Attempts at appealing to a nonbuying audience?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

altnameJag:
=Probably because the "point" you want people to acknowledge has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about.

How so?

Houseman:

altnameJag:
=Probably because the "point" you want people to acknowledge has nothing to do with the situation we're talking about.

How so?

See last page.

EDIT: That's slightly unfair. Okay, so, in your analogy, you sat down at a restaurant and ordered a thing. The thing that arrived was swapped out at the restaurant's prerogative. This is a flawed analogy because:
A) You did not order the creation, licensing, or localization of a video game. You did not sit down and order Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE or whatever game is stuck in your craw these days. Nintendo did, and directed Nintendo of America to prepare it.
B) Your analogy uses Steak Tartar being swapped for chitlins and cornbread. These are wildly different dishes sharing no base components. Almost all of the edits being complained about are minor conmetic changes with no impact on the mechanics of what they're changing. They have less objective impact on a video game than a side sauce does for a meal.

EDITEDIT: A better analogy, if you won't accept the Pizza Hut one, is like trying to find authentic Chinese food. Most places have Americanised versions, which Americans love. There's been a couple restaurants in my home town opened by immigrants that've had to change their menu or preparation methods to appeal to the local Montanan palate. So to find authentic food, you need to import, make it yourselves, have enough of a market that the owners are satisfied with the sales they get, or travel.

Then there's the issue of food safety and preparation regulations, which I'll liken to the ESRB for this analogy. Sometimes when things change, it's because something what would fly elsewhere doesn't fly here.

Houseman:

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.

So you've ordered steak, but they've brought you something else because they think you'll prefer it. You see what they've brought you isn't a steak and you're upset, but you're going to eat it anyway, then pay for it? Surely better to not eat it and not pay for it? There's loads of other restaurants out there.

Dreiko:
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.

Which is great for one person Dev teams, but as soon as you get corporation's in the mix pandering to your target audience becomes a thing. Differences of opinion in art and game design become a thing. Basically, if a Dev ever asks themselves "what would the fans like", that's pandering.

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.

Which would work better for your argument if...
A) stuff like that wasn't widely edited out of the US release and
B) Dragonball wasn't still popular afterward. Because parents in the US would've pitched a fit in the ancient past of 1991. They still might.

You and I can say that we didn't like those changes until we're blue in the face, but it can't be denied that the shear act of being allowed on television allowed Dragonball to be widely popular among nerds.

Baffle2:

Houseman:

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.

So you've ordered steak, but they've brought you something else because they think you'll prefer it. You see what they've brought you isn't a steak and you're upset, but you're going to eat it anyway, then pay for it? Surely better to not eat it and not pay for it? There's loads of other restaurants out there.

"Don't like it, don't buy it" only applies to other people.

altnameJag:

EDIT: That's slightly unfair. Okay, so, in your analogy, you sat down at a restaurant and ordered a thing. The thing that arrived was swapped out at the restaurant's prerogative. This is a flawed analogy because:
A) You did not order the creation, licensing, or localization of a video game. You did not sit down and order Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE or whatever game is stuck in your craw these days. Nintendo did, and directed Nintendo of America to prepare it.

Pointing out differences is not the same as pointing out flaws.

Who has the licensing fees is irrelevant. In both scenarios the customer wanted something, and it was changed by the time it was brought to them. The customer is dissatisfied.

You have not addressed this, or even denied that this happens.

B) Your analogy uses Steak Tartar being swapped for chitlins and cornbread. These are wildly different dishes sharing no base components.

Yes, I made a hyperbolic exaggeration. Pointing this out is irrelevant. The fact remains that a difference exists, and that the customer is dissatisfied. You have not addressed nor denied this.

And yes, you can always not buy the game, or even request a refund. I don't know why you think I'm saying otherwise.

Houseman:

Yes, I made a hyperbolic exaggeration. Pointing this out is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant if you used it to try to prove a point, but you actually made a bad analogy rather than an exaggeration. Could you please provide a better analogy because it really does look like you're saying you were mis-sold a product but decided to waive the option to not purchase it.

In both scenarios the customer wanted something, and it was changed by the time it was brought to them.

So the item the customer ordered was not the item brought to them? They should send it back. Maybe complain to customer services. Hell, write a letter to pre-Weakest Link Anne Robinson, she's got your back. She'll be on to trading standards about your missing panty shots before you can sniff a girl's knickers.

