For the most part, I agree. The vision of the creator should be preserved. The only time I will ever make the localization arguement is when people claim nuance lost in translation is censorship. I don't mean situations where unrelated topics are shoehorned into dialogue where it wasn't originally, I literally mean meaning conveyed in the original text does not make the jump from one language to another despite effort made to preserve it.The reason why people use the "localization" argument is because they agree with the changes and want to make it seem like it's something that the majority of the audience that will be purchasing the game actually want changed.
You know, like back in the day when you had outraged Christians/Catholics raging about blood, sex and religious imagery in games.
When companies made changes to their games apparently they were doing it because those outraged people were the majority of their audience? No, that's not it.
This "localization" is done purely for the attempted appeasement of those morally outraged elements. They are not targeted at the people who are actually purchasing the game.
It's like someone being offended at the sight of blood in games, and when a game gets its blood/gore removed and people complain they retort with "It's just localization guys! Stop complaining! This is what the audience wants! They don't like over-gorification!".
The Russia example I gave earlier completely dismantles this. Absolutely no one who's using the "localization" argument now in that thread would dare to use it in that hypothetical scenario. It's a completely disingenuous argument.