What's worse, a game that is localized but heavily censored

Heavily censored.

I wonder what his penis smells like, haha

>>378832330
When did Nicolas Cage get so buff?

Not localized because I'm not a fucking autistic weeb and I don't know or care to know how to read yellow speak

>>378832330
It really depends on your definition of "heavily censored".
Some think that making optional DLC costumes for female characters slightly less lewd is "censorship".
But at the same time the so-called localization throws out entire dialogues, like in that FE game. It's not really censorship, but it hurts the game so much more.

>>378832714
>Some think that making optional DLC costumes for female characters slightly less lewd is "censorship"
It is

Why release it if its heavily censored

>>378832714
>Some think that making optional DLC costumes for female characters slightly less lewd is "censorship"
It's

body goal

>>378832330
game that has forced gay romance

Depends on what's censored

If they're just covering up nudity I honestly couldn't care less. I'm not pathetic scum so that's not why I play games to begin with

>>378832330

Easily not localized.

I know what /v/'s definition of "heavily censored" is and frankly I could not give a shit about the toning down of the sexualization of underage characters because I'm not a pedo weeb fuck. I don't even really care about the toning down of violence, religious symbolism, etc., etc., because I'm not an edgelord and in the vast majority of cases it does little to no harm to the work as a whole. If you can't get by on mere implication then you are a hack.

>>378834565
(You)

>>378834818

Fuck off.

Being gratuitous and explicit is the same sort of laziness as using jump scares, something /v/ has no problem with shitting on.

>>378832330
The game that isn't localized.
How is this even a question? That's the only option where you don't have any choice.

>>378835024
No u.

You may not care for certain things but censorship is always detrimental. If you're not a "pedo weeb fuck" then why are you playing a game that is intended to feature it? Your claim that "censorship doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases" is absolutely not true.

What's worse, a shit sandwich or a peanut butter sandwich that you cant eat due to a peanut allergy?

>>378832608
newfag

>>378832330
Ask mother 3 fans

>>378835349
>censorship is always detrimental

This is just an assertion. You have nothing to support it other than being personally pissed that something that would make your dick hard was cut from the game. By the same logic I could declare something that offends me not being cut is detrimental to my personal experience and it has the exact same weight as your claim.

>>378832714
It is though

File: 1492550363737.png (529KB, 975x847px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 975x847px

>>378834565
>>378835736
>>378835024

Heavily censored, it's not even debatable really.

Most import games are completely playable with just knowing katakana. You're not too stupid to learn another language just a lil', right /v/?

>>378832330
Localized but heavily censored since its sales will open the gates for the rest of the series to be censored to hell. I'd rather have one game not localized than for all the games the company sends over to us gutted.

>>378835736
>other than being personally pissed that something that would make your dick hard was cut from the game.
You are assuming things which are not true. I don't care for pornography in games in fact. I'm also gay.
>By the same logic I could declare something that offends me not being cut is detrimental to my personal experience and it has the exact same weight as your claim.
I disagree. Media is not obligated to pander to your desires, anon. If you don't like something about a game then you can either ignore it, mod it or find something else. Your claim has absolutely zero (0) weight.
>This is just an assertion.
Name one (1) good thing that has come out of censorship. You won't.

>>378832330
Not localized. The only difference between those scenarios is that if the game is poorly localized, you have a choice between playing it anyway or ignoring it and learning japanese/whatever other language you'd need to and do the same thing you'd end up doing if it wasn't localized at all.

>>378836108

You seem to be approaching this from the position that a video game is something that just naturally materializes and it's some sort of terrible sin to interfere with this process.

Video games are not natural occurrences, they are products manufactured by large groups of people for the purpose of selling to the public. The only exist to make money, if censoring a product increases the amount of money it will make it is not detrimental to the product to do so.

Don't even bother with a MUH ARTISTIC INTEGRITY counter. Videogames are products manufactured via a collaborative process involve many, many people, there is no "artist".

>>378835736
Why would you not want to experience a game in its original form?

>>378836495
>You seem to be approaching this from the position that a video game is something that just naturally materializes and it's some sort of terrible sin to interfere with this process.
Nice strawman.
>they are products manufactured by large groups of people
Not all of them.
>The only exist to make money, if censoring a product increases the amount of money it will make it is not detrimental to the product to do so.
Interesting and very valid point that I considered myself. From a business perspective it absolutely makes sense to censor a product if it increases profit. That's not exactly what I was aiming for though. Can you also name a case where the product itself benefits?
>Don't even bother with a MUH ARTISTIC INTEGRITY counter. Videogames are products manufactured via a collaborative process involve many, many people, there is no "artist".
Not what I was going to say. Maybe you should stop assuming things about me considering you were wrong multiple times now. I was just asking for an example where a video game would benefit from censorship as a product in a positive way. I just can't see this happening at all. So considering the numerous examples where censorship affects video games negatively I come to the conclusion that it's a negative thing overall and it merely depends on how much is censored.

Defend your claim that "censorship doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases". You won't.

>>378836495

How much money it will or won't make never has anything to do with it. Censorship of video games is always based on some fear of offending someone, and on perceived cultural differences. Do you honestly believe that the number of people who wouldn't buy a video game because of its religious imagery is enough to significantly affect its bottom line?

Localization should be limited to translation.

>>378837046
Accounting for cultural differences because it drums up sales and avoids bad PR.

Don't you have any business sense whatsoever?

>>378837046
>Do you honestly believe that the number of people who wouldn't buy a video game because of its religious imagery is enough to significantly affect its bottom line?

You do know that this board likes to boycott games based on little more than the appearance of a "SJW agenda", right?

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out the religious do not buy games that offend their religious sensibilities, that non-pedo do not buy games that contain sexualization of children, etc., etc.

Not being a brat I don't have the mentality that I want everything or we all get nothing, I'll accept a little censorship here and there. I'm mainly only concerned about whether the game is fun or not, not whether it's effective wank material or not.

I don't really know. Neither of them would affect me in any shape or form.

>>378837231

>drums up sales

You don't know that, they don't know that, it's speculation. Even if a game is a hit you couldn't possibly point to their having removed the titties as being the reason
>bad pr
So, again, fear of offending someone. In an industry where one game lets you fuck chicks and then keep a baseball card of them as a trophy

Don't you have any sense whatsoever?

It depends what "heavily censored" means. I never mind the small model changes to show less cleavage on underaged girls that you pedos seems to flip your shit over constantly, and honestly almost everything you flip your shit over is trivial. There are times however when characters get so heavily changed they're barely even the same character anymore. Other times that scenes get cut entirely because they insist on hitting a different rating. At that point, the question becomes viable.

>>378837738
Whether or not the game sells is neither here nor there. The only purpose of a business is to make money, every decision made takes that into account. If they don't think the game will sell enough to bother, localizations don't happen. If they think it does and making adaptations for cultural sensibilities will help increase the profit margin, that's what gets done.

Yes, sometimes that overlaps with not offending people. Who knew. It's almost like playing it safe is a business savvy move.

>>378838120

The problem being you can't point to a game where censorship visibly helped sales, and there are quite a few examples where it very clearly hurt. Those profit driven companies have been taking every measure to pass the buck onto ratings boards when they have to make changes recently, so clearly they've seen a negative impact from the backlash.

I'll also add that media backlash tends to be beneficial so long as you don't end up getting pulled from shelves. GTA is one of the most successful games of all time after all, and Mass Effect got a huge boost after Fox News came down on it.

>>378838120
There are things that I can't make any business sense of. Like, censoring Fire Emblem fanservice swimsuit DLC. I don't think anyone who would be buying swimsuit fanservice DLC to begin with would be turned away because it contains swimsuit fanservice. Surely, randomly covering up a graphic would hurt interest more than helping it, wouldn't it?

File: peepee.jpg (24KB, 395x578px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 395x578px

>>378838120
>still arguing about the profit shit because you can't think of a proper refute to my post and can't defend your initial statement

>>378832752
>>378833012
>>378835740
It doesn't impact the core experience tho
Dialog changes effect the story, which is a lot more important than some random costume

>>378838694
That's only because the backlash is counted as part of the projections, and even then it's a risky move. The MO is to avoid risk, and that's doubly so when it comes to relative cultural taboos. GTA thrives on controversy because it's been doing it for decades, but it's a serious concern for some Japanese developer trying to work out wether or not to release some niche game on the west.

Again, whether the business projections of hypothetical japanese businessmen are accurate is irrelevant, the point is that no action is taken without such projections. That's how corporations work.

This fear of offending someone has always been there, one way or another, unless the product is made specifically to coast along the wave of controversy behind it. Maybe it's unfortunate, but then again there's a reason why Crawford separated "Art" and "Entertainment."

>>378838910
Maybe. Business projections aren't infallible, but they exist, and they are the guidelines that dictate actions in a corporate environment.


>>378838976
If your point is that I can't point to a game that has benefitted from censorship, it has been refuted. It's an irrelevant challenge. What matters isn't the consequence of corporate action, but the thought process and the intent. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to say.

>>378838910

Those decisions make even less sense when you consider that they tend to leave in, and even advertise with enough fanservice content to turn away anyone bothered by it.

>>378839105

You said censorship drums up sales, and anyone who can't see that has no business sense. It is absolutely relevant whether or not that is actually the case.

>>378839385
Projection is based on precedent. If you get a localized game, it sells, then you get another game from the same people, the precedent is set. From a business standpoint, sales have improved as a result of corporate action. Since there's many examples of successfully localized titles and franchises, we're there already.

Maybe I should have elaborated, but hopefully you get my point.

File: detective pepe.png (546KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 882x731px

>>378839105
>see claim
>make counterclaim
>get evidence
>ignore argument
>get called out
>i-it wasn't relevant anyway!
>still ignore other half of the post
When will you defend your first post?
>"in the vast majority of cases it does little to no harm to the work as a whole"

My point was that censorship is always harmful and you have now acknowledged that you can't refute this. It is not irrelevant. You might think so because you have started moving goalposts, anon. I was never debating whether companies should do it or not or if it is profitable or whatever. If you can't understand this, I don't know what to say.

>>378839783
I think there's some confusion, my posts start at >>378837231. I'm not really sure what you and anon were talking about before, I just hoped to correct some assumptions about business.

>>378839882
Ahh, I apologize then. I assumed you were >>378834565.

>>378839653

This seems like a specuous claim, given that up until recently censorship was getting less common. Nintendo in particular seems to have picked it back up again only in the last few years, and they suffered a lot over the violence censorship in the 90s.

I'm also not sure how that has any relation to your initial assertion that censorship drums up sales. This seems like a completely different statement.

>>378839956

I'm that person. I stand by the claim.

The assertion that censorship is always detrimental is based on assumption, not fact. It presupposes the creator or creators are infallible and their creation is perfect so any change can only be for the worse. That is a ridiculous notion that could only came from a complete and utter moron.

File: wrong.png (2MB, 1433x1063px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1433x1063px

>>378832330
>gachimuchi on my /v/
Obligatory who was in the wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va_n43y1big

>>378840236
I think it depends on how you measure the quality of a game. If you think that mass appeal is important then it can probably help. The only point of censorship is to appeal to a certain audience and this can (not necessarily) have negative consequences. Censorship takes content out of the game or replaces stuff with something that was not intended in the first place and can therefore lead to misunderstandings or plotholes etc. How exactly can censorship add to the game if you are trying to judge it objectively?

You also avoided defending your initial statement again.