Gamergate - OP updated 27 October

[Deleted]

felix acting like a professional, props to him, hate his content but cant deny that he's gotten pretty good at it.

Pewds character is pretty much tailored to an audience that I don't think frequents this type of forum, nor do they play MMO's.

Felix himself is bae though. People get the 2 mixed up a lot.

[Strangebrew]

http://nisamerica.com/blog/CG2

It's almost like they addressed all these largely minor changes and there are absolutely valid business reasons for them making them.

And I totally believe that all those YouTube commentors have worked localizing games from other regions, especially more sexualized games, and have tons of experience submitting/dealing with the ESRB/ratings boards, pitching these games to retailers to get them to stock physical copies (if they're being released), working with the small budgets that a lot of publishers like NIS etc. often work with on these games where delays can be very harmful to the company overall, working with the platform holders to get their approval for the games on their platform(s), etc.

It's like people think that NIS and other publishers that bring over these types of game get some kind of perverse pleasure out of making changes during localization. They know what these games are. They know who their audience is. They're not going to sabotage their games by "censoring" them just to intentionally piss off their target audience. The doublethink on this topic for some publishers is super real.

Bullshit, PQube is doing it just fine by bringing over both VD and Gal*Gun uncensored, both arguably worse than CG.
The one difference is the loli character in CG2, and if that one loli character is the issue, fine, i get it.
But then there is no fucking need for this.

Removing bondage, fucking seriously?

NiSA is full of shit, and is in damage control mode on their forums exactly because PQube went out and said there is zero issues with bringing games like it over and not having problems with ESRB giving it an AO rating.
Even going as far as having NiSA employee agreeing that the changes is unnecessary.

There is especially no excuse when they aren't even uncensoring CG for the PC release where there is no forced rating system in the first place, but by all means, keep defending them, the more they chase off people with censoring, something that more and more people are getting angry about, the quicker they are going to get forced into stopping their bullshit.


From a PQube employee himself.

[erthwjim]

Means nothing, Sony MS and Nintendo all require an ESRB rating to sell on their digital store fronts unlike Valve.

I was actually referring more to the PC games of the world, from Valve to GOG and Green Man Gaming, etc.. The more digital we have the less retail stores there are to please. Then companies don't need to worry about pleasing the gamestops and bestbuys of the world, they can just put their stuff up on digital fronts. I'd say this is even true of Sony and MS digital fronts, the less they have to rely on retail storefronts the more leeway they have in their own stores. And I think it's the brick and mortar stores that care more about stocking those AO rated games then digital storefronts do.

Also if NISA didn't bring over CG 1/2 nobody else sure as hell would. Anyone who thinks NISA is not trying their best is living in a delusional fantasy. People should be happy localization teams like at NISA exist because in the ps1/early ps2 eras we simply just didn't get games like this period.

Well considering NISA isn't the only localizing company, I can probably guess someone else would have picked up the rights to publish it in the US quite quickly, Atlus is one company that comes to mind, considering they actually used to work with NISA in the past. Then there are always people willing to do fan subs on games or even companies like Play-Asia seem to want to get into contributing to localization somehow according to this tweet: https://twitter.com/playasia/status/747991173059358720, although I'm sure they wouldn't be the ones localizing the game.

Also blowing off cultural differences like they don't matter is laughable. In Japan a game like CG is treated as normal and put on store shelves, a game like GTA is treated like pornography and has to be asked for to get behind the counter. There is a MASSIVE difference between sexualization(especially of younger looking character models) and extreme violence between the cultures and ESRB/CERO act accordingly with it.

Ok, but I was pointing out the people that were using 80/90s localization to justify modern day localization. They actually used examples from games in the past where mascots were changed, brands were changed, foods were changed (I think they used a game that changed sushi), etc to say this is what localization involves and this is what localization should be doing. Things that most people know about or could easily find out about with a google search, things that really don't need to be changed especially since countries don't live in the bubbles they used to, people interested in playing localized japanese games probably know more about the culture than those that don't play them, and probably are willing to learn about it too.

If the ESRB has too much power in NA then CERO certainly has too much power in Japan as well, where all these games you people cry about censorship are coming from.

And your point here is? So they're both equally as bad. One country stigmatizes anything sex related the other stigmatizes anything related to violence. Neither of them are right.

Censorship in general is bad, localization changes to make things typically fine in one culture seem more tasteful to another on the other hand is normal and has been happening in games and anime and live action for decades.

And that's why I prefer to watch my anime and live action films from the source using fansubs rather than watching the muddled localized version of them. Tasteful is too subjective and in the case of Japanese related media it's not the people watching it that are determining what is or is not tasteful, it's something like the ESRB or the MPAA, made up of people that probably don't represent the population of the US in general let alone some niche market like Anime or JRPGs.

Nintendo coloring skin white to match a wedding dress is blatant censorship... The CG2 changes? LMAO hardly even close.

I wasn't commenting on CG2 specifically, as above I was commenting about the people trying to justify certain types of localizations. I would rather nothing was changed if at all possible, even if it might offend.

- - - Updated - - -

Things are going to stay as they are with the ESRB until AO games in general becomes less stigmatised in the west. A lot of games that go far enough to get rated for more than just Mature and allowed onto a system are straight out porn games, and no serious outlet wants that kind of thing associated with their brand. That is why all the major 3 platforms (bar PC with Valve having a more lax standard) require a game to be rated to be sold, even digitally.

Although the AO ratings is problematic, the bigger issue I have is the lack of consistency in what gets that AO rating. That's why I say there is a bias, games that are pretty similar in violence, sexual content, etc will get different ratings when they probably shouldn't.

[Edge-]

Bullshit, PQube is doing it just fine by bringing over both VD and Gal*Gun uncensored, both arguably worse than CG.

I see you ignored everything I wrote. Again, not every game is going to get away with the same stuff because you can't look at each change in a vacuum, the entirety of the game needs to be taken into account and sometimes other areas of the game can push minor changes in unrelated ones to try to meet ratings board requirements.

Again, NIS knows their audience. They're one of the only publishers that will bring over the games they publish and they know exactly what they are. Do you think they have some ideological agenda against the games they bring over and are trying to harm the financial chances of their games by intentionally pissing off their audience?

Seriously, does that make a lick of sense to you?

The one difference is the loli character in CG2, and if that one loli character is the issue, fine, i get it.
But then there is no fucking need for this.

Removing bondage, fucking seriously?

Are you familiar with the ESRB's internal workings? Or PEGI? Because having worked with devs that have had to work with them on similar issues, this is well within the realm of minor changes that are preemptively made to ensure that the game will get a M rating upon first submission so that they can keep to a tight localization/publishing schedule that's being run on a small budget. Needing to go back and make additional changes can throw a hell of a lot of their plans/budget into disorder.

And yes, removing bondage. Believe it or not, bondage is considered more adult content, and contributes towards pushing a games rating higher.

NiSA is full of shit, and is in damage control mode on their forums exactly because PQube went out and said there is zero issues with bringing games like it over and not having problems with ESRB giving it an AO rating.

Different companies, different games, different publishers. I've worked on multiple games like Criminal Girls over the years, sometimes you're fully expecting the ESRB to give the version you run by them an AO rating and are sweating bullets but they surprisingly come back with a M. Other times you are expecting a M but they come back AO and you need to revisit the game. There's no "magic" formula here. It's great PQube can get these recent games through without changes, but that's not reasonable to expect of every one of these more fanservice heavy games getting localized.

Even going as far as having NiSA employee agreeing that the changes is unnecessary.

Sauce?

There is especially no excuse when they aren't even uncensoring CG for the PC release where there is no forced rating system in the first place, but by all means, keep defending them, the more they chase off people with censoring, something that more and more people are getting angry about, the quicker they are going to get forced into stopping their bullshit.

Not "uncensoring" it makes sense. That's additional budget and time spent having the devs revert the changes initially made, which can be a god damn nightmare when dealing with Japanese devs (they can be super duper hard to work with). Then you'll have the existing folks that bought it on Vita complaining that they're getting the "inferior" version and it's not fair. This way they're ensuring that everyone in the West playing the game is playing the same version. I'm sure PC modders will mod out the "censorship", so you can still play the uncensored version.

From a PQube employee himself.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to show. He's making no claims about NISA here, he's speaking to the process with Gal Gun. Why is the CG2 LE tweet referenced? What's with the silly image of a nuke and "BTFO NISA"? Again, sometimes you submit a game and it sails right through, and if it didn't you have the time to make some changes. Other times you submit it and ESRB gives you an AO and recommendations to how to get it down to a M, or you preemptively make some minor changes to ensure that you can get through on your first try because you don't have the time/budget to request changes from Japan, fight them to get them made, resubmit to the ESRB, and then hope it passes.

Or if you prefer, NISA and other publishers that may have to "censor" a game when they localize it can just not bother to bring them over. It's great when these localizers can bring games over without any significant changes, but that's not always possible for every single game.

I mean, or we could not see some of these games come over at all, that too.

Seriously, it bothers me how binary people treat this situation. If you bring a game over without changes, you're the best. If you make any changes you're basically satan.

[Strangebrew]

I mean, or we could not see some of these games come over at all, that too.

I rather not see them come over instead of the butchered garbage versions we are getting, it's direspectful to the developers who most likely are clueless on what happens to the game when it get's censored to hell.


NiSA clearly don't know their playerbase, otherwise we wouldn't be getting the barrage of complaints on both their forums and steam communities on their other games, or the outrage we are seeing over censorship right now.

Are you familiar with the ESRB's internal workings? Or PEGI? Because having worked with devs that have had to work with them on similar issues, this is well within the realm of minor changes that are preemptively made to ensure that the game will get a M rating upon first submission so that they can keep to a tight localization/publishing schedule that's being run on a small budget. Needing to go back and make additional changes can throw a hell of a lot of their plans/budget into disorder.

I know perfectly well how ESRB and PEGI works, and they aren't even remotely as biased as you make it out to be, something history have shown us over and over, you assume you get an AO rating, assume. You said it yourself.
If Gal*Gun can get away with this.



Then any excuse NiSA have for CG2 falls flat, this is likely the case of NiSA assuming they will get an AO rating, then throwing the playerbase under the bus.
"It happened before, so we should be fine with it now" is the most pathetic shit excuse i ever hear.

Again, not every game is going to get away with the same stuff because you can't look at each change in a vacuum, the entirety of the game needs to be taken into account and sometimes other areas of the game can push minor changes in unrelated ones to try to meet ratings board requirements.

Uh huh, and VD and Gal*gun is still arguably worse and more sexualized, so piss off with that one.

Not "uncensoring" it makes sense. That's additional budget and time spent having the devs revert the changes initially made, which can be a god damn nightmare when dealing with Japanese devs (they can be super duper hard to work with). Then you'll have the existing folks that bought it on Vita complaining that they're getting the "inferior" version and it's not fair. This way they're ensuring that everyone in the West playing the game is playing the same version. I'm sure PC modders will mod out the "censorship", so you can still play the uncensored version.

So you're going to defend an inferior butchered version because some random person might fix it.
That says everything i need to know about you.

And yes, removing bondage. Believe it or not, bondage is considered more adult content, and contributes towards pushing a games rating higher.

But torture, sexual violence and gore, now that's perfectly fine and still get's an M rating, it must be ESRB and their crusade to go after japanese games, western games is just a-okay.

You're no different from the same SJW shitstains that defends censorship, it's just localization!
You're using the exact same arguments.

You go ahead and defend regressive methods used by shitty companies like NiSA.
I'm glad we have companies like XSeed and PQube throwing every argument you and your ilk have out the window.

Actually another dude on another forum said it perfectly.

"We aren't 'censoring, per se, just adapting the content to a different audience by removing half of it. A-hyuck!" Fucking idiots playing semantics. Changing something from "let's go to a sushi bar" to "let's hit up Maccas" isn't censorship. Removing content because you don't think the West is ready for character development through sado-masochism is censorship.

As for your le source meme, here you go.

I'm just an editor, so I don't get to make the actual big decisions when it comes to what our company would or should do, but in my experience, yeah, getting GalGun and Valkyrie Drive passed without getting an AO rating would probably be pretty easy. If I were presented with either of those projects, I would argue with my superiors (if that conversation ever even came up, which it probably wouldn't) that changing any content would be totally inappropriate and unnecessary, given that there is next to zero risk of either of those games getting an AO. Even with Criminal Girls 2 I argued that we shouldn't change a thing (except of course terminology/sound edits that we had to make for the first game, for consistency)

For someone who accuse me of.

Do you think they have some ideological agenda against the games they bring over and are trying to harm the financial chances of their games by intentionally pissing off their audience?

You sure seem to be under the impression that rating boards have an ideological agenda against japanese games, rating them worse than western games, despite western games being way worse.

[Edge-]

[QUOTE=Xekus;41396366]I rather not see them come over instead of the butchered garbage versions we are getting, it's direspectful to the developers who most likely are clueless on what happens to the game when it get's censored to hell.[/quote\

Minor changes = butchered garbage? Alright, sure.

Also, you realize that it's the developers that are signing off on and making these changes, right? They're involved in the process, even if they fight simply by virtue of Japanese developers always fighting their Western counterparts on pretty much everything.

I still don't get how a handful of largely minor changes mean the game is now "censored to hell".

NiSA clearly don't know their playerbase, otherwise we wouldn't be getting the barrage of complaints on both their forums and steam communities on their other games, or the outrage we are seeing over censorship right now.

Prior to recently, when a lot of folks apparently first learned what localization is and that games have been altered during that process for decades and decided that it's a complete and total outrage, most folks weren't using game localization as a front in an online ideological war. But it's here now, and while companies like NIS aren't changing what they've been doing for many years before this started, they're getting flack for it all of a sudden.

And yes, they do know their audience. If they didn't, they'd be making far broader/more significant changes or wouldn't be bringing over a game like Criminal Girls to begin with. The loud handful of folks that complain on the internet isn't great for NIS, but there's a far larger group of folks that still buys their games without freaking out over the changes.

I know perfectly well how ESRB and PEGI works, and they aren't even remotely as biased as you make it out to be, something history have shown us over and over, you assume you get an AO rating, assume. You said it yourself.

Have you dealt with either? Or worked on games that have had to deal with either? Because I'd be curious as to your insight due to your apparently close relationship with them, because between myself and the folks I've worked with over the years (many of whom have spent a decade or more dealing with them) it's not anywhere as simple as you make it out to be.

If Gal*Gun can get away with this.

That's great that they can. Again, you can't look at single instances of things in these games in a vacuum, they need to be viewed in their entirety, which is what ratings boards do. And again, sometimes minor changes are preemptively made to ensure that they can get a M rating on their first go through the ESRB. Because when you get an unexpected delay that requires you to work with the developers to make changes that means you have to alter schedules across the board, which can throw a hell of a lot off and harm the company financially.

Then any excuse NiSA have for CG2 falls flat, this is likely the case of NiSA assuming they will get an AO rating, then throwing the playerbase under the bus.
"It happened before, so we should be fine with it now" is the most pathetic shit excuse i ever hear.

Throwing the playerbase under the bus? Holy hell are you over exaggerating to the extreme and making these relatively minor changes in the whole of the game seem seem dramatic as hell. I've already dealt with this above, please revisit if you'd like.

Uh huh, and VD and Gal*gun is still arguably worse and more sexualized, so piss off with that one.

But how they're sexualized, how it's presented, the context, etc. matters as well. That's why "punishment" was turned to "motivation", because while they mechanically change nothing, the context those two words put on the mechanic in the game alters it dramatically. That's the kind of thing the ESRB will ding a game for (if it was left as punishment).

So you're going to defend an inferior butchered version because some random person might fix it.
That says everything i need to know about you.

Again, a small handful of changes is now "butchered". It doesn't matter that 95%+ of the game is exactly the same and untouched, but the fact that they made some minor changes means the whole game is ruined.

I'm going to defend the changes because they're minor and because I'd rather have companies like NIS continue to bring these games over, even with minor changes, than have them not bother at all. I want to play these games, and I'm not going to cry over some changes made by the localization staff to ensure that they games make it over without problems.

Would I prefer they didn't have to change anything? You bet! Again, it's awesome PQube is bringing over Gal Gun and Valkyrie Drive without any changes, I'm legit looking into picking up LE's for both (which would mean I need to finally get a Vita/PSTV). But I also understand that it's not possible to do that with every game, so will take the unchanged alongside the ones that see minor changes.

But torture, sexual violence and gore, now that's perfectly fine and still get's an M rating, it must be ESRB and their crusade to go after japanese games, western games is just a-okay.

Again, it depends on the game, how prevalent that type of content is, how much of it there is, and context.

You're no different from the same SJW shitstains that defends censorship, it's just localization!
You're using the exact same arguments.

See, this is why GG has a bad rap. If you aren't in lock-step with GG on something, you're clearly a SJW shill (I do miss the bevy of "SHILL/GHAZI/etc." thrown my way when I tried to pose a reasonable voice in KiA years back). It's a binary system, you're either fully with GG on everything or you're a SJW. There's no room for shades of gray, no room for nuance, no compromise, it's all or nothing.

You go ahead and defend regressive methods used by shitty companies like NiSA.

The very same regressive methods that have brought us countless amazing games for decades, before the internet and before the modern internet ideological wars. Before people apparently learned for the first time what localization is and what happens and decided that, despite playing "censored" games just fine for many years without having their experiences COMPLETELY RUINED by the awful censorship, it's now literally ruining games and any company that does it is evil.

I will defend them, because these are minor changes within the totality of the game. If they were changing major story details/plot points, that's worth criticizing. If they were making larger changes a la some of Nintendo's recent alterations, that's worth criticizing (though if you look, the games that have been getting hammered for "censorship" from Nintendo have largely been selling super well). But they're not. These are smaller changes that don't impact gameplay and aren't significant within the scope of the whole game. And if that's what it takes to make sure that smaller publishers bring over these types of games more often, I'll take that any day.

[Strangebrew]

>Minor changes

Yeah okay, i'm done. Fuck off idiot.


[Infracted]

[Edge-]

>Minor changes

Per their blog -

1. They worked directly with the original artist to remove the bondage in some (all?) "punishment" (motivation) scenes while not altering anything else. So some ropes are gone but everything else remains the same. Not too significant.

2. Terminology changes that existed in the first game (punishment = motivation) and general localization alterations to make text/dialogue more appropriate for Western readers. The latter is bog-standard stuff when localizing games, even those that see "no censorship", as direct translations and certain references (often times wordplay) will lead to confusing dialogue.

3. It's subbed. Not sure if anyone would be upset over this, this is usually what a lot of folks who buy these localized ports want.

4. Sounds like a mixture of technical issues (which aren't unique or new, these are more common than you'd think when it comes to localizing games and often times the amount of work needed to be done to overcome them isn't feasible so they're just ignored) and preemptively "censoring" the game to ensure there wouldn't be issues with the ESRB.

Remember, even with these changes the game still got a M rating, something that very well may have not been possible had they remained in.

The biggest change is the removal of dialogue during "motivation" (punishment) scenes, and while that's disappointing it's not going to alter how end-users experience the gameplay.

Yeah okay, i'm done. Fuck off idiot.

And this is where I toss in a warning that if you can't engage in respectful discussion and feel the need to resort to insults, don't post. That kind of behavior is against forum rules.

[zealo]

Isn't AO and M effectively baked into one single rating with Pegi, unless a country takes it upon themselves to ban a game that becomes controversial?

I was under the impression Europe didn't have it's equivalent to an AO, and games only get edited to be in line with the ESRB, because it makes no sense to make two different localizations for two markets that'll both play it in English, much because there's also a 16+ rating in between the American T and M.

[Dezerte]

I only take issue if the developer(s) feel that they are being censored. Just because something changes in different regions doesn't mean that it was censored, if it was okay with the developer there is no issue (or rather, your issue becomes the developer).

PEGI rating system:

The content of games given this rating is considered suitable for all age groups. Some violence in a comical context (typically Bugs Bunny or Tom & Jerry cartoon-like forms of violence) is acceptable. The child should not be able to associate the character on the screen with real life characters, they should be totally fantasy. The game should not contain any sounds or pictures that are likely to scare or frighten young children. No bad language should be heard.




Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category.






Videogames that show violence of a slightly more graphic nature towards fantasy character and/or non graphic violence towards human-looking characters or recognisable animals, as well as videogames that show nudity of a slightly more graphic nature would fall in this age category. Any bad language in this category must be mild and fall short of sexual expletives.




This rating is applied once the depiction of violence (or sexual activity) reaches a stage that looks the same as would be expected in real life. More extreme bad language, the concept of the use of tobacco and drugs and the depiction of criminal activities can be content of games that are rated 16.




The adult classification is applied when the level of violence reaches a stage where it becomes a depiction of gross violence and/or includes elements of specific types of violence. Gross violence is the most difficult to define since it can be very subjective in many cases, but in general terms it can be classed as the depictions of violence that would make the viewer feel a sense of revulsion.

[erthwjim]

I only take issue if the developer(s) feel that they are being censored. Just because something changes in different regions doesn't mean that it was censored, if it was okay with the developer there is no issue (or rather, your issue becomes the developer).

PEGI rating system:

So it would seem based on the descriptions you posted, Pegi is more lenient with sexuality considering they don't even speak about it in the 18 rating, it's all about gross violence.

[nextormento]

So it would seem based on the descriptions you posted, Pegi is more lenient with sexuality considering they don't even speak about it in the 18 rating, it's all about gross violence.

Perhaps all sex is violent.
Or maybe Europe is ok with more sexy stuff.

I really don't know. But these labels come with some other labels describing the troubling content (gambling, drugs, violence, sex, etc.)

[Tech614]

Perhaps all sex is violent.
Or maybe Europe is ok with more sexy stuff.

I really don't know. But these labels come with some other labels describing the troubling content (gambling, drugs, violence, sex, etc.)

M=Pegi16=CERO D

AO=Pegi18=CERO Z

CERO Z and Pegi 18 aren't as taboo in their regions as AO is in NA but those are the ratings equivalents. Pegi and CERO are both much much harsher on violence then sex and vice versa for ESRB hence them drawing the AO equivalent while only being M, and games that are CERO C or D in Japan drawing M ratings in the ESRB(and some needed changed to not draw an AO).

The real problem is that an AO rating is way too Taboo, and stores won't carry it nor will console manufacturers license the game. While Pegi18 and CERO-Z games are somehwat taboo as well and kept behind store shelves in most countries like porn, they do at least sell them and allow them to be on consoles unlike AO.

[Tech614]

ESPN would rather have under boob then lots of ass and cleavage on display.

Just thought maybe people needed an example of real censorship, not developers willingly choosing to make changes for different markets.

[hrugner]

That seems quite a bit less severe than changing what people are permitted to consume in various countries based on some fairly random flesh prudishness. The channel is producing what it produces, but it isn't making it harder for people to use this other costume personally. Are they campaigning to have the costume removed, or did they just use the in game option not to use it?

[Tech614]

That seems quite a bit less severe than changing what people are permitted to consume in various countries based on some fairly random flesh prudishness. The channel is producing what it produces, but it isn't making it harder for people to use this other costume personally. Are they campaigning to have the costume removed, or did they just use the in game option not to use it?

Once again, a developer choosing to alter their game for different markets is not censorship. Learn the definition of the word. ESPN saying "you can't use this outfit" is the very definition of censorship.

Only posted that here because it seems this entire thread keeps using the word out of context. Your post only makes my point all the more valid.

[hrugner]

Once again, a developer choosing to alter their game for different markets is not censorship. Learn the definition of the word. ESPN saying "you can't use this outfit" is the very definition of censorship.

Only posted that here because it seems this entire thread keeps using the word out of context. Your post only makes my point all the more valid.

Nope. ESPN decided not to make a product with some specific thing in it and then did exactly that. Had they made the product with that thing in it then had it removed, that would be entirely different. Looking at your tweet, with no other context, it looks like they even ran the original bit with the outfit the player had wanted to use.

That's entirely different from a company with regional distribution rights to some product removing portions of that product. That's censorship, go back and firebomb whatever hole teaches your backward usage of censorship before it infects any more people.

[Tech614]

Nope. ESPN decided not to make a product with some specific thing in it and then did exactly that. Had they made the product with that thing in it then had it removed, that would be entirely different. Looking at your tweet, with no other context, it looks like they even ran the original bit with the outfit the player had wanted to use.

That's entirely different from a company with regional distribution rights to some product removing portions of that product. That's censorship, go back and firebomb whatever hole teaches your backward usage of censorship before it infects any more people.

Being forced by an authority figure to change or alter the content you're putting out is the very definition of censorship. ESPN saw the outfit(which is hilarious like they did 0 research before signing the contract, would of been super lulz if they saw a Laura in top 8) and a suit literally told them that wasn't happening to change it. That is censorship.

Developers changing content of their own free will in the hopes of better connecting with different cultures is not censorship.

Definitions are hard stuff bro.

[Orange Joe]

Once again, a developer choosing to alter their game for different markets is not censorship. Learn the definition of the word. ESPN saying "you can't use this outfit" is the very definition of censorship.

Only posted that here because it seems this entire thread keeps using the word out of context. Your post only makes my point all the more valid.

Are they suppressing it so no one can see it at all. Or are they just not showing it on their network.

One is censorship, the other is not.

- - - Updated - - -

Being forced by an authority figure to change or alter the content you're putting out is the very definition of censorship. ESPN saw the outfit(which is hilarious like they did 0 research before signing the contract, would of been super lulz if they saw a Laura in top 8) and a suit literally told them that wasn't happening to change it. That is censorship.

Developers changing content of their own free will in the hopes of better connecting with different cultures is not censorship.

Definitions are hard stuff bro.

Where are you getting that definition from?

cen·sor·shipˈsensərˌSHip/Submit
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

[Tech614]

Are they suppressing it so no one can see it at all. Or are they just not showing it on their network.

One is censorship, the other is not.

So using your logic what is it called when a network bleeps an F bomb on live TV? Oh yea, it's called a censor.

Where are you getting that definition from?

Judging by what you just said above and how ridiculous it sounds, I don't think this question is even worth answering. Toodles.