By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Star Ocean 5 censorship of a woman 18 years old due to western pressure.

S.T.A.G.E. on 14 April 2016
Teeqoz said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Wrong. Western money is the video game indistrys primary source of income. The big three are America, Europe and Japan but in reality it's America first, Europe second and Japan third depending in general when it comes to expectation. In past years Japan's sales was greater but not so much anymore.

No no no. What you are saying is that SE made the decision that they thought it would be better for them financially to censor this, because they think it can lead to higher sales in the west. That does not mean that western pressure can force SE into censoring their games. They do it out of their own will.

A decision made for financial gain is still a choice to censor the product because of money. Your motivations are because of profit reasons and not just your own gut feelings .Businesses more often than not will go for the best financial option than what they innately like. The best financial option is to be censored by the west. They could also do what theyve done for years and make a japanese and western version of their games. The problem with that though is today games are more expensive to make.



Around the Network
Teeqoz on 14 April 2016
outlawauron said:
Teeqoz said:

In that case they did it because they thought the potential negative PR from not doing it would impact their bottom line in the future. They wouldn't have done shit with it if they literally thought it would not have any positive impact to their bottom line in the long run at all.

In the end, my point was that SE wasn't forced to do anything. They made this decision themselves. I don't care that they did it to appease someone else, it was still their decision, and they wouldn't have had to do it if they didn't want to. So too bad for SE!

What you're also missing is that no one believes that Tri-Ace did this decision on their own. Square making a decision would mean that something forced on them from someone not actually making the game. 

 

S.T.A.G.E. said:
Teeqoz said:

No no no. What you are saying is that SE made the decision that they thought it would be better for them financially to censor this, because they think it can lead to higher sales in the west. That does not mean that western pressure can force SE into censoring their games. They do it out of their own will.

A decision made for financial gain is still a choice to censor the product because of money. Your motivations are because of profit reasons and not just your own gut feelings .Businesses more often than not will go for the best financial option than what they innately like. The best financial option is to be censored by the west. They could also do what theyve done for years and make a japanese and western version of their games. The problem with that though is today games are more expensive to make.

Guys, both of you. I'm not saying that it isn't censored. I've never said that. SE censored it. I am merely saying that no one forced SE to make the decision to do this, and they could have let it be the way it was, so the blame (if you feel inclined to blame anyone for something this trivial) is on SE.



outlawauron on 14 April 2016
Teeqoz said:
outlawauron said:

What you're also missing is that no one believes that Tri-Ace did this decision on their own. Square making a decision would mean that something forced on them from someone not actually making the game. 

 

S.T.A.G.E. said:

A decision made for financial gain is still a choice to censor the product because of money. Your motivations are because of profit reasons and not just your own gut feelings .Businesses more often than not will go for the best financial option than what they innately like. The best financial option is to be censored by the west. They could also do what theyve done for years and make a japanese and western version of their games. The problem with that though is today games are more expensive to make.

Guys, both of you. I'm not saying that it isn't censored. I've never said that. SE censored it. I am merely saying that no one forced SE to make the decision to do this, and they could have let it be the way it was, so the blame (if you feel inclined to blame anyone for something this trivial) is on SE.

I kind of agree. Square is at fault for allowing potential backlash to step into the game to change something so arbitrary. The actions of some have created an environment where this type of questions even happens is what creates this type of thing in the first place.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Teeqoz on 14 April 2016
outlawauron said:
Teeqoz said:

 

Guys, both of you. I'm not saying that it isn't censored. I've never said that. SE censored it. I am merely saying that no one forced SE to make the decision to do this, and they could have let it be the way it was, so the blame (if you feel inclined to blame anyone for something this trivial) is on SE.

I kind of agree. Square is at fault for allowing potential backlash to step into the game to change something so arbitrary. The actions of some have created an environment where this type of questions even happens is what creates this type of thing in the first place.

Glad we could come to agreement (even though I still think this is a non-issue)



Roronaa_chan on 14 April 2016
SuaveSocialist said:
There's a lot of white knighting for voyeurism on this site. Hiding behind a rallying cry for "artistic freedom" does not make it any less creepy.

?

Voyeurism of who?



Around the Network
Cubedramirez on 14 April 2016
Skullwaker said:
Cubedramirez said:
eh. Frankly this is just more reason for me to learn Japanese. I'd rather have the direct source game than wait for localization anyways. From poor translations to changes made because they might offend the flavor of the month SJW there are plenty of reasons to take that step and buy a Rosetta Stone package.

It's not about not seeing panties or growing breast on computer generated characters, frankly it's about getting as close to the source game as possible.

This was done in the Japanese release too.


Then shit, this is as close to the source (minus translation and other localization issues) that I can get too. 



SuaveSocialist on 15 April 2016
Roronaa_chan said:
SuaveSocialist said:
There's a lot of white knighting for voyeurism on this site. Hiding behind a rallying cry for "artistic freedom" does not make it any less creepy.

?

Voyeurism of who?

You'll find your answer in the OP, at least as far as this thread is concerned, anyways.  Keep your eyes out for threads like this and I am sure you will spot other examples.



Roronaa_chan on 15 April 2016
SuaveSocialist said:

You'll find your answer in the OP, at least as far as this thread is concerned, anyways.  Keep your eyes out for threads like this and I am sure you will spot other examples.

If you stare at a wall is it voyeurism? A table? A fork? Those things are more real than fictional characters. Can't voyeur what doesn't exist

The American Psychiatric Association has classified certain voyeuristic fantasies, urges and behavior patterns as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) if the person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.[6] It is described as a disorder of sexual preference in the ICD-10.[7] The DSM-IV defines voyeurism as the act of looking at "unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity".[8] The diagnosis would not be given to people who experience typical sexual arousal simply by seeing nudity or sexual activity. In order to be diagnosed with voyeuristic disorder the symptoms must persist for over six months and the person in question must be over the age of 18.[9]



Hynad on 15 April 2016
binary solo said:
Well the article pretty much explains it all in one sentence. SE wanted to achieve a certain rating for SO5, I assume that was either T for teen or E for everyone, and that meant being more sexually modest than they would have to be if they wanted an M for mature rating.

100% purely commercial decision to achieve a certain rating to maximise audience potential.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Why is this comment ignored, among all of you arguing about nothing between yourselves?



SuaveSocialist on 15 April 2016
Roronaa_chan said:
SuaveSocialist said:

You'll find your answer in the OP, at least as far as this thread is concerned, anyways.  Keep your eyes out for threads like this and I am sure you will spot other examples.

If you stare at a wall is it voyeurism? A table? A fork? Those things are more real than fictional characters. Can't voyeur what doesn't exist

The American Psychiatric Association has classified certain voyeuristic fantasies, urges and behavior patterns as a paraphilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) if the person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.[6] It is described as a disorder of sexual preference in the ICD-10.[7] The DSM-IV defines voyeurism as the act of looking at "unsuspecting individuals, usually strangers, who are naked, in the process of disrobing, or engaging in sexual activity".[8] The diagnosis would not be given to people who experience typical sexual arousal simply by seeing nudity or sexual activity. In order to be diagnosed with voyeuristic disorder the symptoms must persist for over six months and the person in question must be over the age of 18.[9]

"Can't voyeur what doesn't exist." The character does exist---as an observable, digital likeness of a human female.  The definition you provided does not support your claim here, but it is clear that you're more interested in the discussion devolving into pissy semantic tirade.

 

Needless to say, that definition is not the only one out there and I stand by my original statement.  Feel free to swap out 'voyeurism' for whatever term you think should apply---doesn't make it any less creepy.