Attempts at appealing to a nonbuying audience?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Because if you find a market that happens to be underserved, you make a shit-ton of money? (Minecraft, I'm looking at you)

It's not complicated. They're doing it to try and make money. The idea that these tiddy-games you whine about being censored were somehow top performers to begin with is hilarious. And that's coming from someone who has Nippon Ichi Software is on my shortlist for "games I'm interested in".

Try not to make assumptions on my headspace. For one thing, I'm not NeoGaf, I'm altnameJag.

Something that everyone is wrong about is the idea that a business just exists to make money. That isn't true in the ditch digging field and it is less true in the field of video games. Some times people make games because they want them to exists more then they want them to make money.

Though ya there is also the nice benefit of dragging in more customers. If you snag someone who never played your games before, then you just sold way more then one game.

I would assume, from the companies perspective, there are trying to do two things:
1. retain their current audience as they fear bad PR will cut into such.
2. gambling on gaining a wider audience.

The problem is neither of these actually seem to hold in practice. The original audience doesn't seem to give a damn, and in many cases the controversy can actually increase the audience rather than diminish it. And the gamble just isn't paying off. There is a variety of reasons for this: this particular group is hard to please, not very open with their wallets, and honestly not that numerically large. Add to that a backlash effect from your original audience, and there isn't much if any positive sales effect. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but so far it just hasn't worked out.

Derekloffin:
I would assume, from the companies perspective, there are trying to do two things:
1. retain their current audience as they fear bad PR will cut into such.
2. gambling on gaining a wider audience.

The problem is neither of these actually seem to hold in practice. The original audience doesn't seem to give a damn, and in many cases the controversy can actually increase the audience rather than diminish it. And the gamble just isn't paying off. There is a variety of reasons for this: this particular group is hard to please, not very open with their wallets, and honestly not that numerically large. Add to that a backlash effect from your original audience, and there isn't much if any positive sales effect. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but so far it just hasn't worked out.

Seriously though, what do they have to gain from catering to SJW and similar audiences when it is obvious that they don't support the product?

gyrobot:

Derekloffin:
I would assume, from the companies perspective, there are trying to do two things:
1. retain their current audience as they fear bad PR will cut into such.
2. gambling on gaining a wider audience.

The problem is neither of these actually seem to hold in practice. The original audience doesn't seem to give a damn, and in many cases the controversy can actually increase the audience rather than diminish it. And the gamble just isn't paying off. There is a variety of reasons for this: this particular group is hard to please, not very open with their wallets, and honestly not that numerically large. Add to that a backlash effect from your original audience, and there isn't much if any positive sales effect. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but so far it just hasn't worked out.

Seriously though, what do they have to gain from catering to SJW and similar audiences when it is obvious that they don't support the product?

Because the Internet isn't abuzz with hype about Mass Effect: Andromeda? "It's obvious they don't support the product" based on what, Ghostbusters not doing as well because they used action blockbuster money to make a nostalgia comedy?

Let's see some numbers. Despite being "censored"[1] Fire Emblem still sold great. Niche otaku games sold niche otaku game numbers. Battlefield One is doing fine even though they're "pandering" by having a Muslim woman and black guy as protagonists. Overwatch is basically a Tumblr checklist.

Get out of your echo chamber.

[1] lordy...

gyrobot:

Derekloffin:
I would assume, from the companies perspective, there are trying to do two things:
1. retain their current audience as they fear bad PR will cut into such.
2. gambling on gaining a wider audience.

The problem is neither of these actually seem to hold in practice. The original audience doesn't seem to give a damn, and in many cases the controversy can actually increase the audience rather than diminish it. And the gamble just isn't paying off. There is a variety of reasons for this: this particular group is hard to please, not very open with their wallets, and honestly not that numerically large. Add to that a backlash effect from your original audience, and there isn't much if any positive sales effect. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but so far it just hasn't worked out.

