Forum - View topic

The X Button - Might Be Wrong

If you ask folks in the pageant scene, you'll get a statement about how it's showcasing the best (most beautiful) and brightest (most talented) a particular area has to offer. It's not intended to be a Victoria's Secret lingerie show knock-off. My argument here is against intent.

As for editing out the gravure thing, yes that is censorship. But I still view it as a smart business decision; Nintendo doesn't want to be associated with an industry that basically makes the female equivalent of firemen calendars using minors--an industry that actually exists and is widely accepted in Japan. Most media outlets would probably view that as child porn--I can't blame Nintendo for going "Nope, no way. Not touching that with a ten-foot pole!"

Except, to those not in the pageant scene, most would say it is incredibly exploitive and unnecessarily sexualizes the girls. It's the same sort of argument those outside of the gaming scene make about sexual imagery in games like this (which is doubly stupid, as this content is entirely optional, as in, you don't have to wear the outfit if you don't want to).

Again, this is only Nintendo of America doing this. As in, in Japan, this is ok. The American publishers thought, "If the player so wished, they could have the option to play the game in a swimsuit that shows off cleavage and midriff? SCANDAL!!! Take it out!"

So, yeah, it really does all come back to good-old-fashion American prudishness in the end.

You use such deceptive language. I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I thought you misunderstood the differences between Toddlers and Tiaras and the swimsuits and sought to clarify my stance, mostly because you condensed my argument incorrectly down to a mere sentence.

And yes, maybe Nintendo is being prudish. That's not the point I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that Nintendo is justified in making changes for their audience, an audience that still largely views them as family-friendly, because there are some severe cultural divides between sexualizing minors in Japan and the West at large.

If they want to avoid a perceived shitstorm in the making because of how Fatal Frame sexualizes minors, they can do that. And in a culture that widely does not accept sexualized minors, that is a culturally smart decision if they don't want to alienate potential customers.

EDIT: I'm actually very familiar with Fatal Frame/Project Zero.

Levitz9 wrote:

It's why I don't have any faith in those upcoming Banjo Kazooie/Castlevania reskins. Nostalgia is not something we can base anything off of. There's a reason those franchises died off: they had been thoroughly mined out. Stuff ending isn't a bad thing, but nobody wants to admit it. Then they complain when that thing they love is turned into a zombie.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I remember back when Sonic 4 Episode 1 was released; one reviewer in particular claimed that even if the game wasn't flawed as it was, it would've never pleased the fans -- and not because of the good ol' saying that the Sonic fandom is unpleasable. But because, paraphrasedly, "they weren't looking for more of classic Sonic games, but more of those lazy summer afternoons they spent playing Sonic games; and that, no game company can give them".

I'll also say that, altough that by no means excuses how disappointing Mighty9 looks, Kickstarter's model gives a certain entitlement and progressively-higher expectations to fans who gave their money. "Wait, so our gazillion dollars can only do this? This isn't what I paid for!". Again, does not excuse empty promises, does not excuse that inexcusable second Kickstarter, but I'd bet that everybody would be more forgiving of the lackluster-looking game if it wasn't crowdfunded.

But speculation is just that, I guess.

However, I don't think nostalgia is inherently a bad thing. Games being made as a throwback to older franchises I think is a perfectly valid way of doing things, as long as they have a voice of their own underneath. While MN9 might prove to be disappointing, other such throwbacks have been pretty widely accepted like Undertale, which many see as a throwback to Earthbound.

whiskeyii wrote:

You use such deceptive language. I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I thought you misunderstood the differences between Toddlers and Tiaras and the swimsuits and sought to clarify my stance, mostly because you condensed my argument incorrectly down to a mere sentence. And yes, maybe Nintendo is being prudish. That's not the point I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that Nintendo is justified in making changes for their audience, an audience that still largely views them as family-friendly, because there are some severe cultural divides between sexualizing minors in Japan and the West at large. If they want to avoid a perceived shitstorm in the making because of how Fatal Frame sexualizes minors, they can do that. And in a culture that widely does not accept sexualized minors, that is a culturally smart decision if they don't want to alienate potential customers. EDIT: I'm actually very familiar with Fatal Frame/Project Zero.

Except who in their Family Friendly target audience would even bother with this? All they'd care about purchasing for little Jimmy or Jane would be the latest Mario or Pokemon. They'd see at the cover for this and then look the other way unless they're really that clueless then again, it's their fault. The "potential customers" you're talking about is clearly not those types of people.

There is no justification for what they've done, especially when NOA distilled the plot and its characters. You're advocating for the days when Pokemon can call Onigiris donuts except you don't seem to have a problem with this case because it's something you deem "skeevy."Ain't that rather hypocritical?

Paiprince wrote:

whiskeyii wrote: You use such deceptive language. I'm not trying to "weasel out" of anything. I thought you misunderstood the differences between Toddlers and Tiaras and the swimsuits and sought to clarify my stance, mostly because you condensed my argument incorrectly down to a mere sentence. And yes, maybe Nintendo is being prudish. That's not the point I'm arguing here. I'm arguing that Nintendo is justified in making changes for their audience, an audience that still largely views them as family-friendly, because there are some severe cultural divides between sexualizing minors in Japan and the West at large. If they want to avoid a perceived shitstorm in the making because of how Fatal Frame sexualizes minors, they can do that. And in a culture that widely does not accept sexualized minors, that is a culturally smart decision if they don't want to alienate potential customers. EDIT: I'm actually very familiar with Fatal Frame/Project Zero. Except who in their Family Friendly target audience would even bother with this? All they'd care about purchasing for little Jimmy or Jane would be the latest Mario or Pokemon. They'd see at the cover for this and then look the other way unless they're really that clueless then again, it's their fault. The "potential customers" you're talking about is clearly not those types of people. There is no justification for what they've done, especially when NOA distilled the plot and its characters. You're advocating for the days when Pokemon can call Onigiris donuts except you don't seem to have a problem with this case because it's something you deem "skeevy."Ain't that rather hypocritical?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. Where the hell did I mention onigiris, pokemon, or donuts? Where did I advocate for censorship? I said I understood where Nintendo of America was coming from and why they probably did what they did. Period.

The potential customers I'm referring to are general horror fans, probably folks looking for something to fill the PT void. Not moms and dads looking for the next Mario game. Not all horror game fans are fans of anime, or of moe anime, or of gravure. I'd bet most horror fans don't even know what gravure IS, and even if they do, how many are comfortable, as by-products of Western society, with sexualizing underage teenagers? That just doesn't fly in Western society.

That's my whole argument. That Nintendo changed parts of the game because they understood that Western audiences, by and large, are NOT OKAY with sexualizing minors.

Sorry, but sympathizing for their reasons is more or less supporting it. NOA does not have the obligation of altering content just because its perceived audience won't settle with it. Let me throw the bone back at ya. Not all horror fans are closet minded prudes who are intolerant of lewd content. In fact, the fanbase is known for being counter-culture thus they are for the most part OKAY with unsettling themes like minors in questionable scenarios.

I agree. I do think pageants are exploitative. I'm still arguing intent though. The swimsuits are intended as eye-candy. TaT is not intended as such. If the intent of the game is to sexualize minors (albiet optionally), then that's where Nintendo has a problem on it's hands.

Possibly also Nintendo of Europe, though it's hard to tell right now. Again, I think the problem is that the character you ogle--unavoidably, as it's a cutscene, is underage. Wanting to de-sexualize that as much as possible to avoid allegations of "child porn" is something I can understand.

You also can't expect American gamers to play with a Japanese mindset. They'll play with an American one. And America, by and large, has a problem with sexualizing minors.

Having fanservice-y shots of a minor just doesn't sit well with NA audiences.

It mainly means Nintendo and Tecmo KOEI realized that this kind of stuff hurts their brands in the US American market and that the hassle and negative PR is not worth the money they can make off these items.

It's why I don't have any faith in those upcoming Banjo Kazooie/Castlevania reskins. Nostalgia is not something we can base anything off of. There's a reason those franchises died off: they had been thoroughly mined out.

I cannot defend those outfits. So this is a weird case where, if anything, the edits have IMPROVED the game.

Paiprince wrote:

Sorry, but sympathizing for their reasons is more or less supporting it. NOA does not have the obligation of altering content just because its perceived audience won't settle with it. Let me throw the bone back at ya. Not all horror fans are closet minded prudes who are intolerant of lewd content. In fact, the fanbase is known for being counter-culture thus they are for the most part OKAY with unsettling themes like minors in questionable scenarios.

When you say "fanbase", you're referring to fans of Fatal Frame who have greater context for Japanese-based games and settings? Rather than the expanded potential customer base who play things like Amnesia or S.O.M.A. or Until Dawn and aren't aware of "counter-culture" elements?

Because I'm saying that Nintendo is trying to reach the general populous of horror fans (the latter) by making the game more palatable for a general audience, rather than catering to a niche audience.

I'd say intent is subjective, but lets rap a little.

Swimsuits are intended to show off the wearers figure and skin, correct? Correct. If one finds the partially exposed female form sexually arousing, swimsuits would do it, right? Right. As such, wouldn't that mean that swimsuits are inherently sexual? And if both a pageant contestant and a video game character are underage in swimwear, wouldn't that make them both sexual, with sexual intent?

No, because swimwear is freaking clothing, and whether or not you find it sexual is completely subjective. And since one has the option to not wear it, or wear it simply because they like it, doesn't make it an inherently sexual (which from the way you describe it translates to "bad") thing.

Also, age of consent in the USA is 18 in only 10 states, so really, no, it isn't a problem to most people that she is 17.

Also, "can't expect American gamers to play with a Japanese mindset"? Uh, how long has Final Fantasy been in the states? Persona? Any other JRPG? I think American gamers who play such games have been perfectly able to adapt for a long time.

Those games all have universal themes, and not overly Japanese settings (save Persona; still getting around to playing them). Even so, just playing or being a fan of Japanese games doesn't guarantee you a Japanese mindset. You might become more familiar with tropes in their stories, yes, but you're hardly playing the game in the same mindset as a Japanese person would. That's why Samus' portrayal in Other M went over so poorly; a Japanese person would (I've been told) interpret her quiet tone as being a sign of maturity--in the West, most people found her fairly lifeless.

Persona is heavily rooted in Japanese culture and mythology yet it got super popular. This argument about something being "too Japanesey" does not hold water especially when gamers now are clamoring for more Japanese games to come over, uncut obviously. Asides, Senran Kagura there's Oneechanbara, Akiba's Trip, Arcana Heart etc. Better believe it but the enthusiasm for underage girls isn't rooted to just Japan, despite what your daily a person I disagree with politically blogs say otherwise.