Eh, I was going to put a picture of Anne Robinson here but I can't be arsed. Just google Anne Robinson Sexy Wink.

Baffle2:

It isn't irrelevant if you used it to try to prove a point

I used the analogy to illustrate why some people feel the way they do about localization. There's nothing I'm trying to prove. It's a fact that there are people who are dissatisfied with localization attempts. As long as you understand that these people have legitimate grievances, I've done what I came here to do.

Houseman:
As long as you understand that these people have legitimate grievances, I've done what I came here to do.

Ah, in that case I'm afraid you've got more work ahead of you.

Houseman:
I used the analogy to illustrate why some people feel the way they do about localization. There's nothing I'm trying to prove. It's a fact that there are people who are dissatisfied with localization attempts. As long as you understand that these people have legitimate grievances, I've done what I came here to do.

It sounds to me like you're trying to prove the "legitimancy" bratty bitches' "grievances" when they whine about being denied their precious pedo-pandering. And the legitimacy of your analogy was crippled by a shitty exaggeration that compares "different tiny factors" to "completely different item". This is why we want you to cool it with the analogies so much, because you suck at it.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:
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.

Which is great for one person Dev teams, but as soon as you get corporation's in the mix pandering to your target audience becomes a thing. Differences of opinion in art and game design become a thing. Basically, if a Dev ever asks themselves "what would the fans like", that's pandering.

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.

Which would work better for your argument if...
A) stuff like that wasn't widely edited out of the US release and
B) Dragonball wasn't still popular afterward. Because parents in the US would've pitched a fit in the ancient past of 1991. They still might.

You and I can say that we didn't like those changes until we're blue in the face, but it can't be denied that the shear act of being allowed on television allowed Dragonball to be widely popular among nerds.

I think the line is wether you compromise your art to please some focus tested group or not, just thinking about what people will like and then finding people excited to make something that happens to match their desires and funding it is plainly good business and how the market is supposed to work.

I woud have you know I grew up with uncensored DB on TV in the 90s because I grew up in Greece so excuse me but I find such changes intolerable and their exclusion did nothing to make DB unpopular in all the nations that are not America that didn't censor it. Same as One Piece, in Italy there was a water polo team sponsored by it even lol.

BuildsLegos:
It sounds to me like you're trying to prove the "legitimancy" bratty bitches' "grievances" when they whine about being denied their precious pedo-pandering. And the legitimacy of your analogy was crippled by a shitty exaggeration that compares "different tiny factors" to "completely different item". This is why we want you to cool it with the analogies so much, because you suck at it.

When you say things like "bratty bitches" and "pedo-pandering", it makes me think that you're not approaching this discussion, or my analogies, in good faith.

But hey, it's cool. People that have problems with censorship and localization will continue to have problems with censorship and localization, and no amount of name-calling is going to change that.

Dreiko:

I think the line is wether you compromise your art to please some focus tested group or not, just thinking about what people will like and then finding people excited to make something that happens to match their desires and funding it is plainly good business and how the market is supposed to work.

It's still pandering. The main disconnect I think you and I have is that I don't think pandering is inherently bad. It's a thing that happens. Quite a bit in mass-market entertainment as a matter of fact. They're just pandering to a slightly different audience.

I woud have you know I grew up with uncensored DB on TV in the 90s because I grew up in Greece so excuse me but I find such changes intolerable and their exclusion did nothing to make DB unpopular in all the nations that are not America that didn't censor it. Same as One Piece, in Italy there was a water polo team sponsored by it even lol.

Good for you. Doesn't change my point in the slightest.

Houseman:

altnameJag:

EDIT: That's slightly unfair. Okay, so, in your analogy, you sat down at a restaurant and ordered a thing. The thing that arrived was swapped out at the restaurant's prerogative. This is a flawed analogy because:
A) You did not order the creation, licensing, or localization of a video game. You did not sit down and order Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE or whatever game is stuck in your craw these days. Nintendo did, and directed Nintendo of America to prepare it.

Pointing out differences is not the same as pointing out flaws.

Who has the licensing fees is irrelevant. In both scenarios the customer wanted something, and it was changed by the time it was brought to them. The customer is dissatisfied.

You have not addressed this, or even denied that this happens.

Denied what happens, restaurants getting orders wrong on purpose? You're analogy makes no sense in context.

B) Your analogy uses Steak Tartar being swapped for chitlins and cornbread. These are wildly different dishes sharing no base components.

Yes, I made a hyperbolic exaggeration. Pointing this out is irrelevant. The fact remains that a difference exists, and that the customer is dissatisfied. You have not addressed nor denied this.

Why would I deny that? How could I deny that, it's plainly obvious. I simply find such hyperbolic responses to such minute changes to be silly. You guys have moved past "hardcore fan" to "militant purist".

And yes, you can always not buy the game, or even request a refund. I don't know why you think I'm saying otherwise.

[/quote]Quite frankly, I haven't any idea what you're arguing. That's the flaw with using hilariously inaccurate and hyperbolic analogies. It's like arguing with a first-year philosophy student after they take a bong rip.

altnameJag:
Denied what happens, restaurants getting orders wrong on purpose?

Denied that this happens:

"the customer wanted something, and it was changed by the time it was brought to them. The customer is dissatisfied."

Why would I deny that?

I don't know, but you seem to be resisting the lesson that my analogy presents with every fiber of your being. So you tell me why.

If you don't disagree with me, then what are we even talking about?

Quite frankly, I haven't any idea what you're arguing.

If you were confused this whole time, why didn't you ask for clarification?

Houseman:

altnameJag:
Denied what happens, restaurants getting orders wrong on purpose?

Denied that this happens:

"the customer wanted something, and it was changed by the time it was brought to them. The customer is dissatisfied."

I haven't been denying that at all. My first post in this thread was that the "restaurant" was slightly changing its dish to try a suit the palate of a potentially larger customer base. (To keep using something approximating your analogy.)

Why would I deny that?

I don't know, but you seem to be resisting the lesson that my analogy presents with every fiber of your being. So you tell me why.

If you don't disagree with me, then what are we even talking about?

What lesson, that some customers get angry with change? That's fairly obvious.

Quite frankly, I haven't any idea what you're arguing.

If you were confused this whole time, why didn't you ask for clarification?

So do so.

altnameJag:
I haven't been denying that at all.

Great. My work here is done.

Houseman:

altnameJag:
I haven't been denying that at all.

Great. My work here is done.

image

Seriously, I was saying they'd lose sales from this since post 19. Before your hilariously flawed analogy.

altnameJag:
Which is great for one person Dev teams, but as soon as you get corporation's in the mix pandering to your target audience becomes a thing. Differences of opinion in art and game design become a thing. Basically, if a Dev ever asks themselves "what would the fans like", that's pandering.

And then Hideo Kojima, inspired to create video games by a visual novel from Enix, makes Snatcher, where you peek at a 14 year old showering, and Policenauts, where you almost have sex with your daughter. Then, Kojima went on to create the Metal Gear series, one of the best selling video game franchises of all time, where Emma pisses her pants for the audience, and Eva has a erotic dream about a dog. Raiden takes an upskirt shot, and Snake runs around groping female soldiers.

And despite all that, Metal Gear was targeted towards the Western audience, and those sales don't lie. Who was Kojima pandering to? Probably no one, that's his sense of humor I guess.

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.

Which would work better for your argument if...
A) stuff like that wasn't widely edited out of the US release and
B) Dragonball wasn't still popular afterward. Because parents in the US would've pitched a fit in the ancient past of 1991. They still might.

You and I can say that we didn't like those changes until we're blue in the face, but it can't be denied that the shear act of being allowed on television allowed Dragonball to be widely popular among nerds.

DragonBall Z was very popular amongst kids on its airing on Cartoon Network. I wouldn't consider niche as things that isn't, uh, Harry Potter. Also, have you watched Rocko's Modern Life? Great show, can't imagine what kind of complaints that show got.

If anything, Atlus shows that a game can be successful without removing offensive content.

I talk about P4 too much, but seriously at some point you would think the devs would have removed Mara after so many games, or the nudity of the personas, because a lot of people are disgusted by male genitalia or bare breasts, for whatever stupid reason. Hopefully Mara makes it in the English version of p5, just for funsies.

