Attempts at appealing to a nonbuying audience?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

altnameJag:

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'm only trying to show how this is unnecessary.

I also want to show that this is not the inevitable end goal of publishers to turn every IP into a money printing behemoth, which I mean, is a reasonable misconception, especially with AAA development being so prevalent.

Atelier Magical Criminal Girls: Demon Pet Shop is obviously targeted towards otaku and foreigners wanting a translation, and NIS of America are deluded if they think they are going to win an new audience unless they drastically overhaul the aesthetic and themes of these games. Nintendo of America removing sexual references and partial nudity really should not affect sales to a meaningful degree, so whatever they are thinking, they are also thinking about protecting their beliefs and reputation.

And that's when I shake my head and think about how nonsensically overprotective our media is with children, and adults in some cases.

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.

Um, if that were the case you answered that question on the first post, and nothing else needs to be said. But of course, you are having this rather heated discussion to show that corporations having a field day is enough justification for the removal of sexual content, because most of the time it is to your liking.

Imagine if I went to a thread complaining about DLC and said, "Corporations exist to make money. I'm not defending the practice, but you gamers are so entitled. If you don't like it don't buy it." At the same time, I enjoy buying DLC costumes.

OP also included the question who buys censored games and why do they appeal to a new audience at the expense of the old one.

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.

It's not the panties. If the only thing that was removed was panties, then no one would care, except for a select few of panty enthusiasts and lolicons. What more people care about is waifus, skimpy outfits, fanservice, sexual humor, and whatnot. Either that or they really support the idea that sexuality in media that is a little less than orthodox, should not be so frowned upon.

A Fork:

altnameJag:

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'm only trying to show how this is unnecessary.

Never said it was.

I also want to show that this is not the inevitable end goal of publishers to turn every IP into a money printing behemoth, which I mean, is a reasonable misconception, especially with AAA development being so prevalent.

Atelier Magical Criminal Girls: Demon Pet Shop is obviously targeted towards otaku and foreigners wanting a translation, and NIS of America are deluded if they think they are going to win an new audience unless they drastically overhaul the aesthetic and themes of these games. Nintendo of America removing sexual references and partial nudity really should not affect sales to a meaningful degree, so whatever they are thinking, they are also thinking about protecting their beliefs and reputation.

In that specific case, they're probably trying to guarantee a certain ESRB rating. That's a thing.

Um, if that were the case you answered that question on the first post, and nothing else needs to be said.

You'd think so, but here we are.

But of course, you are having this rather heated discussion to show that corporations having a field day is enough justification for the removal of sexual content, because most of the time it is to your liking.

I'm having this conversation because the OP and people like him are guessing my beliefs. Like, specifically called me out. Rather incorrectly, I might add.

Imagine if I went to a thread complaining about DLC and said, "Corporations exist to make money. I'm not defending the practice, but you gamers are so entitled. If you don't like it don't buy it." At the same time, I enjoy buying DLC costumes.

...I mean, you wouldn't be wrong...

OP also included the question who buys censored games and why do they appeal to a new audience at the expense of the old one.

The answer to which is generally "they think they'll make more money.

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.

It's not the panties. If the only thing that was removed was panties, then no one would care, (bullshit) except for a select few of panty enthusiasts and lolicons. What more people care about is waifus, skimpy outfits, fanservice, sexual humor, and whatnot. Either that or they really support the idea that sexuality in media that is a little less than orthodox, should not be so frowned upon.

You're right, they care about more than the underwear. They also care about the victory poses, the face petting, the bondage, the woefully inadequate armor, the camera angles on super moves...just about everything that doesn't actually impact the gameplay.

That some of these things happen to games in active development and literally all of these things are done voluntarily doesn't matter. Artistic integrity only applies to first drafts and beta gameplay.

Fact is, the companies that do these things think they're going to benefit from it. And until I see some actual evidence otherwise, I tend to agree with that fact, whether I like it or not.

altnameJag:
In that specific case, they're probably trying to guarantee a certain ESRB rating. That's a thing.

And I won't defend the ESRB, because I personally personally believe straight up nudity is E. Sexualized nudity is T. I think that's more than reasonable. I could find games with skimpy outfits or sexual perversion with a low rating, but the ESRB is very wishy washy (well not really, it's a survey, but some judge might fine you for being too generous).

But then again, why cut out the breast sliders, why cut out sexual innuendo. Why cover up enemies, which are so not naked that it is laughable anyone would consider covering it up? America amirite?

But of course, you are having this rather heated discussion to show that corporations having a field day is enough justification for the removal of sexual content, because most of the time it is to your liking.

I'm having this conversation because the OP and people like him are guessing my beliefs. Like, specifically called me out. Rather incorrectly, I might add.

If you can play these games and stomach the fanservice, then do so please. You'll enjoy yourself more than the fanservice will ever detract from it (unless you are talking about Criminal Girls, yeah don't play that).

Imagine if I went to a thread complaining about DLC and said, "Corporations exist to make money. I'm not defending the practice, but you gamers are so entitled. If you don't like it don't buy it." At the same time, I enjoy buying DLC costumes.

...I mean, you wouldn't be wrong...

Not the point. "Corporations exist to make money" is a meaningless, obedient phrase, where corporations have a greater precedence than the consumer. And you won't be using it when the tables turn against you.

I could say "Life isn't fair, deal with it", which is arguably true, but a terrible justification for about anything.

It's not the panties. If the only thing that was removed was panties, then no one would care, (bullshit) except for a select few of panty enthusiasts and lolicons. What more people care about is waifus, skimpy outfits, fanservice, sexual humor, and whatnot. Either that or they really support the idea that sexuality in media that is a little less than orthodox, should not be so frowned upon.

You're right, they care about more than the underwear. They also care about the victory poses, the face petting, the bondage, the woefully inadequate armor, the camera angles on super moves...just about everything that doesn't actually impact the gameplay.

That some of these things happen to games in active development and literally all of these things are done voluntarily doesn't matter. Artistic integrity only applies to first drafts and beta gameplay.

Fact is, the companies that do these things think they're going to benefit from it. And until I see some actual evidence otherwise, I tend to agree with that fact, whether I like it or not.

What other people besides panty lovers and lolicons care about panties. And people who have weird fetishes of their own and really would not like singling out other fetishes. People stuck in this gaming culture war? No, people put effort to argue for the things they are interested in, and without the entire package of sexiness, panties are just something not worth defending.

Companies do these things, whilst there is no certain return, other than the ESRB being annoying. Here are some of gaming's giants. MGSV, Quiet is still naked and quiet. Best selling MGS game to date. FF7 has Cloud cross dressing, bathing and sleeping with men, and Tifa's therapeutic underwear. Best selling FF game to date. GTAV (cheating but GTA is offensive for everyone) has Trevor raping a man. 4th most popular video game ever.

You have to consider how much removing things will affect sales, probably not much, again other than ESRB's fuckery. Some things you don't really figure out about that stuff until after you play the game, and others are really not worth getting worked up over.

A Fork:

altnameJag:
In that specific case, they're probably trying to guarantee a certain ESRB rating. That's a thing.

And I won't defend the ESRB, because I personally personally believe straight up nudity is E. Sexualized nudity is T. I think that's more than reasonable. I could find games with skimpy outfits or sexual perversion with a low rating, but the ESRB is very wishy washy (well not really, it's a survey, but some judge might fine you).

But then again, why cut out the breast sliders, why cut out sexual innuendo. Why cover up enemies, which are so not naked that it is laughable anyone would consider covering it up? America amirite?

Do you have an argument besides "America is prudish"? Because it does nothing to refute the idea that companies can opt to do this to try and make more money. I mean, not all of them obviously...

If you can play these games and stomach the fanservice, then do so please. You'll enjoy yourself more than the fanservice will ever detract from it (unless you are talking about Criminal Girls, yeah don't play that).

Sure, I'd probably get more enjoyment playing a game with stuff I didn't like than not playing anything at all. I'd get still more enjoyment playing a game without the things I think are stupid though.

Not the point. "Corporations exist to make money" is a meaningless, obedient phrase, where corporations have a greater precedence than the consumer. And you won't be using it when the tables turn against you.

I could say "Life isn't fair, deal with it", which is arguably true, but a terrible justification for about anything.

Turn against me how? My favorite genres are already vastly underrepresented because some corporate suits decided nobody liked them, what more do I have to lose? Corporations are going to do what corporations do. Whether you or I like it or not.

Counter question: if publishers weren't thinking they'd get something out of making these changes, why would they still make them?

What other people besides panty lovers and lolicons care about panties. And people who have weird fetishes of their own and really would not like singling out other fetishes. People stuck in this gaming culture war? No, people put effort to argue for the things they are interested in, and without the entire package of sexiness, panties are just something not worth defending.

You should ask the folks complaining about spats in Tokyo Mirage Sessions then, I still don't get it.

Companies do these things, whilst there is no certain return, other than the ESRB being annoying. Here are some of gaming's giants. MGSV, Quiet is still naked and quiet. Best selling MGS game to date. FF7 has the Cloud cross dressing, bathing and sleeping with men, and Tifa's therapeutic underwear. Best selling FF game to date. GTAV (cheating but GTA is offensive for everyone) has Trevor raping a man. 4th most popular video game ever.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

You have to consider how much removing things will affect sales, probably not much, again other than ESRB's fuckery. Some things you don't really figure out about that stuff until after you play the game, and others are really not worth getting worked up over.

I don't have to consider that, actually. Nintendo does. Nippon Ichi Software does. Blizzard does.

And I'm assuming they do, because I don't generally assume incompetence. The answer to the question in the OP is "because they think if will benefit them", either by making more sales, getting a preferred rating, getting free publicity, or avoiding scandal.

And other than some whining on the Internet, I've never seen it hurt them.

altnameJag:
Do you have an argument besides "America is prudish"? Because it does nothing to refute the idea that companies can opt to do this to try and make more money. I mean, not all of them obviously...

No, why else do you think I care so much about this. Why oh why did I decide to argue, other than for my own self interest, where I would like to see even more sexuality in video games.

Do you have an argument besides "Corporations have a right to do whatever they want", because both our arguments cannot be refuted in any way. We are only trying to convince each other and anyone reading. Of course we are probably not getting through to each other, but arguing is fun and all.

Sure, I'd probably get more enjoyment playing a game with stuff I didn't like than not playing anything at all. I'd get still more enjoyment playing a game without the things I think are stupid though.

And years ago, when I read Kotaku and watched the Jimquisition, I thought this shit was disgusting, infantile, until I actually played it. It is stupid and infantile, but I enjoy it very much (actually I don't play NIS games, not suprised right, but I do like the humor). Now obviously everyone is different, but I mean, I would like people to enjoy their fanservice, and there are all kinds of fanservice.

Not the point. "Corporations exist to make money" is a meaningless, obedient phrase, where corporations have a greater precedence than the consumer. And you won't be using it when the tables turn against you.

I could say "Life isn't fair, deal with it", which is arguably true, but a terrible justification for about anything.

Turn against me how? My favorite genres are already vastly underrepresented because some corporate suits decided nobody liked them, what more do I have to lose? Corporations are going to do what corporations do. Whether you or I like it or not.

It would be absurd to defend something you like, using the same argument that screwed you over. You could use that phrase for anything good or bad a corporation does, and what exactly does it show, other than corporations act in their own interest? And who says, "Man this sucks, but corporations exist to make money?" Honestly, I'm so tired of hearing this justification, which usually comes from company fanboys. Being pessimistic is a good thing, but being compliant is not really a good thing.

Counter question: if publishers weren't thinking they'd get something out of making these changes, why would they still make them?

Because Nintendo of America wants to be Nintendo of America. They do try to stay family-friendly, and have an idea of what an M rated game should be, what a T rated game should be, what an E rated game should be, and try not to take a risk, more so when Nintendo is making, not publishing the game. Of course, there is a lot of legroom, but Nintendo doesn't want to take the risk. I disagree with that, and I disagree with the ratings systems.

You should ask the folks complaining about spats in Tokyo Mirage Sessions then, I still don't get it.

People have been on the edge of censorship for quite the while. It's not the panties man, it's because they are afraid more will be taken away. Any kind of removal for normies really doesn't sit well. SMT has demons that are grotesquely sexual, and a some demons and certain boss is blasphemous to a couple of religions. Persona 1 was localized to an American setting, and Persona 2 Innocent Sin wasn't localized for a long time because it had a really bad man, literally Hitler. The series is pretty quirky yet at the same time has its fair share of localization faults. I don't know much about Fire Emblem though.

Companies do these things, whilst there is no certain return, other than the ESRB being annoying. Here are some of gaming's giants. MGSV, Quiet is still naked and quiet. Best selling MGS game to date. FF7 has the Cloud cross dressing, bathing and sleeping with men, and Tifa's therapeutic underwear. Best selling FF game to date. GTAV (cheating but GTA is offensive for everyone) has Trevor raping a man. 4th most popular video game ever.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Well you made me google that phrase. Best selling games back then. Best selling games today. Terribly iconic games. Shows how little the audience cares about controversy. Yes it is anecdotal, but that's the best you can get in a discussion about video game controversies.

You have to consider how much removing things will affect sales, probably not much, again other than ESRB's fuckery. Some things you don't really figure out about that stuff until after you play the game, and others are really not worth getting worked up over.

I don't have to consider that, actually. Nintendo does. Nippon Ichi Software does. Blizzard does.

And I'm assuming they do, because I don't generally assume incompetence. The answer to the question in the OP is "because they think if will benefit them", either by making more sales, getting a preferred rating, getting free publicity, or avoiding scandal.

And other than some whining on the Internet, I've never seen it hurt them.

Well, I guess there is no point speculating any more. You've probably had enough of me.

A Fork:

Do you have an argument besides "Corporations have a right to do whatever they want", because both our arguments cannot be refuted in any way. We are only trying to convince each other and anyone reading. Of course we are probably not getting through to each other, but arguing is fun and all.

I'm only at page three because of a breathtakingly bad analogy and the idea that pandering only happens if they change things after they show them the first time. I mean, the OP was asking me "if you aren't going to buy games, why do companies try to cater to you", which was hilariously inaccurate for a host of reasons, not least of which was that I actually quite like NIS.

Sure, I'd probably get more enjoyment playing a game with stuff I didn't like than not playing anything at all. I'd get still more enjoyment playing a game without the things I think are stupid though.

And years ago, when I read Kotaku and watched the Jimquisition, I thought this shit was disgusting, infantile, until I actually played it. It is stupid and infantile, but I enjoy it very much (actually I don't play NIS games, not suprised right, but I do like the humor). Now obviously everyone is different, but I mean, I would like people to enjoy their fanservice, and there are all kinds of fanservice.

Just once I'd like to see this sort of argument used with people who're boycotting a video game they'd otherwise like because they gave a lady an undershirt, but I can't always get what I want. I mean, shit, you can't tell me the US version of Criminal Girls doesn't have fan service, right?

It would be absurd to defend something you like, using the same argument that screwed you over. You could use that phrase for anything good or bad a corporation does, and what exactly does it show, other than corporations act in their own interest? And who says, "Man this sucks, but corporations exist to make money?" Honestly, I'm so tired of hearing this justification, which usually comes from company fanboys. Being pessimistic is a good thing, but being compliant is not really a good thing.

The question I was responding to was "why do companies do these things", not "should companies do these things".

Because Nintendo of America wants to be Nintendo of America. They do try to stay family-friendly, and have an idea of what an M rated game should be, what a T rated game should be, what an E rated game should be, and try not to take a risk, more so when Nintendo is making, not publishing the game. Of course, there is a lot of legroom, but Nintendo doesn't want to take the risk. I disagree with that, and I disagree with the ratings systems.

And that's fair. In a lot of ways, I agree. Especially now that video games have first amendment protections in the US.

But they didn't used to. And the ESRB came about at a time when it was that or the government getting involved. And if I had to choose between the ESRB or the guys in charge of the government, it's really a no-brainer. Look at Australia for why.

People have been on the edge of censorship for quite the while. It's not the panties man, it's because they are afraid more will be taken away. Any kind of removal for normies really doesn't sit well.

And I get that, I get that to an uncomfortable degree. But, like most slippery-slope arguments, it's a fallacy. The video game industry in the US made 23 billion dollars last year, and is the fastest growing form of entertainment in the United States. The "normies" are already inside the house, making a whole lotta pies. And some video game companies want more of those pies, so they take a shower, maybe put on some deodorant. Some are already charismatic enough that they don't have to. (Which would be where changes meant to appeal or to protect their image would apply. Analogy doesn't take into account changes made to get or guarantee certain ratings.)

Well you made me google that phrase. Best selling games back then. Best selling games today. Terribly iconic games. Shows how little the audience cares about controversy. Yes it is anecdotal, but that's the best you can get in a discussion about video game controversies.

Sure, but the best selling games of all time also don't have much in the way of fan service at all. Pac-Man, Tetris, the Sims, Minecraft, generally in a market far smaller than it is today. Hell, for most people, Myst is what got them to buy into this new technology called a CD drive.

Well, I guess there is no point speculating any more. You've probably had enough of me.

Speculate all you want, just try not to hold me accountable for the decisions of multinational corporations, other forums, or people who don't have a problem with minor localization changes. That OP was an assumption filled dumpster fire.

Of course you target games to nonbuying audiences.

Put it this way. If a game came in a plain white, butcher paper wrapping. No other graphics, no other information, no adverts, no review copies, no coverage whatsoever ... then most people who will even enjoy the game re going to be a 'non-buying audience' regardless of content. It will also be guaranteed not to meet same saturation as a game of similar quality.

You should try to manage your content and your marketing to saturate specific core demographics, but at the same time games that aren't needlessly offensive aren't 'toning' down their game to target SJWs ... that's retarded. They do it because they don't want to alienate anyone from mass interest.

I'm sure so-called 'SJWs' bought Diablo 2 and 3. Diablo 3 is the highest selling game of all time (I still think? Not sure if it still has that accolade ...) and its content was friendly for anyone above 10 years old. Blizzard have a pretty standard model .... entertainment for everyone, base-level entry design, inoffensive fun, and with minimal hardware necessities at time of launch, and make ridiculous sums of money.

Though I do find it offensive that Hearthstone is considered good. Sorry, I'll still be sticking to my Netrunner, thank you. A card game that is actually balanced, playtested, has quality control, and fun.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked