Quoting: Metallinatus

Quoting: kit89Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

This part right here really threw me on a loop. You're basically saying it's only censorship if it appeases an audience lol
But then again, like the purple guy said, that's the narrative that the alt-right has been pushing around.

When one imagines the definition of censorship they imagine the state (government), allowing only certain 'truths', and censorship has very negative connotations, the problem is that the actually definition of the word censorship is exceptionally broad and not necessarily negative.

To have any meaningful discussion on censorship one really needs to specify what type of censorship are they referring to.

Purple Guy is -so long as I've interpreted rightly- correct, in the fact that the alt-right is abusing the use of the term censorship (and what most people associate the word with) when they are in fact referring to a very specific sub-type of censorship that is ultimately not that great a deal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Metallinatus

Quoting: kit89Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

This part right here really threw me on a loop. You're basically saying it's only censorship if it appeases an audience lol
But then again, like the purple guy said, that's the narrative that the alt-right has been pushing around.

It doesn't actually have to appease an actual audience, there is a form of self-censorship where an individual will modify their words on what they think an audience (real or imaginary) will accept.

The question I guess one has to ask did the developers modify Skullgirls because they wanted to make happy an -unspecified- audience happy, at which point it's a form of censorship, or did they modify it cause they didn't like it, at which point it's artistic license same as George Lucas and Star Wars.

If it is the former, then changing it back due to audience uproar could be argued as censorship, as the artist is censoring their views to appease an audience.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The are many forms of censorship, when most people think of censorship they imagine state-censorship, but that is only one form.

When a media company translates a program into another language, say French, and then shows it to the French populace because the company would believe the majority of the French would not accept the original English version, then that is indeed a form of censorship.

Nowadays thanks to the internet, you can actually watch nearly all translations and it is left to the individual to decide, so it's no longer censorship so long as the option is available. But, (and I might be showing my age here) when you could only watch what the TV broadcaster gave you, it was very much censorship.

Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

Censorship is not inherently bad, but it can be used for bad very easily.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

i dont know what SIC means, but the staff changed completely afaik, the new staff have 0 respect for what came before then or the original target audience.

Appears to be exactly the same team minus one guy that where accused of sexual abuse at the work place by the staff. Still see no evidence that they are trying to cater to "a new audience", and honestly this line of reasoning is fast becoming old, that "other audience" that SICs keep on talking about are just some small group of marginalized women with strange hair colours that have zero power and zero reach yet we are somehow to believe that they in secret are "taking away our games, movies and comics". Stop falling for SIC (Social Injustice Crusader) propaganda, that is all that it is.

the public that purchased the game as it was liked it as it was, so yes, changing it is catering to a new audience.
the fact that a lot of things are geting censored nowadays is not an conspiration theory.

Things have always been censored, in fact it could be argued that fewer things are censored these days considering the amount of media content generated by the average joe instead of a large media corporation.

For example, an episode of Star Trek TNG was not aired/edited in the UK (back when it was originally released) as it proclaimed the reunification of Ireland by 2024. You can now watch it on Netflix in its full unedited glory.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulbut most of the time the changes arent trying to censor something for another audience that is bothered by this type of content

The SICs always makes this claim but is there any evidence what so ever that the devs made this change for "another audience" and not just because they themselves begun to feel uncomfortable with the original design?

I think this is a new game development studio stamping their mark. Skullgirls was developed by Lab Zero until they imploded, and Hidden Variable Studios took over as stewards by the publisher. I am not sure if any of the original Skullgirls team work for Hidden Variable Studios now.

I suspect the 'other audience' are the developers themselves, who may love the concept of Skullgirls but, perhaps, did not enjoy the degree certain themes were taken.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: slaapliedjeAs far as hating on removal of racist imagery making you a racist? What if it is important to the story line that you are taking out a band of racists, but some sensitivity editor decides that shouldn't be in the game, and now you're just killing a bunch of random people? :P

a good example of that is the series "everybody hate criss" wich have a bunch of racist jokes that are intended to show how absurd racism is, it make fun, mock how ridiculuous racism is all the time, yet it feature racism to show that.
should it be censored too?

I didn't play Skullgirls, but my guess is that this game does not actually think about racism/nazism, but is just using it for, well... fun? In contrast, Svoboda 1945 [External Link] e.g. obviously needs nazis.

Skullgirls uses it as a trope to tell you -in a not so subtle way- that these 'good guys' are not good at all. It tells you quickly what ideology they follow. It's very much follows the Mitchell and Web sketch: 'Are we the bad guys?'.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: neffo

Quoting: kit89The removal of armbands seems exceptionally pointless considering they kept the soldiers pointy helmets (WWI German Soldier).

WWI there were no Nazis though yeah. So, what's your point? Nobody is suggesting representation of Germans is a bad thing.

Yes, I forgot WWI German soldiers didn't involve themselves in any atrocities of their own. It doesn't have to be directly related to the Nazis to be a symbol that is reprehensible.

The pointy helmet and the red armband are not subtle associations to the horrendous acts of WWI and WWII, and if you are going to remove one, then I'd argue any decent person should then remove the other, as the arguments for one can easily be applied to the other.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The removal of armbands seems exceptionally pointless considering they kept the soldiers pointy helmets (WWI German Soldier).

The de-sexualisation also appears utterly pointless as the sexualised ethos is still firmly in place. It's like putting socks on while being bare butt naked.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: BladePupper

Quoting: legluondunetNintendo is an innovative company and produces user-friendly games, switch emulators must be costing them a lot of money.

I'm mostly curious as to how nintendo has innovated in the past decade and even since the release of the switch. Also yes bleem was definitely a thing and its legal precedent is still massively important.

The Switch was a huge innovation in itself. The Steam Deck is a complete rip off of that, as are all the Aya and other devices. Add to that that they make the best games and they don't need to be innovating any more in the near future.

I agree BTW they're a backwards and customer hostile company, but it's their IP and they can do anything they want with it.

I am not certain the Switch can be given credit for being innovative here, last I heard the Switch was the hardware from the Nvidia Shield Portable after Shield died on the vine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Tried to preorder the controller in the UK but Amazon stated there was a problem with the item, anyone else having this issue?

View this comment - View article - View full comments