A Fork:

altnameJag:
Which is great for one person Dev teams, but as soon as you get corporation's in the mix pandering to your target audience becomes a thing. Differences of opinion in art and game design become a thing. Basically, if a Dev ever asks themselves "what would the fans like", that's pandering.

And then Hideo Kojima, inspired to create video games by a visual novel from Enix, makes Snatcher, where you peek at a 14 year old showering, and Policenauts, where you almost have sex with your daughter. Then, Kojima went on to create the Metal Gear series, one of the best selling video game franchises of all time, where Emma pisses her pants for the audience, and Eva has a erotic dream about a dog. Raiden takes an upskirt shot, and Snake runs around groping female soldiers.

And despite all that, Metal Gear was targeted towards the Western audience, and those sales don't lie. Who was Kojima pandering to? Probably no one, that's his sense of humor I guess.

You really don't think Hideo Kohima was given complete carte blanc when he was making the Metal Gear series? Konami didn't meddle at all?

altnameJag:

A Fork:

altnameJag:
Which is great for one person Dev teams, but as soon as you get corporation's in the mix pandering to your target audience becomes a thing. Differences of opinion in art and game design become a thing. Basically, if a Dev ever asks themselves "what would the fans like", that's pandering.

And then Hideo Kojima, inspired to create video games by a visual novel from Enix, makes Snatcher, where you peek at a 14 year old showering, and Policenauts, where you almost have sex with your daughter. Then, Kojima went on to create the Metal Gear series, one of the best selling video game franchises of all time, where Emma pisses her pants for the audience, and Eva has a erotic dream about a dog. Raiden takes an upskirt shot, and Snake runs around groping female soldiers.

And despite all that, Metal Gear was targeted towards the Western audience, and those sales don't lie. Who was Kojima pandering to? Probably no one, that's his sense of humor I guess.

You really don't think Hideo Kohima was given complete carte blanc when he was making the Metal Gear series? Konami didn't meddle at all?

Sure they did. For example, Kojima wanted the Beauty and the Beasts to be naked, and maybe there is some symbolic meaning for that but whatever it doesn't matter. Unfortunately this would affect ratings, so they weren't naked.

But that's really not the point. Also, whether Kojima or someone else on his team was responsible for this stuff doesn't matter. Point is that Konami and Konami of America really didn't care enough to remove these things, and Kojima didn't mind to have these things in his game. More like they are a reoccurring thing in his games.

And despite the cultural clash and sheer offensiveness of that kind of humor, the sales figures say something different.

Not every game is made to break new records and become mainstream. Some games are side projects that play it safe by iterating new features every year and targeting an audience that needs little advertising. They are not designed to break the bank on some crazy re-envisioning for the mass market. They are made to constantly churn out new titles. Others are something the team wants to make. If they don't break even, they were cheap enough that other highly popular series will make up the difference. If you though DOAX was niche, then the 30 year old series Nobunaga's Ambition is even more so.

A Fork:

But that's really not the point. Also, whether Kojima or someone else on his team was responsible for this stuff doesn't matter. Point is that Konami and Konami of America really didn't care enough to remove these things, and Kojima didn't mind to have these things in his game. More like they are a reoccurring thing in his games.

Neat.

The thread is theoretically about why companies sometimes make localization decisions that some gamers don't like. Now, obviously, sometimes that don't happen, and that's fine.

There isn't anybody in this thread saying that all game companies should do... whatever it is they're being accused of this week. It's just been explanations about why some companies may have made the decision to, say, give a character spats over their panties, change the camera angle during a super move, or replace a victory pose.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

I think the line is wether you compromise your art to please some focus tested group or not, just thinking about what people will like and then finding people excited to make something that happens to match their desires and funding it is plainly good business and how the market is supposed to work.

It's still pandering. The main disconnect I think you and I have is that I don't think pandering is inherently bad. It's a thing that happens. Quite a bit in mass-market entertainment as a matter of fact. They're just pandering to a slightly different audience.

I woud have you know I grew up with uncensored DB on TV in the 90s because I grew up in Greece so excuse me but I find such changes intolerable and their exclusion did nothing to make DB unpopular in all the nations that are not America that didn't censor it. Same as One Piece, in Italy there was a water polo team sponsored by it even lol.

Good for you. Doesn't change my point in the slightest.

