Nintendo made potato-chan a midget [Xenoblade X censorship]

[Nuvendil]

NoirSon said:

atomicblue said:

Jumpin said:

This is not censoreship, this is localization. This is not ESRB deciding they can't put this in, or Germany deciding they can't put this in. This is Nintendo's team who makes changes in order to make the game marketable in other markets; including translation, rewrites, and changes in content. It is not censoreship just because the localization team decided to remove something that Europeans would find inappropriate, it is making the game more marketable in Europe, because if they put stuff like that in the game, it will hurt its sales - and it is the localization team's job to make sure the game sells well in other markets.

This was the correct call by localization. If you are against it, provide a good argument as to why you think a child should have this sexualizing outfit, and saying "I don't like censoreship" is both a fallacious and a strawman argument.

Came here to say pretty much the same thing. Censorship specifically refers to suppression by an external body (government, ESRB, etc.) and this is something else entirely. People need to learn how to use words correctly.

This right here should be end of the thread and these stupid censorship arguement. It won't be but it should be, there are real world examples of censorship out there going on today in other countries across the globe. Complaining about a game company doing it with some fanservice is more of an example of a 'First World Problem'.

What makes this even more of a pointless discussion is that this change has essentially no impact on the product as a whole.  As a piece of art, a game is more than just a sum of parts and changing one part could have a large or nonexistent impact.  If this were, say, a crime drama game where you play as part of Vice or Public Morals (ye older Vice) fighting against a large human trafficking and sex trafficking ring and Nintendo of America retroactively replaced all the young and potentially underage scantily clad victims with women in their mid twenties wearing very modest dresses, THEN we would have a problem.  But it isn't.  These outfits were inconsequential from the start.  The important question to ask is if you went back in time and removed the part in question before the original product ever saw the light of day, would anyone ever have noticed?  If the answer is no, then the situation is of no consequence.