the original intention, it should just stay that way.

Those two viewpoints are diametrically opposed though. If you want to convey the original intent, you can't "just translate" it. In most cases, literal translations don't make sense or fail to convey the original intention, especially with a culture and language as different to us as japanese. For example, most japanese wordplays and jokes can't be translated, so the translator has to come up with a completely new one to carry the intention over.

So in most cases, the translator has to translate freely and change or, in some cases, discard and replace the text to carry over the intention.

HAVING SAID THAT, these changes should only be made to preserve the original intent, and not for marketing purposes or to assimilate something into western values and culture.

I'm of the "Don't censor shit, just translate" camp. Whatever was the original intention, it should just stay that way.

Especially with some forms of localization. I may not have been able to put into the exact words the feeling of wrong I felt when I saw this "localization" as a wee babe when it first appeared on television/vhs...

<youtube=vWgxH2KG4ts>

...but now I suspect that feeling was "...they think we're morons >:/"

...Yeah, that is excactly what I was talking about.

 

[Fox12]

I think it's about accountability. Are you responsible if you were "just following orders?" You were still complicit in the crime. That was the primary reasoning behind the holocaust.

Alternatively, look at the Soul's games. They intentionally make you feel bad for killing a wounded animal, like Sif, or sickly Lady Astrea. Most players feel awful about this, but it's the only way to proceed. They always make the decision in the end. Think about it.

Well, if it is the only way to proceed, then it is not really a choice, is it? The "Decision" is not "Do I want to finish off this animal", but "Do I want to proceed with this game?" I don't think I ever felt guilty for doing something in a game when it was the only option I had. Now, if there were a way to spare them, and take a longer, more difficult part or something, then it would be a decision the player could feel guilty about.

I get what you're saying, but think of it this way. If you were a Nazi soldier, and you were ordered to shoot a Jew, would you really have a choice? Technically you could refuse, but the consequences could be dire. Especially if you had family to support. Is that really so different from Spec Ops? You're just following orders, after all. Like the ending says, someone has to take accountability. Are you really innocent, just because you're the player? And what if the White Phosphorus scene was an accident? Does that change the outcome? It's food for thought.

Don't talk to me about Nazis, boy, I AM german.

But jest aside, we are still talking about video games. More often than not you only have the choice between "do what the game tells you" or "shut the thing off and go mastur... *ahem* meet some friends". This artificality of choice does normally not revoke the same feelings as any real life situation, much less those of one of the greatest disasters in human history.

Undertale works better in my opinion, because the player HAS the options available for a desirable outcome, the first time around he is just not gonna realize it, especially if he is genre-savy.

Fair enough : P

I consider Spec-OPs to be a bit of a flawed masterpiece, but I appreciate what it was trying to do. It raises an interesting question, though. Would players be okay with a game that asked you to kill civilians if the result was that the game ended early, and you were either killed or sent to prison? It's an interesting idea. Undertale was excellent, and I think Papers Please did a good job of exploring that as well.

I think I liked the Dark Souls formula best, where you often did have a choice, but the game intentionally didn't tell you. You had to figure it out for yourself by not following the rules that you assumed were unavoidable. I would highly recommend it, if you haven't played it.