A choice made by the higher ups is not the same as the artists themselves doing it. If you are an entrapeneur and go open a pzzaria in an Italian neighborhood and hire a professional pizza chef, the chef is not pandering, he is doin what he likes best in an environment that appreciates it. The business end of the equation is a machine aimed at maximizing profit, it has no capacity to pander, it just goes for efficiency.

Also, your point was that censorship of DB was to be thanked that it became popular in the west so I very clearly disproved that by showing that uncensored DB was just as popular in the west too. Also, One Piece localization actually DESTROYED that series for America when in the rest of the world it has been the absolute biggest series, bigger than naruto and bleach and even dbz. Due to the crappy localization though Americans did not get on board and by the time 4kids was out of the picture the damage was done.

Dreiko:

A choice made by the higher ups is not the same as the artists themselves doing it. If you are an entrapeneur and go open a pzzaria in an Italian neighborhood and hire a professional pizza chef, the chef is not pandering, he is doin what he likes best in an environment that appreciates it. The business end of the equation is a machine aimed at maximizing profit, it has no capacity to pander, it just goes for efficiency.

Great. So you don't think these localization changes are pandering?

Also, your point was that censorship of DB was to be thanked that it became popular in the west so I very clearly disproved that by showing that uncensored DB was just as popular in the west too. Also, One Piece localization actually DESTROYED that series for America when in the rest of the world it has been the absolute biggest series, bigger than naruto and bleach and even dbz. Due to the crappy localization though Americans did not get on board and by the time 4kids was out of the picture the damage was done.

Never said it couldn't be done badly. Still, Dragonball in America wodn't be nearly so popular in America if it didn't get on TV, and making those changes allowed that to happen. I can't and won't speak to how it played out in other countries.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

A choice made by the higher ups is not the same as the artists themselves doing it. If you are an entrapeneur and go open a pzzaria in an Italian neighborhood and hire a professional pizza chef, the chef is not pandering, he is doin what he likes best in an environment that appreciates it. The business end of the equation is a machine aimed at maximizing profit, it has no capacity to pander, it just goes for efficiency.

Great. So you don't think these localization changes are pandering?

Also, your point was that censorship of DB was to be thanked that it became popular in the west so I very clearly disproved that by showing that uncensored DB was just as popular in the west too. Also, One Piece localization actually DESTROYED that series for America when in the rest of the world it has been the absolute biggest series, bigger than naruto and bleach and even dbz. Due to the crappy localization though Americans did not get on board and by the time 4kids was out of the picture the damage was done.

Never said it couldn't be done badly. Still, Dragonball in America wodn't be nearly so popular in America if it didn't get on TV, and making those changes allowed that to happen. I can't and won't speak to how it played out in other countries.

These specific ones are because the product was already done and the business part of the equation deemed it profitable. When you change stuff that is part of what people who like foreign games like to such a deree where whole features are ripped out, just because a third group has certain political views or sensibilities, then you are pandering to prudishness and aren't just localizing. An example of actual localization is stuff put out by Xseed. They may sometimes change things to make them make sense or edit out mentions of ages to fit in as a technicality but everyone realizes this so nobody minds. The difference between cutting content out or slightly changing the context to fool the ignorant or have an answer for the censorious prudes is all the difference in the world and doesn't mess up the original.

See, this is why the nonbuyin audience thing is relevant. It actually ISN'T an efficient buisiness choice done by a machine to appeal in such a way to random nonfans. It is artificially done because people who localize games have issues. Like I said, it makes sense to have black folks in BF1 because it will have an actual effect. Here, all it does is virtue signal straight into bankruptcy.

America isn't Afghanistan. DB would have been fine just like how Mortal Kombat was fine despite the outrage if not partially because of it.

Dreiko:

These specific ones are because the product was already done and the business part of the equation deemed it profitable. When you change stuff that is part of what people who like foreign games like to such a deree where whole features are ripped out, just because a third group has certain political views or sensibilities, then you are pandering to prudishness and aren't just localizing. An example of actual localization is stuff put out by Xseed. They may sometimes change things to make them make sense or edit out mentions of ages to fit in as a technicality but everyone realizes this so nobody minds. The difference between cutting content out or slightly changing the context to fool the ignorant or the censorious prudes is all tye difference in the world and doesn't mess up the original.

It's the business end of the machine trying to maximize profit. Is that pandering or not? Are second drafts pandering or not?