Seriously though, what do they have to gain from catering to SJW and similar audiences when it is obvious that they don't support the product?

Press, they have the ability to take things before a corrupt and generally malicious press. Throw enough Tumblr logic into your product and it is a shield against the press attacking you as well as an avenue to free PR and undeserved rewards and acclaim.

altnameJag:
Battlefield One is doing fine even though they're "pandering" by having a Muslim woman and black guy as protagonists.

The claim that Battlefield 1 is "pandering" by including the races, genders, and religions that participated in WWI is ridiculous.

That's like saying that "history is pandering"

Houseman:

altnameJag:
Battlefield One is doing fine even though they're "pandering" by having a Muslim woman and black guy as protagonists.

The claim that Battlefield 1 is "pandering" by including the races, genders, and religions that participated in WWI is ridiculous.

That's like saying that "history is pandering"

I agree.

And yet, it's a complaint I've seen in more than a few places, including here.

Ah. Yes. An Adage. Truly, the kind of hard facts to be supporting... whatever this is. Nay, don't assert thyself with numbers or articles, a simple adage - devoid of any context in relation to marketing forces what-so-ever - will do the trick.

Anyway, beyond a silly premise and what appears to be a very poor jab at a couple of users on this site (which I'm pretty sure is against the rules? I dunno, where's the singular-mod-left to rule on that), let's try and salvage something from this... 'thread'.

Because they want to make these games. Because they're trying to break into the industry. Because they're trying to catch the attention of wider audiences to bolster their profits. Because they feel that if one of these games gets popular then it will help shift the AAA industry away from it's fetid stagnation of ideas.

Now, why would people not want these horrible, disgusting progressive games? Well, because they could be poorly made (the curse of many an indie title). They could miss the mark and misrepresent an issue. The devs behind the game could support some weird shit (i.e. make a pro-race game but support, I dunno, conversion therapy. Hypothetical, not a specific example). Because the game comes loaded to the balls with DRM and micro-transactions. Because the person, for whatever reason, looks upon the game and goes 'well, I see what they're doing but frankly it's just not for me'. Because they couldn't afford to support every 'progressive' game and thus have to pick and choose.

Man, it's almost like all this awful, monstrous """"SJWS"""" you're railing against are actual people who have a multitude of reasons for not supporting a 'progressive' game (the fuck even is that?) and not convenient straw-mans to swing at. The funny thing is, all of the above can be applied to all those fanservice games like Dead or Alive Extreme - I personally didn't get it because, quite frankly, it's a shit game. Nothing to do with the fanservice in it, it's just... a shit game. Hence why I didn't buy it.

...but then again, since I'm one of those filthy progressives (being gay and wanting more gay characters in video games, god, I'm worse than Hitler) me not buying a fanservice game is probably evidence of something... horrible. Or something. I can't keep track of it all anymore, honestly. I just don't buy shitty games, no matter who they're pandering too.

gyrobot:

Derekloffin:
I would assume, from the companies perspective, there are trying to do two things:
1. retain their current audience as they fear bad PR will cut into such.
2. gambling on gaining a wider audience.

The problem is neither of these actually seem to hold in practice. The original audience doesn't seem to give a damn, and in many cases the controversy can actually increase the audience rather than diminish it. And the gamble just isn't paying off. There is a variety of reasons for this: this particular group is hard to please, not very open with their wallets, and honestly not that numerically large. Add to that a backlash effect from your original audience, and there isn't much if any positive sales effect. Doesn't mean it is impossible, but so far it just hasn't worked out.

Seriously though, what do they have to gain from catering to SJW and similar audiences when it is obvious that they don't support the product?

...how do you know? Hell, how do you know that all these filthy SJWs aren't supporting the products that appeal to them? Hell, if they aren't supporting them, do you know why? Or are we just making lots of assumptions in this thread and calling it even?

Because if we are making assumptions and treating it like fact, I've got a great dissertation about how the Moon is actually intergalactic space-cheese that I'd like to sell you.

Wrex Brogan:
Ah. Yes. An Adage. Truly, the kind of hard facts to be supporting... whatever this is. Nay, don't assert thyself with numbers or articles, a simple adage - devoid of any context in relation to marketing forces what-so-ever - will do the trick.

Anyway, beyond a silly premise and what appears to be a very poor jab at a couple of users on this site (which I'm pretty sure is against the rules? I dunno, where's the singular-mod-left to rule on that), let's try and salvage something from this... 'thread'.

Because they want to make these games. Because they're trying to break into the industry. Because they're trying to catch the attention of wider audiences to bolster their profits. Because they feel that if one of these games gets popular then it will help shift the AAA industry away from it's fetid stagnation of ideas.

Now, why would people not want these horrible, disgusting progressive games? Well, because they could be poorly made (the curse of many an indie title). They could miss the mark and misrepresent an issue. The devs behind the game could support some weird shit (i.e. make a pro-race game but support, I dunno, conversion therapy. Hypothetical, not a specific example). Because the game comes loaded to the balls with DRM and micro-transactions. Because the person, for whatever reason, looks upon the game and goes 'well, I see what they're doing but frankly it's just not for me'. Because they couldn't afford to support every 'progressive' game and thus have to pick and choose.

Man, it's almost like all this awful, monstrous """"SJWS"""" you're railing against are actual people who have a multitude of reasons for not supporting a 'progressive' game (the fuck even is that?) and not convenient straw-mans to swing at. The funny thing is, all of the above can be applied to all those fanservice games like Dead or Alive Extreme - I personally didn't get it because, quite frankly, it's a shit game. Nothing to do with the fanservice in it, it's just... a shit game. Hence why I didn't buy it.

...but then again, since I'm one of those filthy progressives (being gay and wanting more gay characters in video games, god, I'm worse than Hitler) me not buying a fanservice game is probably evidence of something... horrible. Or something. I can't keep track of it all anymore, honestly. I just don't buy shitty games, no matter who they're pandering too.

Now that I have taken my dump (and my warning) which felt like a clogged asshole, I can now make an argument since lately I have been feeling like I am torn between my interactions on Niche Gamer and what's left of /v/' old guard. It is not that great for my sanity since it forces me to unleash my inner asshole on people to be a part of the community.

I will say this, the most prominents ones who roots for this kind of change don't play games, they interact with walking simulators, the noninteractive narrative movie games the staff at Polygon gives absurdly high rating for. A majority of gamers has no interest in that yet they shove it in our faces every single time. The average gamer who regularly browses /v/ isn't hard to please, give them their pound of flesh and don't rock the boat, all they want is not be judged heavily for their tastes. But that is what the Press does, heavily judge for their own financial interests and using their newly found friends in the progressive media to legitimize their beliefs.

This is why gamers have a guarded reaction toward anything out of their comfort zone. And why they are reacting so hard to the nonaudience appeal even though it has in general failed.

This is also why Steam reviews always lap up weeaboo games so hard, because they understand what the fans want, not what the press wants.

gyrobot:

Now that I have taken my dump (and my warning) which felt like a clogged asshole, I can now make an argument since lately I have been feeling like I am torn between my interactions on Niche Gamer and what's left of /v/' old guard. It is not that great for my sanity since it forces me to unleash my inner asshole on people to be a part of the community.

I will say this, the most prominents ones who roots for this kind of change don't play games, they interact with walking simulators, the noninteractive narrative movie games the staff at Polygon gives absurdly high rating for. A majority of gamers has no interest in that yet they shove it in our faces every single time. The average gamer who regularly browses /v/ isn't hard to please, give them their pound of flesh and don't rock the boat, all they want is not be judged heavily for their tastes. But that is what the Press does, heavily judge for their own financial interests and using their newly found friends in the progressive media to legitimize their beliefs.

This is why gamers have a guarded reaction toward anything out of their comfort zone. And why they are reacting so hard to the nonaudience appeal even though it has in general failed.

This is also why Steam reviews always lap up weeaboo games so hard, because they understand what the fans want, not what the press wants.

...so these terrible people who aren't supporting video games are... supporting video games by playing walking simulators, which despite the weak mewlings of /v (I too, am a channer) ARE still video games? Which, given they are video games, means that they are rated AS video games by gaming media, who, last I checked, tended to give them a similar treatment to all other games (meaning: highly recommending the ones they enjoy/rate highly, not recommending the ones they dislike). I mean... shit man, most of the games Polygon recommends are big budget triple A titles like Call of Duty and DOOM, and even amongst the dreaded weeaboo games they still either give hearty recommendations (i.e. Hyperdimension Neptunia) or decent ratings (with many low ratings citing shitty gameplay rather than anime titty as the problem). Really pullin' the strings with the '''progressive media''' there.

So... yeah, what do you actually have for me here besides some meaningless posturing between two niche subgroups (Walking simulators and weeaboo steam games)? What does *any* of this have to do with '''progressives''' being a non-buying audience for '''progressive''' games? Like... give me something to work with here, not just pointless hand-wringing over imaginary people not buying shitty games. Preferably something hard and factual - I know, not the standard at /v, but humour me for a moment.

Why not just stop going to Neogaf? I wouldn't want to go to a place where I can't talk about Disgaea.

No shit, right? Although I've got this feeling you can talk about Disgaea over yonder. Hell, despite it's bevy of stupid, sexy, sexist, impractical character designs, Disgaea tends to get a pass. I know I give it one.

Because everybody is wearing something stupid, sexy, sexist, and wildly impractical. Well, except the angels. Kinda.

Why can't you talk about Disgaea? I do not visit that site much as all but it sounds bafflig. I never knew there was a secret disgaea hate group out there lol.

On this topic, I think this is a matter of degrees. BF1 does actually have an argument about prominently displaying black people having a positive effect on its sales. The same however can NOT be said about random niche Jrpgs that the desired expanded audience will actually never know they exist no matter how much they pander to them. Do you think people really base purchasing decisions based on wether you can do skinship or not in FE, for example, as in someone becoming a customer thanks to its removal. Hell, even a parent, they likely are not gonna be aware the damn thing was altered at all and they would not know it was there to begin with if it was left in due to how clueless they are. Such actions have no effect.

The silly petting mini-game and its localized reduction was a factor in my decision, so yeah.

No see, I get not buyin the game based on censorship, what I'm sayin doesn't make sense is the company's stance on the alteration making a positive impact. They sure as hell can have a negative one. I personally didn't get it cause the game was not dual audio and the 3DS is region locked so imports don't work on it.

Even people who claim it made them want the game more, it definitely didn't make them purchase it where they otherwise wouldn't have any interest to, however, it DID make people not purchase the game due to it being removed, singlehandedly.

altnameJag:
No shit, right? Although I've got this feeling you can talk about Disgaea over yonder. Hell, despite it's bevy of stupid, sexy, sexist, impractical character designs, Disgaea tends to get a pass. I know I give it one.

Because everybody is wearing something stupid, sexy, sexist, and wildly impractical. Well, except the angels. Kinda.

That's part of what makes Disgaea great. Just how over the top the franchise is. I just read TC's post and assumed Neogaf didn't allow any talks about games NISA makes. I've seen some of the posts that mods make on there and it kinda disgusts me that they make such harsh generalizations about games they've never played.

Dreiko:
No see, I get not buyin the game based on censorship, what I'm sayin doesn't make sense is the company's stance on the alteration making a positive impact. They sure as hell can have a negative one. I personally didn't get it cause the game was not dual audio and the 3DS is region locked so imports don't work on it.

Even people who claim it made them want the game more, it definitely didn't make them purchase it where they otherwise wouldn't have any interest to, however, it DID make people not purchase the game due to it being removed, singlehandedly.

I think companies are banking on the idea that they will lose less money from the people they'll lose due to adding spats to a teenager or airbrushing out vagina bones than they'll gain from the folks otherwise interested in the game but don't want to feel like they should be on a watchlist.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:
No see, I get not buyin the game based on censorship, what I'm sayin doesn't make sense is the company's stance on the alteration making a positive impact. They sure as hell can have a negative one. I personally didn't get it cause the game was not dual audio and the 3DS is region locked so imports don't work on it.

Even people who claim it made them want the game more, it definitely didn't make them purchase it where they otherwise wouldn't have any interest to, however, it DID make people not purchase the game due to it being removed, singlehandedly.

I think companies are banking on the idea that they will lose less money from the people they'll lose due to adding spats to a teenager or airbrushing out vagina bones than they'll gain from the folks otherwise interested in the game but don't want to feel like they should be on a watchlist.

Yeah but that isn't gonna widen the audience, the people were already interestead and this was just a minor issue so it isn't gonna make anybody who wasn't interestead become so.

Also, I fail to see how pelvic bones or proper anatomy are something that can put you on a watchlist as this is game characters, fiction. If that puts you on a watchlist then all those people who get involved in beauty contests with little kids should live in houses more bugged than a hoarder's cats lol.

Dreiko:

Yeah but that isn't gonna widen the audience, the people were already interestead and this was just a minor issue so it isn't gonna make anybody who wasn't interestead become so.

You're right, and some people who were otherwise interested were turned off by panty shot of underage characters or by face petting in a tactical RPG. That's the part you seem to be ignoring.

Also, I fail to see how pelvic bones or proper anatomy are something that can put you on a watchlist as this is game characters, fiction. If that puts you on a watchlist then all those people who get involved in beauty contests with little kids should live in houses more bugged than a hoarder's cats lol.

It's an expression Dreiko. It means "something which feels skeevy in a sexual way". Shockingly, some people don't like that, and it may influence their purchasing decisions. Hence why localization is a thing.

altnameJag:
You're right, and some people who were otherwise interested were turned off by panty shot of underage characters or by face petting in a tactical RPG. That's the part you seem to be ignoring.

It's an expression Dreiko. It means "something which feels skeevy in a sexual way". Shockingly, some people don't like that, and it may influence their purchasing decisions. Hence why localization is a thing.

"Welcome to our restaurant. You ordered the steak tartare? We've "localized" that for you, so now you'll be getting chitlins and cornbread. That is what you people eat, isn't it?"

And that should illustrate why people are turned off by localization, and why the concept may be offensive to some.

Houseman:
"Welcome to our restaurant. You ordered the steak tartare? We've "localized" that for you, so now you'll be getting chitlins and cornbread. That is what you people eat, isn't it?"

And that should illustrate why people are turned off by localization, and why the concept may be offensive to some.

Will you ever give up on your false parallels dog-shit? If you actually think video games are prepared for each individual customer like food, I just might forgive EA marketing for their "entitled" cockery.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

Yeah but that isn't gonna widen the audience, the people were already interestead and this was just a minor issue so it isn't gonna make anybody who wasn't interestead become so.

You're right, and some people who were otherwise interested were turned off by panty shot of underage characters or by face petting in a tactical RPG. That's the part you seem to be ignoring.

Also, I fail to see how pelvic bones or proper anatomy are something that can put you on a watchlist as this is game characters, fiction. If that puts you on a watchlist then all those people who get involved in beauty contests with little kids should live in houses more bugged than a hoarder's cats lol.

It's an expression Dreiko. It means "something which feels skeevy in a sexual way". Shockingly, some people don't like that, and it may influence their purchasing decisions. Hence why localization is a thing.

The subject is wether the changes done to widen the appeal of a game succeed or not. That some like the game already but have personal hangups preventing them from enjoying it is irrelevant, basically. When the goal is to widen the appeal, it only includes folks that did not in any shape care for the game but through the change they became interestead. Pandering to prudishness is not widening the appeal, it is plain pandering.

Again I fail to see what about human anatomy is definitively skeevy, or how any such thing can be declared thus in such genral terms for that matter, so I continue to not understand. Localization is done to communicate the content in the local tongue, when the content is sexual humor as is common in Japan, it comes with the teritory to find such content. Localization isn't to remove it, it is to contextualize it.

When in doubt, "corporations exist to make money."

People, you can't go on implying that the reason for localization is to strip off offensive content. A translation is a localization. You can localize and remove no content whatsoever. You can even uncensor the sex scenes and make it even more undesirable for the general audience.

Some niche games, are by design, meant to be niche. Some niche games are successful and break off, but have been derived from a niche subculture. Look at the art design of Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy, and tell me that the designs are not highly attractive, rule 34 spawning designs. These games pander to the anime crowd and still do, yet people have still elevated them despite their minor shortcomings. Still, the history of these games and the style will turn off people that hate "weaboo trash" or "sexist designs", whilst having a love-hate relationship with them.

The last thing you want is JRPGs trying to become family-friendly and a cultural phenomenon like Pokemon or becoming more "American" that it becomes something else. The last thing you want is for gameplay to turn all action RPG because more people find that style engaging. It's not going to end well.

BuildsLegos:
Will you ever give up on your false parallels dog-shit? If you actually think video games are prepared for each individual customer like food, I just might forgive EA marketing for their "entitled" cockery.

Being able to point out a difference in an analogy does not make the similarities vanish. All analogies must necessarily contain differences between the hypothetical and the actual. You are awarded no points for being able to spot them.

You've pointed out that games aren't made-to-order like food at a restaurant is. That has nothing to do with localization being an assumption on the part of the "chef" as to what's best for the customer. That has nothing to do with "what the customer wants" vs. "what the customer gets", and why this customer might be dissatisfied with the difference. Until you refute those points, you aren't actually saying anything of substance.

Houseman:

altnameJag:
You're right, and some people who were otherwise interested were turned off by panty shot of underage characters or by face petting in a tactical RPG. That's the part you seem to be ignoring.

It's an expression Dreiko. It means "something which feels skeevy in a sexual way". Shockingly, some people don't like that, and it may influence their purchasing decisions. Hence why localization is a thing.

"Welcome to our restaurant. You ordered the steak tartare? We've "localized" that for you, so now you'll be getting chitlins and cornbread. That is what you people eat, isn't it?"

And that should illustrate why people are turned off by localization, and why the concept may be offensive to some.

Yeah, and I want some of the pizza monstrosities that Pizza Hut Japan gets up to, but unless the Pizza Hut Corporation thinks they'll sell in the US, I ain't getting it. Best we got was little hot dogs rolled up into the crust, and despite me likening it, they didn't sell well.

I'm not gonna boycott Pizza Hut for "censoring" my pizza choices. PS: could you at least try to make your hypothetical somewhat similar to what's actually happening? It's not like localizing Fire Emblem turned it into a match 3 puzzle game. More like corn not being a pizza topping.

Dreiko:

The subject is wether the changes done to widen the appeal of a game succeed or not. That some like the game already but have personal hangups preventing them from enjoying it is irrelevant, basically. When the goal is to widen the appeal, it only includes folks that did not in any shape care for the game but through the change they became interestead. Pandering to prudishness is not widening the appeal, it is plain pandering.

Pandering to anything is plain pandering, whether it's to people who don't want to see the panties on a 14 year old, or whether it's to people who do want to see the panties on a 14 year old. Companies are banking on there being more money in the former than the later in the US is all. Probably hoping that "hardcore fans" aren't going to throw a wobbly just because they gave a female character some spats.

Again I fail to see what about human anatomy is definitively skeevy, or how any such thing can be declared thus in such genral terms for that matter, so I continue to not understand. Localization is done to communicate the content in the local tongue, when the content is sexual humor as is common in Japan, it comes with the teritory to find such content. Localization isn't to remove it, it is to contextualize it.

Who said anything about any of this being "definitively" anything? I'm talking about opinions. Opinions like "I thought Fire Emblem was a fairly serious series, why do my Generals come over for a post battle groping session?"

altnameJag:

Houseman:

altnameJag:
You're right, and some people who were otherwise interested were turned off by panty shot of underage characters or by face petting in a tactical RPG. That's the part you seem to be ignoring.

It's an expression Dreiko. It means "something which feels skeevy in a sexual way". Shockingly, some people don't like that, and it may influence their purchasing decisions. Hence why localization is a thing.

"Welcome to our restaurant. You ordered the steak tartare? We've "localized" that for you, so now you'll be getting chitlins and cornbread. That is what you people eat, isn't it?"

And that should illustrate why people are turned off by localization, and why the concept may be offensive to some.

Yeah, and I want some of the pizza monstrosities that Pizza Hut Japan gets up to, but unless the Pizza Hut Corporation thinks they'll sell in the US, I ain't getting it. Best we got was little hot dogs rolled up into the crust, and despite me likening it, they didn't sell well.

I'm not gonna boycott Pizza Hut for "censoring" my pizza choices. PS: could you at least try to make your hypothetical somewhat similar to what's actually happening? It's not like localizing Fire Emblem turned it into a match 3 puzzle game. More like corn not being a pizza topping.

Dreiko:

The subject is wether the changes done to widen the appeal of a game succeed or not. That some like the game already but have personal hangups preventing them from enjoying it is irrelevant, basically. When the goal is to widen the appeal, it only includes folks that did not in any shape care for the game but through the change they became interestead. Pandering to prudishness is not widening the appeal, it is plain pandering.

Pandering to anything is plain pandering, whether it's to people who don't want to see the panties on a 14 year old, or whether it's to people who do want to see the panties on a 14 year old. Companies are banking on there being more money in the former than the later in the US is all. Probably hoping that "hardcore fans" aren't going to throw a wobbly just because they gave a female character some spats.

Again I fail to see what about human anatomy is definitively skeevy, or how any such thing can be declared thus in such genral terms for that matter, so I continue to not understand. Localization is done to communicate the content in the local tongue, when the content is sexual humor as is common in Japan, it comes with the teritory to find such content. Localization isn't to remove it, it is to contextualize it.

Who said anything about any of this being "definitively" anything? I'm talking about opinions. Opinions like "I thought Fire Emblem was a fairly serious series, why do my Generals come over for a post battle groping session?"

You would have a point if there was an original version that did not have panties but then someone up and decided to edit them in to pander to people. No. What we have here is the artists themselves decidin that panties are a good thing for their game that they'd like to include, hence they were in the original version. They aren't pandering by including something they themselves enjoy to have in their art and that other people also like it doesn't mean that they are bein pandered to either. In Japan panty gags have been a thing for decades, they were in Fist of the North Star and the original Dragonball made in the early to mid 80s, its just a type of Japanese humor, not some niche subculture thing that caters to deviants. Hence, you can't call it pandering, it is just Japanese humor.

Lots of serious series have a few such lighthearted elements, it is done to break away the doom and gloom and give the audience a moment to relax such that they do not burn out their feels. Even Asura's Wrath had that onsen segment. It can be a good thing.

altnameJag:
Yeah, and I want some of the pizza monstrosities that Pizza Hut Japan gets up to, but unless the Pizza Hut Corporation thinks they'll sell in the US, I ain't getting it.

Something being wholly unavailable to you, and something being edited based on a presumption of what you like are two different things. My point is with the latter. You're describing the former.

Not being able to order something on the menu, because it doesn't exist, is one thing.
Being able to order an item on the menu, but having it arrive as something different is a separate matter entirely.

You have not addressed the point.

Houseman:

"Welcome to our restaurant. You ordered the steak tartare? We've "localized" that for you, so now you'll be getting chitlins and cornbread.

They changed it after you bought it? You should just send it back.

altnameJag:
Best we got was little hot dogs rolled up into the crust, and despite me likening it, they didn't sell well.

That sounds disgusting. I'm all a-quiver.

If you want the food example, say in Japan soy sauce is soy sauce but what is in a soy sauce bottle in america is runny bbq sauce but they still call it soy sauce, that's kinda what we have here sometimes.

Houseman:

altnameJag:
Yeah, and I want some of the pizza monstrosities that Pizza Hut Japan gets up to, but unless the Pizza Hut Corporation thinks they'll sell in the US, I ain't getting it.

Something being wholly unavailable to you, and something being edited based on a presumption of what you like are two different things. My point is with the latter. You're describing the former.

Not being able to order something on the menu, because it doesn't exist, is one thing.
Being able to order an item on the menu, but having it arrive as something different is a separate matter entirely.

You have not addressed the point.

Unless you pre-order games so freaking early that you're unaware of localization changes, it was never on the menu either. Corn on a pizza.

Dreiko:

You would have a point if there was an original version that did not have panties but then someone up and decided to edit them in to pander to people. No. What we have here is the artists themselves decidin that panties are a good thing for their game that they'd like to include, hence they were in the original version. They aren't pandering by including something they themselves enjoy to have in their art and that other people also like it doesn't mean that they are bein pandered to either. In Japan panty gags have been a thing for decades, they were in Fist of the North Star and the original Dragonball made in the early to mid 80s, its just a type of Japanese humor, not some niche subculture thing that caters to deviants. Hence, you can't call it pandering, it is just Japanese humor.

Lots of serious series have a few such lighthearted elements, it is done to break away the doom and gloom and give the audience a moment to relax such that they do not burn out their feels. Even Asura's Wrath had that onsen segment. It can be a good thing.

Did you know that even if an artist decides to put something in, that thing can still be pandering? Just what definition of pandering are you using? Christ, just about anything targeted toward Otaku is pandering to the extreme.

EDIT: There's a difference between panties being a thing people wear that are occasionally visible and a panty shot. I've seen enough anime to know.

Fallout 3 has a section where you can nuke a previously encounter peaceful settlement for slight personal gain. That feature didn't make it over to Japan.

Actually, the people who make otaku-aimed stuff by and large are otaku themselves hence make stuff they like. It is pandering if you do not actually wish to include the element but do so PURELY to profit. If it just so happens that your tastes match the audience's, that's basically the ideal environment for art to be created in. That's why there's lots of niches with ultra faithful communities in these fields. And yeah, in the first Dragonball episode Bulma lifts her skirt up on purpose to get Goku to give her his dragonball, that's like, the quintessential pantyshot. It is just Japanese humor.

And yes, Fallout 3 has the same issues all those other things have too. Don't play that in the Jp version either, import from the US if you can.

What's the contradiction here? The point is that censorship sucks, not that America sucks.

Baffle2:

They changed it after you bought it? You should just send it back.

At "sit-down" restaurants in the US, you haven't "bought" anything until after you've eaten. The check comes at the end of the meal.

This also refutes alt's point about "pre-ordering".

It's not about pre-ordering. It's about expecting to get one thing, but getting something else, based on a presumption of what you like. Nobody has acknowledged this point yet.

Houseman:

Baffle2:

They changed it after you bought it? You should just send it back.

At "sit-down" restaurants in the US, you haven't "bought" anything until after you've eaten. The check comes at the end of the meal.

This also refutes alt's point about "pre-ordering".

It's not about pre-ordering. It's about expecting to get one thing, but getting something else, based on a presumption of what you like. Nobody has acknowledged this point yet.

Probably because the "point" you want people to acknowledge has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about. It'd be like going to Manhattan, ordering some clam chowder, and complaining that it was a red chowder instead of a white one.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked