Neodegenerate said:
The thing though is that it isn't about not being able to see the swimsuit, which I agree is trivial. The issue at hand is more about the idea of unnecessary censorship. If they are censoring the game to get the rating changed, as is often done in movies, then fine. However, when they have a game that is going to fall in the same rating category but choose to censor anyway, that is where it becomes an issue. The original artistic vision of the game is ultimately sacrificed for fear of backlash or whatever other nonsense they want to hide behind. I choose not to buy games that get unnecessary censorship as a message to the company that I don't want things censored unnecessarily. Not because I need to see -insert pixel girl/guy here- in a swimsuit. Nintendo seems to be unfairly painted in this one, even though all gaming companies do it, and I believe that is largely because they still carry the largest portion of the stigma that gaming is for kids. The rating sticker doesn't seem to matter as much as it pertains to their products. They get censored and then hit with media coverage anyway.
|
If we ever have a situation where the artistic vision of a game is truly being sacrificed for fear of backlash, then I'd be inclined to agree. However, I have difficulty imagining that removing a swimsuit outfit from a game would ever be compromising the original artistic vision, and this is where I find this constant complaining about censorship to be borderline ridiculous. These threads are always being made after some swimsuit or other revealing costume is removed from a game.
I guess the fear is the potential for a trend to be formed, where more important things get censored in order to protect a game from backlash, but even in this case I'd argue this is an unfounded fear at best. Minor censorship has been going on behind the scenes from country to country for years, now, and there hasn't been any real tragedy of compromised artistic vision. This is a knee jerk reaction to minor changes at best.