America isn't Afghanistan. DB would have been fine just like how Mortal Kombat was fine despite the outrage if not partially because of it.

The same Mortal Kombat that had changes made to the Nintendo release?

Saying Dragonball would have been fine if it wasn't altered is blatently ignoring the fact that Dragonball would'nt have been shown if it wasn't altered. Kinda hard to be popular if people don't know you exist. Cutting out the swearing, the sex jokes, and the worst of the violence is what got the show to be played in the afternoons after school on Cartoon Network. Without those changes, without that fanbase just coming into having buying power, I don't know if DBZ would be as popular in the States as it is now. Hell, the whole anime craze over here might not have happened the way it did.

EDIT:

See, this is why the nonbuyin audience thing is relevant. It actually ISN'T an efficient buisiness choice done by a machine to appeal in such a way to random nonfans. It is artificially done because people who localize games have issues. Like I said, it makes sense to have black folks in BF1 because it will have an actual effect. Here, all it does is virtue signal straight into bankruptcy.

Does it though? Have any games recently, through sole virtue of removing a panty shot or changing a vctory pose, actually been harmed sales wise? Are they actually trying to appeal to folks who otherwise have zero interest in the game?

Or are they trying to appeal to people like me, who's been an anime fan ever since I caught Appleseed playing on the Sci-Fi channel on Saturday morning decades ago? Who gives a game or a show a pass as soon as the blatent otaku pandering gets too stupid to ignore. Like having a tactical RPG from a fairly serious series introduce face petting.

In order to convince me that this "pandering" is something that's hurting games, you're going to have to actually show me games it's hurt. Because all I've got are examples of AAA games selling well, games with botched releases or other major issues not doing well, and otaku-bait selling otaku-bait numbers.

altnameJag:

Dreiko:

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.

Which would work better for your argument if...
A) stuff like that wasn't widely edited out of the US release and
B) Dragonball wasn't still popular afterward. Because parents in the US would've pitched a fit in the ancient past of 1991. They still might.

You and I can say that we didn't like those changes until we're blue in the face, but it can't be denied that the shear act of being allowed on television allowed Dragon Ball to be widely popular among nerds.

You say that like the series had any success in 1991. That wasn't the case in US.

The original Dragon Ball is an example of both successful and failed localization. The firsts attempts in the US were much more censored (specially in the violence department) than the later ones (and the former flopped).

As far as I know, Dragon Ball was a flop in US when market tested in the late 80's. Its localization sucked really bad (they even arbitrarily changed character names like Goku to Zero). The second attempt in 1995 wasn't much more successful (just 13 episodes before canceled due to low ratings), with violence heavily censored (not even the eye pokes were spared).

Meanwhile, in countries where the localization was much less censored (like in Mexico), the series was a hit years before than in the US.

The popularity of the DB franchise in US really didn't come until DBZ (and that one has a very similar story of failure and redemption to its predecessor).

CaitSeith:
*snip*

Again, I'm not saying the localization was good, I'm saying localization allowed it to be shown in TV at all.

It's a dramatically different situation than the one the video games we're talking about are in. In which the companies themselves are making minor edits to try and draw in more sales based on regional taste.

altnameJag:

CaitSeith:
*snip*

Again, I'm not saying the localization was good, I'm saying localization allowed it to be shown in TV at all.

It's a dramatically different situation than the one the video games we're talking about are in. In which the companies themselves are making minor edits to try and draw in more sales based on regional taste.

The first attempt was mere market testing, and it never was aired to public. It sucked so bad that it even wasn't shown in TV. It took 5 years to do a second attempt that aired only 13 episodes with a different editing. But, why did they bother to do the second one when the first time didn't even make it to the general public?

CaitSeith:

altnameJag:

CaitSeith:
*snip*

Again, I'm not saying the localization was good, I'm saying localization allowed it to be shown in TV at all.

It's a dramatically different situation than the one the video games we're talking about are in. In which the companies themselves are making minor edits to try and draw in more sales based on regional taste.

The first attempt was mere market testing, and it never was aired to public. It sucked so bad that it even wasn't shown in TV. It took 5 years to do a second attempt that aired only 13 episodes with a different editing. But, why did they bother to do the second one when the first time didn't even make it to the general public?

To...make...money? They saw a thing making bank in Japan, saw other Japanese properties getting a foothold, all things Japan we're in fashion, etc.

Just because something doesn't work out the first time doesn't mean you stop trying. I'm honestly curious as to why you'd ask?

altnameJag:

Saying Dragonball would have been fine if it wasn't altered is blatently ignoring the fact that Dragonball would'nt have been shown if it wasn't altered. Kinda hard to be popular if people don't know you exist. Cutting out the swearing, the sex jokes, and the worst of the violence is what got the show to be played in the afternoons after school on Cartoon Network. Without those changes, without that fanbase just coming into having buying power, I don't know if DBZ would be as popular in the States as it is now. Hell, the whole anime craze over here might not have happened the way it did.

To be fair, DBZ was preceded by Robotech, Starblazers, Battle Of The Planets/G-Force, but they all were equally messed with (with BOTP going so far they had to animate new material to paper over the cracks, and Starblazers on many occasions very strenuously pretending That Guy Not Showing Up Anymore Is NOT Dead Honestly.)

Though in the gaming world at the time, We got Contra reskinned as Probotector, replacing the boring army dudes with anime mechs, so it wasn't ALL bad.

Windknight:

To be fair, DBZ was preceded by Robotech, Starblazers, Battle Of The Planets/G-Force, but they all were equally messed with (with BOTP going so far they had to animate new material to paper over the cracks, and Starblazers on many occasions very strenuously pretending That Guy Not Showing Up Anymore Is NOT Dead Honestly.)

"Man, it's really hot in this cockpit" (Because we can't show a character dying when they are Totally Fine And Just In The Hospital, We Swear). Man, Voltron was a trip. Censorship probably made that one better.

altnameJag:

A Fork:

But that's really not the point. Also, whether Kojima or someone else on his team was responsible for this stuff doesn't matter. Point is that Konami and Konami of America really didn't care enough to remove these things, and Kojima didn't mind to have these things in his game. More like they are a reoccurring thing in his games.

Neat.

The thread is theoretically about why companies sometimes make localization decisions that some gamers don't like. Now, obviously, sometimes that don't happen, and that's fine.

Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear illustrates how a franchise can have all that offensive content I listed and still be one of the best selling video game franchises of all time. That's the takeaway. It seems gameplay and presentation are important, not an optional minigame or a questionable scene.

There isn't anybody in this thread saying that all game companies should do... whatever it is they're being accused of this week. It's just been explanations about why some companies may have made the decision to, say, give a character spats over their panties, change the camera angle during a super move, or replace a victory pose.

I mean, you have selected things that bothered you, like underage panty shots or petting minigames, so I would assume you are trying to defend the removal of these things with "corporations exist to make money". And all those other games you have no interest in or never heard of, oh yeah they can do... whatever it is they do.

Really, underage panties as an example is a cheap shot. IMO, localization more often than not removes content that really should have no reason to be removed, you know, breast sliders, nudity, sexual content. I would rather not defend the US and its fear of sex and nudity, nor Nintendo of America's, 4Kidz, and parents that think that kids are imbeciles and have no idea what sex is, violence is, or what comes out when you scrape your knee.

A Fork:

Hideo Kojima and Metal Gear illustrates how a franchise can have all that offensive content I listed and still be one of the best selling video game franchises of all time. That's the takeaway. It seems gameplay and presentation are important, not an optional minigame or a questionable scene.

Never said they couldn't.

I mean, you have selected things that bothered you, like underage panty shots or petting minigames, so I would assume you are trying to defend the removal of these things with "corporations exist to make money". And all those other games you have no interest in or never heard of, oh yeah they can do... whatever it is they do.

Everybody has an opinion on what they think would make video games better. Question was asked "why do companies make these decisions." That's what I'm answering. I'm not defending anything.

Really, underage panties as an example is a cheap shot. IMO, localization more often than not removes content that really should have no reason to be removed, you know, breast sliders, nudity, sexual content. I would rather not defend the US and its fear of sex and nudity, nor Nintendo of America's, 4Kidz, and parents that think that kids are imbeciles and have no idea what sex is, violence is, or what comes out when you scrape your knee.

I'll stop using it when people stop pitching fits about not being able to see a 14 year old's panties.

Fact of the matter is, companies do these things to make more money. And it usually works.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked