Escapist News Now: Bravely Default Censored in Western Market

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Part of me says who cares, and the other part of me says... Who the fuck cares? I guess I see the logic just fine, but I mean, really? As if the rest of the western gaming world doesn't sexualize people. It's just the age part I guess? Fair enough, sorta. If this is the case though, how the hell did the Dancers and Nightseekers in Etrian Odyssey 4 make it past this "censorship" (Not really censorship)? THAT is a curious question. I'm sporting a super tight bikini clad loli girl kicking ass in my party in that game. Why? The game had her and was pretty much begging for it :3

IKWerewolf:
In Western Countries the average age of consent is 16-18 and bringing the age up to 18 would make sense for western audiences.

Only if by "Western" you mean "North American".

Neronium:

[T]he age of consent in Japan is actually only 13 years old, while in most European countries it's 16-18 and in the US it's 18.

A lot of people think the age of consent as being 18, because that's what it is in California (i.e. Hollywood). In fact, in the U.S. the age of consent is 16-18. It's 16 in Canada.

In most European countries, it's 14-16.

Just say that they're 16-18 and keep the models the same, doesn't make a shred of difference.
It all ends up looking the same anyway in this kind of game.

Who even asks for this kind of censorship in Europe?
I see 13 year olds sexualizing themselves non-stop here, especially at the pool or the beach.

On the flip side, I don't like bikini outfits in games. Not because of sexualization, but because they're often examples of lazy design.

This is not censorship. The word I believe you're looking for is 'localization'. 'Censorship' implies an outside organization is preventing information from being transmitted. That's not what's happening here. This is a case of a private company deciding they will sell more copies and make more money if they make the version sold in one country superficially different from the version sold in another. And that's their right. They own the IP.

Not really an issue, the changes are cosmetic at best.

The "issue" I have with this kind of thing (although that is a big word here, I personally don't like revealing armor), is that devs just take action to censor their own product before any questions were asked.

When self-censoring becomes such a normal and ingrained thing to do, well that's not okay in my book.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
This is not censorship. The word I believe you're looking for is 'localization'. 'Censorship' implies an outside organization is preventing information from being transmitted. That's not what's happening here. This is a case of a private company deciding they will sell more copies and make more money if they make the version sold in one country superficially different from the version sold in another. And that's their right. They own the IP.

AKA, it's self-censorship.

LifeCharacter:

Would you rather be seen as a prude when it comes to children in lingerie, or be seen like everyone else sees Japan, that creepy purveyor of pedophilia, used panties, train molestations, naked game shows, and treating women poorly?

And, if you want to talk more about the reality of Japan than just what most people think of it, Japan comes across a lot more prudish than the west. We have an issue with little girls in sexualized clothing in some games, whereas Japan censors their pornography, that thing that's supposed to be sexualized and titillating.

What makes me wonder, is when I say that the sexualization is just an example, meaning it's irrelevant to my point of view or argument I was making, someone goes and asks me a question like this.

Lucky for me, most of what you wrote underlines my point.

It's self-censorship and I can't really see the issue here.

If it wasn't done, then chances are at least one group would be screaming bloody murder of it. Sure sexualisation happens in other mediums and it's worse; it's just that video-games still an easier target.And frankly I'm betting that Western games get censored over there, rightly or wrongly. The fact that Square is covering it's ass before the crap hits he fan is a smart move though.

They're animated stylized characters in a completely fictional universe and context. I'll never understand why so many people knee jerk react to this kind of thing as if its the work of satan. But then I grew up on anime and manga so I guess being use to fictional characters of varies implied ages having certain designs/outfits whatever is just another thing I don't really see any reason to make a fuss about.

I mean if you don't like that kind of thing then don't play/watch the media that has it, simple as that.

Smilomaniac:
What makes me wonder, is when I say that the sexualization is just an example, meaning it's irrelevant to my point of view or argument I was making, someone goes and asks me a question like this.

Lucky for me, most of what you wrote underlines my point.

So all your complaints about how something like this is an example of those in the east thinking the west is full of sensitive prudes (and that they're right about that), were irrelevant to your point? And me pointing out how there are worse things to be seen as, and that the east is likely far more prudish than the west when you get down to it proves this point of yours?

Could you elaborate on what your actual point is, and how I somehow proved your point, because I'm not getting it. Was it that part about you worrying about us supposedly missing out on "things" that might exist but you're not sure but it's a problem that needs to be addressed apparently?

Smilomaniac:

The question is, do we really want other parts of the world treating the west like oversensitive prudes?
The sexualization is just an example, it could be anything.

This operates under the assumption that it is normally the Japanese (or other country) who set the standard here when routinely it's us. The treatment of the game in Europe is no doubt a direct response to other titles being pulled from stores or simply not released. Thus, it's in no way preemptive. We've established these things.

I can't answer the question as it's a false premise.

However, Japan can think what it wants of the West, and I really don't care. I care even less when you consider that groping is so common that they actually have to have separate train cars for women. They can judge us by our society's standards, and we can do likewise.

[REDACTED]:
It isn't censorship if the creator's do it of their own volition. That's just localization. This is really no different than Nier being released in the west with an older, burlier protagonist.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

Elvis Starburst:
Part of me says who cares, and the other part of me says... Who the fuck cares? I guess I see the logic just fine, but I mean, really? As if the rest of the western gaming world doesn't sexualize people. It's just the age part I guess? Fair enough, sorta. If this is the case though, how the hell did the Dancers and Nightseekers in Etrian Odyssey 4 make it past this "censorship" (Not really censorship)? THAT is a curious question. I'm sporting a super tight bikini clad loli girl kicking ass in my party in that game. Why? The game had her and was pretty much begging for it :3

You're in Canadia, yes?

I don't know how frequent it is, but there have been more than a few times where the European localisation and the NA one are done different. And we still have no word as to whether this will happen with the US version, too.

Fdzzaigl:
The "issue" I have with this kind of thing (although that is a big word here, I personally don't like revealing armor), is that devs just take action to censor their own product before any questions were asked.

Who says no questions were asked? It's not like this game popped up in a vacuum. At the very least, ratings boards have to certify the game, and there's past precedent.

LifeCharacter:

So all your complaints about how something like this is an example of those in the east thinking the west is full of sensitive prudes (and that they're right about that), were irrelevant to your point? And me pointing out how there are worse things to be seen as, and that the east is likely far more prudish than the west when you get down to it proves this point of yours?

Could you elaborate on what your actual point is, and how I somehow proved your point, because I'm not getting it. Was it that part about you worrying about us supposedly missing out on "things" that might exist but you're not sure but it's a problem that needs to be addressed apparently?

There's a difference between considering the issue that I am pointing out and resorting to indirectly accuse me of being a perv that enjoys underage girls in lingerie. I hope you see the disctinction as well as your initial comment as a tasteless one.

The point is cultural bias and missing out on content due to those prejudices.
What your post underlined, is how you described "like everyone else sees Japan" and how those exact points of view can result in the media industry cutting content.

Let me be clear on this point; I don't care that I'm missing out on borderline pedophilic pinup girls. I care that someone, somewhere is compromising their work on behalf of "our" sensitivities.

Are Japanese themselves a rigid culture when it comes to sex? Definitely. That doesn't make it alright to cut content on their behalf either and they will regulate what is sent their way themselves. As long as these products don't break any laws, then it should be up to the consumer, not the company nor the state.

That's my point and that's my only consideration. It's my personal beef, it's not a ruleset that I think should be applied on everyones behalf because I think so. I'm allowed to be annoyed, actually disgusted, with that train of thought.

Zachary Amaranth:

This operates under the assumption that it is normally the Japanese (or other country) who set the standard here when routinely it's us. The treatment of the game in Europe is no doubt a direct response to other titles being pulled from stores or simply not released. Thus, it's in no way preemptive. We've established these things.

I can't answer the question as it's a false premise.

However, Japan can think what it wants of the West, and I really don't care. I care even less when you consider that groping is so common that they actually have to have separate train cars for women. They can judge us by our society's standards, and we can do likewise.

The standard? I'm just asking for products the way they were designed(not counting translation, even though far more content is lost in that regard).

Yea I'm gonna go ahead say I'm okay with this. I was about read to break out the popcorn for some good ol fashion 1984 torch and pitch forking but this makes too much sense. Age limits have always seemed arbitrary to me but I understand the need for them and to pick a number and stick with it rather than endlessly debate. I do have a problem with sexualization of "child-like" characters in any medium. It just rubs me the wrong way. I get artistic freedom and all but I do draw the line here. Also as I get older I prefer to keep any "eye candy" separate from my entertainment; it's just too distracting. I get lots of "Wait, what just happened? Where's the rewind button? I was too busy staring at the low-cut top" moments. That's what mods are for. ;)

Zachary Amaranth:

Fdzzaigl:
The "issue" I have with this kind of thing (although that is a big word here, I personally don't like revealing armor), is that devs just take action to censor their own product before any questions were asked.

Who says no questions were asked? It's not like this game popped up in a vacuum. At the very least, ratings boards have to certify the game, and there's past precedent.

In the Joystiq news, it was stated that square enix made this decision beforehand to prevent any problems afterward, to avoid similar problems as were had with Dead or Alive: Dimensions.
I searched for rating by the ESRB on Bravely Default, it hasn't been rated for Europe yet as far as I can see.

To me it looks like a knee jerk reaction where the company self-censors itself before the public has even given a reaction.

Has anyone taken a look at most 15 year old American girls? They pretty much dress scantily anyways. This kind of localization or censorship doesn't make sense.

Smilomaniac:
There's a difference between considering the issue that I am pointing out and resorting to indirectly accuse me of being a perv that enjoys underage girls in lingerie. I hope you see the disctinction as well as your initial comment as a tasteless one.

How did I accuse you of being a perv who enjoys underage girls? I pointed out that that's how people see Japan and wondered whether you think that image is somehow better than that of someone who's a bit prudish when it comes to underage girls. I didn't accuse you, directly or indirectly, of anything.

The point is cultural bias and missing out on content due to those prejudices.
What your post underlined, is how you described "like everyone else sees Japan" and how those exact points of view can result in the media industry cutting content.

I'm pretty sure people don't just cut content because "It's from pervy Japan." That might be a reason why people might not localize something (it not being seen as profitable to do so) but I'm pretty sure they go through the work and determine what gets changed based upon the specific things that they feel might need changing. I'm sure loli lingerie would receive a bit of editing regardless of where it came from.

Let me be clear on this point; I don't care that I'm missing out on borderline pedophilic pinup girls. I care that someone, somewhere is compromising their work on behalf of "our" sensitivities.

Compromising, while certainly the case, is a buzz word in the same vein as censorship. The compromise is pathetically insignificant, and pretending like this is a symptom of some widespread problem of important parts of a work being changed because of "our" sensitivities requires a bit more than the west having Loli A be 18 and have an extra bit of clothing on. Obviously some things in a work shouldn't be changed, but unimportant details like a character's age or lack of a tiny amount of extra clothing don't qualify, nor should they be considered evidence of more significant edits.

Are Japanese themselves a rigid culture when it comes to sex? Definitely. That doesn't make it alright to cut content on their behalf either and they will regulate what is sent their way themselves. As long as these products don't break any laws, then it should be up to the consumer, not the company nor the state.

It should definitely be up to the fucking company what it does with it's product. It's the one who has to spend all the damn money localizing their product, and if throwing on some extra clothing onto a character or upping their ages to make them slightly less sexualized makes their product a bit more appealing to the new market that's what they should do. I'll take them compromising the oh-so-important character ages and lingerie than risking them doing less well in the new market and just deciding localization isn't worth it.

LifeCharacter:

It should definitely be up to the fucking company what it does with it's product. It's the one who has to spend all the damn money localizing their product, and if throwing on some extra clothing onto a character or upping their ages to make them slightly less sexualized makes their product a bit more appealing to the new market that's what they should do. I'll take them compromising the oh-so-important character ages and lingerie than risking them doing less well in the new market and just deciding localization isn't worth it.

In that case, we completely disagree.
I'm not oblivious to the potential market increase and I do believe the company is entitled to sell it however they want, assuming the creative department doesn't mind(they're undoubtedly flexible on a lot of points).

If you don't mind getting a product that is less or different from the intended design, that's fine. I do.

Smilomaniac:
In that case, we completely disagree.
I'm not oblivious to the potential market increase and I do believe the company is entitled to sell it however they want, assuming the creative department doesn't mind(they're undoubtedly flexible on a lot of points).

If you don't mind getting a product that is less or different from the intended design, that's fine. I do.

If the change was significant or important to any actual degree, I'd agree with you, but it's a fucking costume change. You lose more of the original meaning by simply translating the thing, so making this seem like a symptom of some major issue with localized works is just ridiculous.

LifeCharacter:

If the change was significant or important to any actual degree, I'd agree with you, but it's a fucking costume change. You lose more of the original meaning by simply translating the thing, so making this seem like a symptom of some major issue with localized works is just ridiculous.

(I love that you added translation, something I myself wrote a few posts up)

Well, it's important and significant to me and it's not limited to this game.

In fact, I'd like to present almost every game made since early 00's that have cut creative and original content to become games for the masses as an example. Forgive me while I go off on this tangent...
I know that people(like me) love to brag about how the games they had when they grew up were better, but the thing is, in a lot of ways they were. Playing a game and clicking mindlessly through the dialogue options back then, could kill your character, end the game or put enormous obstacles in your way. Today, games aren't willing to let you fail and provide a large amount of safeguards to keep you safe, in fact you have to make an effort to fail. I'm not saying this particular example is what makes or breaks a game, but that alone adds some immersion and personal investment.

What does this have to do with localization? Overall, nothing. It's just another symptom and reason to decrease the games potential, but making it more marketable. For me, that's another nail in the coffin and I feel absolutely entitled to gripe about it, because it's important to me that more companies will stop compromising games for the sake of potential revenue.

While I can't prove to you that this is an actual symptom, I hope that your own experience and knowledge can see how my opinion on this might be reasonable and how it might be indicative of gaming as a whole might need a few do overs.
You have to distinguish between this example and the many other examples out there, otherwise yeah, it is ridiculous, but then again you should've known that, seeing as I specifically stated that this particular example is largely insignificant.

So they improved the game to comply with anti child pornography laws, I see a win/win.

I don't see why both needed to be changed. Either change the costumes and keep the age, or change the age and keep the costumes. I don't see the necessity of both changing. But that's just me. Besides that, I'm mostly indifferent. If they censored the narrative or gameplay, I'd be pissed, but visual censorship I'm fine with. Why do I need them to dress them in scantily clad outfits when I have /b/ and /h/?(just kidding please don't kill me)

Zachary Amaranth:

[REDACTED]:
It isn't censorship if the creator's do it of their own volition. That's just localization. This is really no different than Nier being released in the west with an older, burlier protagonist.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

It would depend on the reason why the creators alter their works wouldn't it?

If the change was a preemptive move done to prevent wasting time because the creators knew it wouldn't get passed the censorship people then yeah, there's little difference. However if the motive for the change was making the game more desirable for that localization then I don't think the censorship label applies. Lest it be applied to every company that ever existed.

edit: First post and it's a double :(

I blame the "I ACCEPT" screen.

My opinion on the original matter I suppose is well it's their decision to make. Sucks to be in the west if you really wanted the unedited original but that's how it is.

If people are really so eager to get the uncensored version there's always a petition, not that Nintendo really listens to them.

editception:

Well that was stupid of me. Not all games released on the 3DS are made/produced by Nintendo. So the petition might work, I don't know if Square Enix has said anything to the contrary.

Zachary Amaranth:
Self-censorship is still censorship.

No it isn't. I self-censor all the time, modifying my speech in different ways to better get along with whoever I'm speaking with at the moment. Am I violating my own rights by doing so?

The people behind this game made a change to their own game to make sure it sold more in a certain market. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Smilomaniac:

The standard? I'm just asking for products the way they were designed(not counting translation, even though far more content is lost in that regard).

What you asked was whether or not I wanted to be treated by/viewed by other countries as though we were prudes based on this concept they were censoring things before they reached our shores. I'm indicating that's not really the case. We have a more than forty year history of demanding anime and such be censored, or censoring it ourselves, etc.

Fdzzaigl:

I searched for rating by the ESRB on Bravely Default, it hasn't been rated for Europe yet as far as I can see.

I honestly wasn't aware the American ratings board handled European releases. It does have a PEGI rating, however.

Lok'tar:

It would depend on the reason why the creators alter their works wouldn't it?

Honestly, no. It's still censoring one's self. I'm not sure why people are that freaked by the concept.

[REDACTED]:
Am I violating my own rights by doing so?

Who said anything about violating rights? That's just playing word games. You're still censoring yourself, you admitted it in that post. You self-censor all the time.

Zachary Amaranth:

Honestly, no. It's still censoring one's self. I'm not sure why people are that freaked by the concept.

I think because it somewhat dilutes the term. If it's treated as it originally was, altering work for any reason to be more acceptable, then it encompasses so many things that it almost loses meaning. I assume that's why so many treat it as changes made against the creators will, as it gives a clearer intent.

Zachary Amaranth:
Who said anything about violating rights? That's just playing word games. You're still censoring yourself, you admitted it in that post. You self-censor all the time.

Wait, what? If we're not talking about censorship in the "violating rights to free speech" sense, why do we care? Lumping self-censorship in with the actually dangerous kinds of censorship just makes the entire discussion meaningless.

Smilomaniac:

What does this have to do with localization? Overall, nothing.

ESPECIALLY since localised games in the past were changed, which makes it not relevant to your argument that things are somehow different or worse now.

Lok'tar:

I think because it somewhat dilutes the term. If it's treated as it originally was, altering work for any reason to be more acceptable, then it encompasses so many things that it almost loses meaning. I assume that's why so many treat it as changes made against the creators will, as it gives a clearer intent.

Except people cry censorship over voluntary changes all the time. How does it make it clearer to use a definition that doesn't fit?

[REDACTED]:

Wait, what? If we're not talking about censorship in the "violating rights to free speech" sense, why do we care? Lumping self-censorship in with the actually dangerous kinds of censorship just makes the entire discussion meaningless.

People clearly do care. I can't speak as to why, but they do. Have you not been reading this thread?

Also, are you therefore fine with corporate censorship, which does not violate free speech rights?

Because if you're suddenly going to invoke that definition, you're suddenly leaving out one of the big venues for negative censorship.

Zachary Amaranth:

Except people cry censorship over voluntary changes all the time. How does it make it clearer to use a definition that doesn't fit?

That's a good point. I guess for most censorship is shorthand for "Changes made that I didn't want".

Just a thought.

Zachary Amaranth:
People clearly do care. I can't speak as to why, but they do. Have you not been reading this thread?

Also, are you therefore fine with corporate censorship, which does not violate free speech rights?

Because if you're suddenly going to invoke that definition, you're suddenly leaving out one of the big venues for negative censorship.

Edit: Okay, fuck everything about this post. I was acting like a complete jackass here. Apologies to all.

You quoted my post about Nier to say that it wasn't localization, but censorship, because your definition of censorship is functionally identical to the world's definition of localization. Forgive me for being a bit confused about that.

Also, much as I hate to be the asshole with the dictionary,

cenˇsorˇship noun \ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship\
: the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc.

Full Definition of CENSORSHIP

1
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Nowhere does it mention self-censorship as an actual form of censorship.

As for corporate censorship, I was (somewhat stupidly) thinking of it in terms of the fundamental right sense, which isn't always going to match up exactly with the ways that the countries that believe in it choose to implement it in law. I'd argue that any repression of free speech is bad in the long run, regardless of it's legal legitimacy.

gamegod25:
My question is whats with JRPG's having the dumbest, most nonsensical titles ever? And no, I'm not talking about Final Fantasy, there was a logical reason for that it just became ironic when it turned out to be successful.

No I mean games like this: Bravely Default...Infinite Undiscovery...Ys....Ar Tonelico Qoga: Knell of Ar Ciel...ok seriously wtf? Hard to imagine they sound any less ridiculous in Japanese either.

Ys is an actual name of an "actual" mythical island that sunk into the sea ala atlantis, its french i think.

Zachary Amaranth:

Fdzzaigl:

I searched for rating by the ESRB on Bravely Default, it hasn't been rated for Europe yet as far as I can see.

I honestly wasn't aware the American ratings board handled European releases. It does have a PEGI rating, however.

Yeah, I mixed the two up there, used to searching for anything starting with "E" for europe...
However, the PEGI 12 rating which the game received allows for sexual innuendo. So I don't see why that would be the problem.

Again, as mentioned in various articles, it at least seems like Square did this because of prior problems with Dead or Alive.

[REDACTED]:

Wait, what? If we're not talking about censorship in the "violating rights to free speech" sense, why do we care? Lumping self-censorship in with the actually dangerous kinds of censorship just makes the entire discussion meaningless.

In my opinion self-censorship is just as, or even more dangerous than censorship by some organisation or institution. That's because you can't put a tracker on it and starts to lead a life of its own.

When a big fuss is created about something and it ends up being censored, at least you know where it is coming from. Discussion is possible, alternatives are considered.
With self-censorship that is missing, it becomes a natural thing to edit content for certain regions, even though a large number of people are opposed to it.

This case might not be very dramatic, but you can easily imagine more drastic cases.

Fdzzaigl:
In my opinion self-censorship is just as, or even more dangerous than censorship by some organisation or institution. That's because you can't put a tracker on it and starts to lead a life of its own.

When a big fuss is created about something and it ends up being censored, at least you know where it is coming from. Discussion is possible, alternatives are considered.
With self-censorship that is missing, it becomes a natural thing to edit content for certain regions, even though a large number of people are opposed to it.

This case might not be very dramatic, but you can easily imagine more drastic cases.

What would be a drastic case in your opinion? I actually can't imagine how this could be a problem, as long as the decision rests with the people making the game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here