XSEED VP Speaks Against Censoring Games Short of Getting an Adult Only Rating

[Danifa]

Address to full article below:

dualshockers.com/2015/10/16/xseed-vice-president-speaks-against-censoring-games-short-of-getting-an-adult-only-rating/

Censorship in gaming has always been a rather controversial issue. Yet, especially lately, the general climate could easily intimidate less determined developers and publishers into mitigating the amount of skin shown in their games.

Yet the valiant folks at XSEED are having none of that, unless it actually results in an Adult Only rating from the ESRB, as mentioned by Vice President Ken Berry during an interview on OpRainfall

“The good and bad thing is our localization team is made up of the vocal audiences online against censorship. Tom Lipschultz is the most vocal of them, he will on his own speak publicly online saying, “Nothing should ever be censored”.

Knowing that there’s someone like that on our internal team, there is always a very outspoken voice against censorship. We do always try to keep the original creators vision in mind when we localize stuff as long as it can be excepted in the US. The ESRB is probably more lenient then what people think because they’ve been clear to us that it isn’t their job to censor anything it’s their job to just rate the content.

So most of the time we present the content as is and they come back with an M rating, which we understand, but if they come back with an AO than we have to have some discussions about what to censor in order to get that to an M rating. Otherwise, none of the platform holders allow an AO product on their platform.”

Asked what would be done if an AO rating actually came, Berry expressed his hope to never be put in that position:

“That would be placing us in a very very difficult position because censoring it would alienate the very audience that we are trying to bring the game for, while not really appeasing any of the critics that had no purchase intent in the first place. So we’d be doing a lot of extra work, and going through a lot of extra trouble and pleasing nobody. So hopefully we’re never in that position.”

Considering that, as Berry mentions, it’s quite difficult to get an Adult Only rating from the ESRB, I’d say we’re quite safe. Here’s how the rating board defines the possibility:

“Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.”

The ESRB classified only 29 games as Adult Only in its history, and none of them were even close to the level of fanservice included in the games normally handled by Xseed. It’s refreshing to know that the publisher is willing to stick to its guns, and give us games as their authors imagined them in the first place.

[Vespian]

You know, contrary to popular belief, the effect of bolding, coloring and underlining, is not making things more readable, or in general, more enjoyable to read. Cut it the fuck out. Thanks

Friendly warning to be fluffy and respectful of others. -Edge

[Danifa]

You know, contrary to popular belief, the effect of bolding, coloring and underlining, is not making things more readable, or in general, more enjoyable to read. Cut it the fuck out. Thanks

You're welcome, I'll keep it in mind. Feel free to visit the Dualshockers page if you want.

[Deleted]

I agree. No game (or any other entertainment medium) should be censored. If you don't like it, don't view/play it.

[Vespian]

You're welcome, I'll keep it in mind. Feel free to visit the Dualshockers page if you want.

I won't. As far as your post 'history' goes, it's a lot of propaganda. Plus, this belongs in another thread, if I'm not mistaken.

[Tech614]

I agree. No game (or any other entertainment medium) should be censored. If you don't like it, don't view/play it.

I agree if the censorship harms the original intent of the game.

If it does not and is just minor stuff to make that game possibly more accepted in other cultures then it's fine and has it's place.

[Danifa]

I won't. As far as your post 'history' goes, it's a lot of propaganda. Plus, this belongs in another thread, if I'm not mistaken.

Ok. I don't understand the propaganda part, but the author of the article is not me.

[Vespian]

You know, contrary to popular belief, the effect of bolding, coloring and underlining, is not making things more readable, or in general, more enjoyable to read. Cut it the fuck out. Thanks

Friendly warning to be fluffy and respectful of others. -Edge

Scratch that, several coincidences let me to believe a warning was an infraction, I stand corrected and slowly sliver back into my cave.

[unholytestament]

I agree if the censorship harms the original intent of the game.

If it does not and is just minor stuff to make that game possibly more accepted in other cultures then it's fine and has it's place.

"More accepted."

There's a loaded phrase.

[Edge-]

"More accepted."

There's a loaded phrase.

How so? Different cultures/countries are...well different. What will fly in one will not fly in another. I remember in Italy seeing topless women in adverts on TV on what amounted to broadcast cable when I was younger and having my little mind blown by it. Culturally, that was a big deal. There were anime/comic stands on the street openly selling hentai mags, having them sitting alongside the rest of the manga without being covered up by covers or anything and available for purchase by pretty much anyone.

Over in the US? That would never fly. Ever. Because nudity and sexual content was far more accepted/acceptable over there than in the US.

"More accepted" is a statement of fact, little more.

[tehealadin]

I agree. No game (or any other entertainment medium) should be censored. If you don't like it, don't view/play it.

Authoritarians can never stand for that. I agree, there is so much that I wouldn't watch/consume/play/listen to, so I don't. I would never demand that others can't either, just because I don't want to. For some people this isn't enough. It must be in a form pleasing to them, or it cannot exist.

And no, I am not talking about people simply criticising it- people need to be free to do this, just as people need to be free to retort criticism. When people demand change because they don't like it, when other options are available, such as not playing it, it becomes authoritarian and nasty.

[unholytestament]

All of America handles things the same. Yep! Go from house to house and I'm sure you've got the same bedtime stories, the same art hanging on the walls, the same dinner discussions, and so on.

No, "more accepted" is a phrase that has the concept of moving the goal posts built in. Removing a sexy costume is a nice start, but you know what's "more accepted"? Wholesome conventional clothes like you would wear to church! Can't argue against it, cultural differences! That's why we're talking about TV commercials in a discussion about censoring video games! Totally applicable! Do not question!

Also...

"More accepted" is a statement of fact, little more.

What? What does that even mean? What more is it then?

[Edge-]

All of America handles things the same. Yep! Go from house to house and I'm sure you've got the same bedtime stories, the same art hanging on the walls, the same dinner discussions, and so on.

I'm glad we were talking about a granular personal level rather than a broader cultural level.

Oh wait, we weren't!

No, "more accepted" is a phrase that has the concept of moving the goal posts built in.

That...makes literally zero sense.

Removing a sexy costume is a nice start, but you know what's "more accepted"? Wholesome conventional clothes like you would wear to church! Can't argue against it, cultural differences! That's why we're talking about TV commercials in a discussion about censoring video games! Totally applicable! Do not question!

Now this is called moving the goalposts and resorting to hyperbole : )

What? What does that even mean? What more is it then?

It means that if nudity in the public space is more accepted in say, France than it is in the US (as a whole), that all "more accepted" means is that...it's more accepted.

[Dezerte]

Art should never be censored, unless the creator is okay with it.

[unholytestament]

I'm glad we were talking about a granular personal level rather than a broader cultural level.

Oh wait, we weren't!

Ah, so these differences in culture are only on a personal level then? It wouldn't be different from town to town, state to state? One end of the country to the other?

Go on. Lay it all out for me. I want to know the scope you have dictated for this discussion about removing the personal choice of consumers.

That...makes literally zero sense.

Now this is called moving the goalposts and resorting to hyperbole : )

/facepalm

That would be because it's an example of it, which is why it immediately follows a sentence stating what it is.

It means that if nudity in the public space is more accepted in say, France than it is in the US (as a whole), that all "more accepted" means is that...it's more accepted.

Did you notice I bolded a part of your post? That wasn't to make is easier to read, as per the argument at the start of this thread, but to put emphasis on a puzzling addition at the end of your statement.

[Yarathir]

I agree. But to clarify, I am gonna say it here: I don't agree with the application of double standards.

What I mean is that censoring games is bad in any way, this includes cases like lesbian, female or minority characters (or should I call them POC? I dunno anymore)

Not that I expect anyone to apply this double-standard, but I often see it claimed that the anti-censorship group only really cares about stopping censorship when it suits them. I just want to be clear on this that I am not.

Let any game that has any type of character it has (black, white, asian, alien, gay, straight, bi, trans, etc) survive on its merits or die based on its lack thereof, or the interest or lack thereof.

Simply put: don't censor any games, not those with skimpily-dressed characters, nor those with black trans characters.

Like I said: I often see it claimed that the anti-censorship groups apply a double-standard, but often this is either a deliberate or an accidental misinterpretation. When people say "no x chars in y games.", it's usually in response to a pressure a "certain group" enacts upon game developers to make their games more progressive or diverse "or else!" (usually, the "or else" means "or I'll call you sexist on my shitty blog")

If you want to make a game with whatever characters, diverse or no, it should be your choice, and it would be hypocritical for anyone against censorship to oppose that.

But trying to pressure other developers into making games with the characters you want is different, and opposing that is not "hypocrisy" or a "double-standard". Just to make that clear.

[Edge-]

Ah, so these differences in culture are only on a personal level then? It wouldn't be different from town to town, state to state? One end of the country to the other?

Go on. Lay it all out for me. I want to know the scope you have dictated for this discussion about removing the personal choice of consumers.

I thought I was pretty clear that this was on a broad, general cultural/country level. I mean, how much more specific do you want me to get? I highlighted an example of a cultural difference between Italy and the US to highlight exactly what I meant.

What's still unclear that you're seeking clarification on?

Did you notice I bolded a part of your post? That wasn't to make is easier to read, as per the argument at the start of this thread, but to put emphasis on a puzzling addition at the end of your statement.

It was to add emphasis that "more accepted" has a pretty clear and definite meaning rather than being a "loaded phrase", which you've still provided no explanation for. Not sure why you're so focused on it. It's like ending a sentence with "n'est–ce pas".

[Jtbrig7390]

Art should never be censored, unless the creator is okay with it.

This sums it up really.

[unholytestament]

I thought I was pretty clear that this was on a broad, general cultural/country level. I mean, how much more specific do you want me to get? I highlighted an example of a cultural difference between Italy and the US to highlight exactly what I meant.

What's still unclear that you're seeking clarification on?

The fact the puritan Tommy and company get to decide what goes into the video games I want and they still aren't interested in buying even after it has been censored to suit their delicate sensibilities.

It was to add emphasis that "more accepted" has a pretty clear and definite meaning

What? How does implying there's more to it emphasize that it has a clear and definite meaning?

rather than being a "loaded phrase", which you've still provided no explanation for.

It was in the example that you stupidly ascribed a fallacy to that it was MEANT to be an example of the exact fallacy I had just mentioned. That whole paragraph was a single statement. Go back and read it a little slower if you're having difficulties.

"More acceptable" is a fallacy. Removing the sexy costume might be acceptable, but you know what would be moooooooooooooore acceptable?

[Edge-]

The fact the puritan Tommy and company get to decide what goes into the video games I want and they still aren't interested in buying even after it has been censored to suit their delicate sensibilities.

Who decided what now? Nobody knew about this change until the game was released, as far as I know. Who is puritan Tommy and when did he have any input on the game?

What? How does implying there's more to it emphasize that it has a clear and definite meaning?

Maybe it's a local thing, but I've always used it/heard it used more as emphasis at the end of a sentence, similar to "n'est–ce pas" in French (different context). Maybe doesn't translat

"More acceptable" is a fallacy.

I must have missed where you showed this.

Removing the sexy costume might be acceptable, but you know what would be moooooooooooooore acceptable?

Hyperbole? Because that's where you already jumped to earlier and it was completely irrelevant.