• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Nintendo Confirms Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Encore Japanese Version is Based on Western Version and Features Changes

Why the fuck would you even play this game if you think this way in the first place? The game is idol smt more than anything. Is it the SMT angle? I myself don't particularly like idol stuff myself but I can't enable a company doing this kind of shit either.

I liked the combat, dungeon puzzles and light-hearted story on Wii U. I never felt like I needed to see more of the girls’ skin.

The fact that you think the game isn’t worth playing without the censored content is weird. It’s not enough to see an 18 year old in a skirt? It has to be a 17 year old and they have to look like strippers?
 

McCheese

Member
I’m not particularly concerned with them censoring scantily clad underage anime girls. You’re a fucking weirdo if that kind of thing is what determines your purchase.

Its weird but it makes sense when you think about it.

Us males can procreate to our balls content, where as women have the burden of pregnancy and default child carer.

So female sexuality is seen as this valuable sexual currency. Its why you see a huge imbalance when it comes to dating apps.

Removing sexuality from the women in the game, by covering them up and changing their story and intentions, is removing the sexual currency, and lowering the games perceived value by males.
 
Last edited:

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
I don’t want to see underdressed underaged girls. That’s not “cake” - that’s repulsive.
Simple, don't buy the game. people who are not interested in this type of game will not buy it regardless its censored or not, so why should it get censored for people who do like the games. Its like me hoping MK games gets censored because I personally find the gore in that game gross.
 
I liked the combat, dungeon puzzles and light-hearted story on Wii U. I never felt like I needed to see more of the girls’ skin.

The fact that you think the game isn’t worth playing without the censored content is weird. It’s not enough to see an 18 year old in a skirt? It has to be a 17 year old and they have to look like strippers?

It's a game about idol culture. They apparently changed one of the dungeons from being about one of the idol characters not wanting to do a gravure (i.e. risque, but not necessarily nude) modeling shoot to being about not feeling trendy. That's fucking stupid.

And yeah, they probably will look like strippers. Idols tend to do that in Japan.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
I liked the combat, dungeon puzzles and light-hearted story on Wii U. I never felt like I needed to see more of the girls’ skin.
I take it you didn't get the game then? Considering it was based around idol culture.
The fact that you think the game isn’t worth playing without the censored content is weird.
This is untrue. I don't condone censorship or the removal of content for theoritical snowflakes. Specially something as dumb as this. My main gripe with the game was the fact they did it for no real reason. I don't get why people think the way you do here.
It has to be a 17 year old and they have to look like strippers?
They look far more clothed than some of the girls at the mall. Was this your first JRPG?
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
Simple, don't buy the game. people who are not interested in this type of game will not buy it regardless its censored or not, so why should it get censored for people who do like the games. Its like me hoping MK games gets censored because I personally find the gore in that game gross.
Weird. What I find gross in that game are the girls.
 

Senhua

Member
I liked the combat, dungeon puzzles and light-hearted story on Wii U. I never felt like I needed to see more of the girls’ skin.

The fact that you think the game isn’t worth playing without the censored content is weird. It’s not enough to see an 18 year old in a skirt? It has to be a 17 year old and they have to look like strippers?
Because Idols need to look like that in Japan sometimes.
I understand that thing different at western side there but the reality here this is it.
If they want to make some remaster/port of their old WII U catalog and only do one global ver , this is the very wrong kind of game they choose for right?

But whatever I hope you will enjoy your California Mirage Session: American Idol edition.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Member
I don’t want to see underdressed underaged girls. That’s not “cake” - that’s repulsive.

Grandstanding over age doesn't change anything, this argument is made in every situation. It was made when they turned Lara Croft into a dressed-up fridge with a ponytail, it was made when they did what they did to Tifa, and it was made when they censored Dead or Alive.

Since censorship comes from demented people exclusively because they're jealous of fiction, I'd say let them buy the game now that the game caters to their needs. You can't be a bitch and then bitch to people who don't want to pay for your bitching. The blame lies always on whoever whined first.
 
Many people need to be more like Barry and be passionate about this game.



Although some circles think this is


Others think this is why it happened.




Probably most people here can relate to this, especially @SLoWMoTIoN

 
Last edited:
I’m not particularly concerned with them censoring scantily clad underage anime girls. You’re a fucking weirdo if that kind of thing is what determines your purchase.
You automatically lose the argument if the first thing you do is resort to shaming tactics.

But sure, let us ignore the principle of artistic integrity and adopting a live and let live attitude towards game developers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa
It's always the same tired arguments these people make "you just want to see underage girls in skimpy clothes". Like... man, I can do this on fucking Twitter and no one fucking cares... but if it's an anime tiddie, the nutjob puritans come out of the woodworks telling everyone how superior they are. lol

 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
It's always the same tired arguments these people make "you just want to see underage girls in skimpy clothes". Like... man, I can do this on fucking Twitter and no one fucking cares... but if it's an anime tiddie, the nutjob puritans come out of the woodworks telling everyone how superior they are. lol

Why is her name Octopus
 

Paracelsus

Member
It's always the same tired arguments these people make "you just want to see underage girls in skimpy clothes". Like... man, I can do this on fucking Twitter and no one fucking cares... but if it's an anime tiddie, the nutjob puritans come out of the woodworks telling everyone how superior they are. lol


Can a 2D girl use dumb thirsty men as paypigs the way Belle Delphine does?
Congratulations, now you know why some women hate fanservice.
 
I like that in the Resetera thread the people arguing in favor of the changes are acting as if their argument would be any different if the characters were 18+ which they are in the US version of the game.

It provides a convenient pretense for an argument when in actuality and in all other similar threads their chief complaint is that the female characters are showing skin at all.

If you told me that most of the people in favor of the changes in that thread are deeply religious evangelicals I wouldn't have any trouble believing that outside of a discrepancies.

This new argument where developers could just easily be rid of these issues by getting rid of the icky evil content is charming. I expect to see it in more threads about fanservice.

These stupid fucking developers, if you don't want any problems just get rid of all fanservice and never do it again!

But somehow this doesn't apply to people expressing moral outrage at the general concept of women not being completely covered up in media.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Isa
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
Not really, this is straight up "censorship", how else would you describe it?


cen·sorship
/ˈsensərSHip/

noun
noun: censorship
  1. 1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
    "the regulation imposes censorship on all media"
It is the literal definition of the word. I think some people are just trolling at this point with some of these replies honestly.
 
Censorship has only lost all meaning if you're one of those people who pretend that words only have a single strict definition and can only be used in a singular meaning and context as a result. Censorship isn't as simple a concept as "government stomps you for doing something it doesn't like". It has a lot more history and nuance than that.

The reason you do this is because you don't want to concede that something you agree with is being portrayed in a negative context. In this case fanservice featuring women (with "underage" in this case being used to hide your actual argument/problem with fanservice featuring adult characters that you'll freely use in threads where this angle doesn't exist).

Here's a thought experiment.

Imagine if someone made a thread on ResetERA where a video game to be released in Russia had an adult homosexual couple as its main characters, but due to social media outrage and backlash prior to release they are being changed to straight characters with no romantic connections. No government action, fines or threats are present in this hypothetical scenario. Just social media outrage.

What do you think would happen in this thread if people simply replied with "This is completely fine, companies are allowed to make changes to their games in accordance with their public image and localize for different regions. There's no problem here".

Anyone touting the "this isn't censorship" line would be permabanned easily. The thread would be a grave yard. The reason for that is because the change is now something that they don't agree with and therefore the disingenuous "this isn't censorship" line would no longer be tolerated.

In this scenario, I myself would conclude that a game company changing its two homosexual characters to straight in order to avoid/reduce moral based social media outrage is definitely censorship. If you have a problem with that conclusion because you think that game companies are free to change content to suit specific regions or in accordance with their image or whatever nonsense you decide to add, then please consult a dictionary before you think about replying.
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
Censorship has only lost all meaning if you're one of those people who pretend that words only have a single strict definition.
Even if we are going by those strict definitions it still applies to this game.

Story elements were changed. This has been said a million times.
Check their post history. If they aren't trolling then it is kinda sad. Kinda.
 

Whitesnake

Banned
The fact that you think the game isn’t worth playing without the censored content is weird. It’s not enough to see an 18 year old in a skirt? It has to be a 17 year old and they have to look like strippers?

Or maybe we dislike the principle of needlessly changing content to appease the sensibilities of people who don't actually play videogames?

Maybe because we feel that the idea of removing fanservice of a game that solely consists of fanservice is asinine?

Maybe because this was a baffling design choice that was made after pre-orders opened which means fans were decieved, whether intentionally or not?

But no, it's just "lol pedo", right?
 
Has the game's plot been altered in any way, or are folks really getting upset that they asked that guy to put some pants on?
If the original work is forcibly altered, then that’s censorship.

Trying to dismiss anti-censorship arguments with “Lol, they’re just pants” is a pathetic reductive straw man. It’s about the principle of artistic freedom.

Though I bet you already knew that, so the best you can do is poison the well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isa
Or maybe we dislike the principle of needlessly changing content to appease the sensibilities of people who don't actually play videogames?

Maybe because we feel that the idea of removing fanservice of a game that solely consists of fanservice is asinine?

Maybe because this was a baffling design choice that was made after pre-orders opened which means fans were decieved, whether intentionally or not?

But no, it's just "lol pedo", right?

I think think it’s less about pedophilia and more about young, broke, sexually frustrated men developing strange habits to cope with their situation.

Try going to college, get a job with a six figure salary, work out, etc. and I guarantee you’ll lose interest in these things as you’ll have real women as options.
 
Last edited:
I think think it’s less about pedophilia and more about young, broke, sexually frustrated men developing strange habits to cope with their situation.

Try going to college, get a job with a six figure salary, work out, etc. and I guarantee you’ll lose interest in these things as you’ll have real women as options.
I think you’re jumping the gun with baseless assumptions and shaming tactics.
 
I think think it’s less about pedophilia and more about young, broke, sexually frustrated men developing strange habits to cope with their situation.

Try going to college, get a job with a six figure salary, work out, etc. and I guarantee you’ll lose interest in these things as you’ll have real women as options.

I remember seeing this exact same argument used towards video games, fantasy books, dungeons and dragons and other things.

This idea that you will no longer enjoy something that the speaker doesn't like once you do [insert list of actions here].

Bonus points when you have a higher paying job, work out more and have a spouse versus the speaker who has none of those things but you haven't told them yet. Even more points when you tell them that your spouse also enjoys the stuff that the speaker doesn't like.

It's an intellectually bunk argument, the only thing that dictates the target is "I don't like this, so do these things so you won't like the thing I don't like anymore".

But I already do all those things and still like video games, fantasy books and dungeons and dragons.

What now?
 

theclaw135

Member
If the original work is forcibly altered, then that’s censorship.

Trying to dismiss anti-censorship arguments with “Lol, they’re just pants” is a pathetic reductive straw man. It’s about the principle of artistic freedom.

Though I bet you already knew that, so the best you can do is poison the well.

Artistic freedom is an important point that too often goes neglected in these debates.
Changes that APPEAR to be censorship, may or may not have been actually intended for the purpose of censorship.
 

brap

Banned
Artistic freedom is an important point that too often goes neglected in these debates.
Changes that APPEAR to be censorship, may or may not have been actually intended for the purpose of censorship.
Fuck off with this retarded shit. I guess nobody can complain about censorship since we can't read the creators mind.
 

Zaffo

Member
Artistic freedom is an important point that too often goes neglected in these debates.
Changes that APPEAR to be censorship, may or may not have been actually intended for the purpose of censorship.

I highly doubt the creator intended to refine his art, by adding ugly smoke clouds and badly photoshopped textures over his original designs.
 
Last edited:

brap

Banned
I highly doubt the creator intended to refine his art, by adding ugly smoke clouds and badly photoshopped textures over his original designs.
Shut up. You don't know that they may or may not have been actually intended for the purpose of censorship.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Isa
Artistic freedom is an important point that too often goes neglected in these debates.
Changes that APPEAR to be censorship, may or may not have been actually intended for the purpose of censorship.

You can generally determine whether or not a change was based on avoiding moral outrage or not.

For example, when Nintendo went around removing religious imagery and references from games that came to their systems, they didn't do this because they just happened to want to. They released Japanese versions with the imagery in tact, and versions that were sold in the west with this imagery removed.

They did this because they knew that having religious symbols/imagery in their games would court outrage that they would rather avoid. Not because there's anything inherently wrong with having religious imagery in games.

When something is changed in a game, try tracing the source of the initial outrage. Look at the history of social outrage and where it's coming from.

You can determine a common link between them when it's the same type of material being removed across multiple different games made by different developers released on different systems.

The material in question usually being religious imagery, violence or anything related to sexuality/eroticism. You can then trace where exactly it's coming from.

Back then, it was the religious lamenting the existence of religious imagery, violence and sexuality/eroticism.

Nowadays the religious pushback still exists, but it is significantly muted in comparison to the sex negative feminist angle that has directly inherited ideas/values from the religious element.
 
Top Bottom