-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nintendo doesn't plan on censoring video games, will only rely on 3rd-party rating boards
- Thread starter Deleted member 10737
- Start date
- Status
Agree. Also as a european i don't wan't stuff changed because of Sony Californias feelings which think they are more capable and wise than professional rating boards. Not that i care about the games that are affected either way, but it shouldn't be judged by Sony or Nintendo themselves (except from their own games).
Also the changes don't make dubious games less problematic. A girl in swimmsuits or a girl clothed in lightrays where you don't even see the swimmsuit, which makes them look even more naked in some cases..... Imo they should forbid those games entirely on their platform if they think the content is that wrong, and the age and look of the girls isn't changed by lightrays or fog either...
I guess that wasn't really censorship, christianity isn't as exotic in europe or the US like in japan so they went with greek etc. symbols that are at least a bit more exotic. Elysium or Paradise stand for the same thing either way and i'm happy they went with the more exotic sounding elysium, not because i would be outraged if they used christian symbols, it just would be more boring, at least for me. It's still religion content and imo suits better for a fantasy world.
Also they make decisions around how they want their own games to be rated, or be seen, they just don't want to force their own feelings on 3rd parties when there are better organisations to judge content.
I wish for more variation in clothes in the next Xenoblade and more blood if people are stabbed etc., the one thing in Xenoblade 2 they tried to avoid is blood and that was a dumb decision imo. They probably feared they could loose the "Ab 12" rating.
You guys don't get that it's not about the censored content but about the censorship itself. We have already seen (At the very least some of us have) what happens when you give a platform holder such amount of control.
So are you suggesting that Sony should not sell these sort of games all together? I wonder how the "fan service" defense force would feel about that.
No we very well do get it. Can you give me examples of how Sony went overboard with the censorship? Only games they censored were pedo games.
It's kinda hilarious how people are upholding Sony as a bastion of content curation when things like this still happen. It makes it pretty transparent that Sony doesn't really care that much about actually enforcing contextual censorship beyond just saying that they do so that some heat can be taken off of them, given that the context can already be inferred from the barebones depiction of convenient god rays. "Let's just say we have a policy against anime titty and hope devs don't include it". Comes across as really shallow.
There is a lot of content now allowed on any platform, what is being censored absolutely is the point.
That would actually be an effective measure instead of their current non-solution.
Censorship is not always bad.
Also, it's self-censorship. No one is forcing them.
No one is "giving" the platform holder control. They already have it. It's their platform.
And could you please give multiple examples of what you're talking about?
Even if you agree with Sony's intention wanting to cut down on underage sexualisation(which you know, you probably definitely should) there's enough reports by now of lacking communication(everything requiring submission in English), arbitrary decisions and the impact of delays and cancellations to merit criticism of their method. Note how Furukawa specifically mentions "choosing arbitrarily".
That doesn't mean they should allow weird pedo shit in games.
The "amount of control" to decide that they don't want nude or half naked underage-looking anime characters on their platform? Yeah, I hope they keep that "amount of control".
I know right?
Is it? Look, I'm in no way happy with the proliferation of pedo shit in the media, but I also grew up receiving pre-censored games from an overly righteous American Nintendo division that censored fucking statues in Castlevania IV. I don't trust Sony on not following the same path.
There are rating boards, reach them, ask them to add new labels, to be more severe. Is there a game that includes pedo shit? Let it be rated AO and subsequently get them to change the content, just don't let that responsability to a platform holder (even less if they're American) they'll take the ball, come up with stupid rules and force the other kids play like they want or get the fuck out.
If anyone wants to see an example of the kind of raving mad lunatic that Nintendo are buoying with this hands-off approach, go check out AnimuTidds on Twitter. Their account is obviously NSFW because its coated in barely clothed anime girls, but yeah, they're waging some weird basement dweller war against the fact sexually depicted underage kids are being removed from games, or being clothed up.
If they actually were interested in taking a stance against this content existing in the first place, then yes, they should just outright reject them in the concept approval phase.
Stop pretending that we need to GIVE the platform holder that ability. They already have it. It's THEIR platform. If it bothers you, boycott the platform.
And again, I asked you to give multiple modern examples of this...
Still waiting.
I have been always talking about pre-ERSB Nintendo wich, imo, is a good enough example (And a really dangerous precedent)
Putting a bit of mist or light onto the screen so it looks the character in question is naked while they are actually dressed in underwear for example, isn't an improvement.
No, it's not a good example. If you have to go back 25 years for an example, you don't have one. That doesn't apply today.
The only thing I agree is that Sony needs to have clear rules and better comunication, but this:
Is rightfully censored.
Is rightfully censored.
OP
OP
they're not doing that. putting some smoke or light ray over that content doesn't change the fact that there's still underage (or underage-looking) characters being sexualized. sony's solution here is a whole lotta nothing. if they actually felt strongly about this they would deny those games from being published on their platform altogether.
It doesn't? Or it just isn't valid for you because reasons?
It's still the same thing: A platform holder holding the power to unilaterally decide what's good and bad, in this case fully knowing that there are rating boards that can take care of it.
So far Sony is doing a good job, but for how long? I'd rather not having to ask that question
Oh and I'm a PC+Nintendo user so I'm boycotting Sony by default but I'd rather not go back to 25 years ago
None of the platform holders allow AO stuff on their stores, so they all censor, just like Walmart and movie theatre chains wont touch those products. It stops artists dead in their tracks.
I wonder if the tone of this thread would be different if it was violence being censored? I still don't get the disconnect between being okay with all manner of depraved and gross violent acts but being freaked out when a dude's Johnson is shown (Cobra Club).
I wonder if the tone of this thread would be different if it was violence being censored? I still don't get the disconnect between being okay with all manner of depraved and gross violent acts but being freaked out when a dude's Johnson is shown (Cobra Club).
OP
OP
is it? i still see the sexualized characters, the creators intent hasn't changed just cuz there's some fog in the scene.
Neither platform holder currently has an appropriate policy in place for the types of games that should be censored on these systems (sexualizing underage characters). These types of games should be banned outright from the platforms, not lightly censored by the platform holder and not deferred to ratings boards that allow these types of games to slip through the cracks and not receive the AO rating they deserve (effectively banning them from release on any console).
It's literally the ESRB's and such's job to define what is considered appropriate to put in a game.
If it gets the clear by them then it's enough for me. You got an issue with it take it up with them.
I don't play those games but I don't like the idea of companies stepping their foot into developers business.
If it's not breaking any laws then let it go.
We are not talking about dude's Johnsons but about kid's naked. No one give a fuck about butt naked guys and girls in, say, Wtach Dogs 2, because it's not doing it in a titilating way, and also because it's adults.
I also thing the same about violence btw. I find MK repulsive.
I mean it's not enough yeah, that pic should be out. But it's better than leave it untouched, even if it's not ideal.
They should also remove any anime services from their platforms, which might be hard for sony considering they own one.
Nice contribution. Clearly you had nothing but best intentions when you quoted me earlier.
There's not much more to say to you.
Just because it's the ESRB's job to rate games doesn't mean that a platform holder can't make their own decisions about underage girls in their video games.
And if you're okay with that being in a game just because the ESRB gives it "the clear," that's weird. It's wrong, period.
ok but literally anything is better than nothing
I mean yeah ultimately it is up to them. It's not like I'm boycotting Sony. Just prefer they leave the content be decided by the people who's actual job that is to decide what is appropriate to sell and what it should be rated.
I just don't want the risk of something like early 90's Nintendo again. You can call it a slippery slope and I'm just paranoid but that wasn't a period I enjoyed.
There is genitalia in a ubisoft game? And no AO rating? Hilarious.
We are talking about censorship and not allowing AO games on a platform is censoring those games. Artists have to self censor what they can create or their games will be banned. So i am just pointing out that every console platform holder already does this, so dropping other types of games would be nothing new.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that. Literally none. Paranoia is not a valid basis for an argument.
I don't know about that. It changes practically nothing.
You either rely on the boards and let they do their job or censor it yourself the right way (like removing questionable scenes). Sony stance is pretty vague and not well-explained.
Society sees violence as OK, as it can be used as a means to an end, depending on the situation. Its not called the police force because they convince you to stop your criminal acts, for instance. However, sexual content involving minors will probably never be acceptable as its widely seen as disgusting, with no situation where it can be seen as OK to allow.
But creppy weeb shit is literally the only thing Sony has "censored"
As long as Nintendo isn't forcing devs to resubmit their content for review despite passing existing regulation. In a foreign language. With little to no support for smaller developers to guide through the process.
OP
OP
they also censored DMC5. they walked back on it but it shows they're capable and willing to censor other stuff as well.
- Status