RUMOR - Bravely Second swaps out 'Tomahawk' class for 'Cowboy'

Looks like Bravely Second may be trying to steer clear of offending native Americans in its localized version. As you can see above, it looks like the Tomahawk class has been given a makeover, turning into the Cowboy class. This isn't officially confirmed by Square-Enix yet, as the Cowboy image came from a Spanish retailer. It certainly looks the real deal to me, but we'll wait for Square-Enix to confirm before we untag as a rumor. Thanks to VGAMER for the heads up.


Coming from someone who is actually federally recognized as a member of a tribe this is getting ridiculous. Jesus Christ.

I'm sure this is Nintendo's doing. They are so censor happy.

It's not censorship when it's the publisher's decision. Making those decisions is one of the rights that come with paying the bills.

It IS censorship. they're censoring the creator's intent and vision.

If Square-Enix okayed it, or played any part, that really doesn't fly. If it was so important to their vision, they would have fought to keep it.

There was no intent or vision behind this. It was just a Native American themed costume replaced with a Cowboy themed one. I'm not saying they should have done it, but this isn't a "creator's intent & vision" situation, as it is not an integral part of anything.

It IS NOT censorship because one of the things publishing money buys is a share of the intent and vision.

Mon Nov 23 15 07:03pm
(Updated 1 time)

I don't think you understand what you're talking about. As the publisher/localisation team, they're allowed to change things.

But If those things are being changed to be less "offensive" then it is censorship no matter who or what is doing it. You can't prove that this isn't censorship.

And people have a right to be upset when they want that something to be as close to the original game as possible.

Sun Nov 22 15 04:15pm
(Updated 1 time)

The tribe of what? Ignorance? I wish you would just take some bloody time to understand how this industry actually works before jumping on the blame gun, or would it be tomahawk in your case?

Wow. This is actually racist.

Yes and that was the point. You found it offensive, so you had it censored. You are your own proof as to why edits like these happen. So thank you for partaking in my experiment. Smile

Actually what you said goes against the rules of the website. This website does not have to partake in the First Amendment as it is privately owned.

I'm trying to show you that there is a difference.

I'm not saying that Nintendo HAS to change anything. That's what the conversation is about. You actually didn't talk about the topic at hand but made a crude remark.

You should read 1984.

Whatever helps you justify your double standard for being offended and getting upset at those who may be offended.

At this point, you've proven that you actively want to be upset about something, even when you lack the understanding of what it is that makes you upset.

What am I being offended at? You can't seem to answer me.

I realize that you are used to your speech being policed. Hell, you probably can't even say you wouldn't date a guy (even if you aren't attracted to them) because that would be homophobic. I realize this.

Read 1984. Love liberty.

You've been outed buddy. Everyone sees you for who you are. A hypocrite with a goal to be upset. You know exactly why you flagged my comment, and the fact that it was a rule is just your excuse, and we both know that because it's the second time you've tried to silence my remark you deemed offensive as you parade around getting mad at other people being offended.

So instead of preaching liberty while condemning it, why don't you do some real research in this industry. I'd say ignorance is bliss, but you're just mad.

I don't believe that for a second. This is like when people go into Compton, scream the N word at people, then go "It's just a prank bro! What's the matter?!" when people get upset.

Except it wasn't a prank, it was a point to make and it all went as expected. I'm wasn't surprised or going "what's the matter." Because Mr. Omnipotentswine played right into my hands based on previous experiences. I thought it was clever word play since he was defending the use of native american stereotypes so I used a few of my own. Hypocrisy is a beautiful thing.

Nintendo follows rules, I didn't. Stuff like this content is edited for a reason and I proved that, it's incredibly likely that among the many things Square-Enix and Nintendo had to get this game approved for sale, this change was one of them. For all of the people who cry that "boo hoo people may get offended", which people will. But beyond that there are committees who enforce rules onto people who produce Toys for children, and Nintendo is included.

One of the most ironic parts to the whole issue, besides not understanding why these edits take place. Is people get mad, at content being changed because they think the content providers are changing the content so people won't get mad.

I said something offensive, against the rules, and it was silenced. And publishers like Nintendo have to tread just as carefully for a game to release with as less issues as possible. You can skew my intentions however you like, I don't personally care. I don't put much stalk into strangers opinions, so believe what you like. After all this whole situation is about believing in the wrong thing, so welcome to the party lol. I've learned that people who are eager to play the victim in these cases of "censorship" propaganda rarely cast their ignorance. So in the face of extreme lack of understanding, and misplaced anger and aggression I gotta get a little bold. XD

At least that's how I felt. In the end, who am I to help convince people they shouldn't be mad, or that they are angry at the wrong reason. I've heard Ignorance is bliss, but many times it's also angry. And all around a hobby for entertainment. Life sure is rough...

Tue Nov 24 15 06:51am
(Updated 1 time)

I can totally believe this was your plan (though you sound a bit like an edgy anime antagonist by going "all according to keikaku") but it wasn't a good plan at all.
You intentionally provoking someone is of a completely different nature than Nintendo/Square Enix having a Tomohawk class in their game that has no intent on offending anyone. It's all about the intent, really.
I'm from The Netherlands, and this little country is sometimes represented in various media. But almost every time it's represented as a country full of cheap people, drugs, prostitutes and an occasional windmill and tulip on the side. And then there are such terms as going Dutch, double Dutch and Dutch oven. It's all a misrepresentation of the country, but I don't get offended because people don't intentionally mean harm with it. If anything, it's a tribute. And the Tomohawk class is nothing more than that; in fact, the Tomohawk class doesn't even have a single negative connotation to it.

I noticed some people often argued whether this is censorship or not. (And I could've sworn you did as well, but I can't find the posts about it right now.) It shouldn't matter too much what one calls it; there's way too much discussion about semantics. What matters is what happens here (not even who exactly is responsible for it) and what it means for people. And that's very clear and nobody misunderstands what happened. And for that, the anger is also not that misplaced.

This post worded it much better than I did: http://gonintendo.com/stories/247372-rumor-bravely-second-swaps-out-tomahawk-class-for-cowboy?page=1#comment-38506

And don't put yourself up a pedestal like that. You're just trying to convince people not to be angry? If that's the case, you're not doing very well. You actually more look to go full head-on against any opposition, with omnipotentswine receiving the brunt of it.

One more thing, you say you "gotta get a little bold", but you're not bold. You're downright vindictive. Wherever omnipotentswine goes in this thread, you're right behind him to call foul on anything he says. And you look down on him quite a lot.

That's just what I'm getting at. I don't think you'd risk a ban just for a "super secret ultra smart, I'm not trapped in here with you, you're trapped in here with me" plan. I'm saying you pretended it was fake in hindsight so you didn't come off as a jerk.

I explained it pretty clearly, being a jerk didn't even register when the other person involved yells at others while using my lord's name in vain. I rarely comment, as you could see if you look at my profile. Getting banned wouldn't prevent me from reading news on GoNintendo so I don't see why that would have to do with anything. And to be honest if I was really concerned with covering my ass, I wouldn't have used this profile as I'm lordroto everywhere lol.

You do give me too much credit though by calling what I did "super secret ultra smart". This was between me and Omnipotentswine, and as I told him via PMs following this conversation. His anger was contagious after seeing him get angry at others in multiple occasions, otherwise normally I'm happy about stuff. And to be frank, this comment that I had deleted was less offensive than what I said in our last debate lol. So like I said before, you can try to psychoanalyze me from my GoNintendo comments, or you can watch my videos on my YouTube channel, but even I wouldn't pretend to know what someone may do or feel from so little.

Does NOA the target audience for this game is the PC crowd or something?

Looks like it.

I'm probably going to end up skipping the next Fire Emblem as are a lot of other people.

I just hope they wise up soon.

I think you overestimate how many reactionary crusaders there are.

People need to vote with their wallets.

In a few years they're going to remove World 8 from US versions of Mario games because it will be too scary for Western sensitivities.

Boycotting video games has never once worked,, but have fun missing out on some awesome games, bucko.

I've heard that "too scary" comment twice this week in regards to Nintendo's "censorship" policy. I think you're sorely missing the point of why these things are being changed. People aren't going to claim that unrealistic depictions of Bowser's castle offend them. I don't know much about Bravely Second, but I do know that the average Native American stereotype nowadays is ridiculously offensive.

It's a FANTASY game.

It's not realistic at all. There's magic. Are they going to remove that so they don't offend Wiccans?

Have you ever heard of Marcus Aurelius? He was a stoic philosopher. A lot of people would do good by reading his work. You included. Here's a quote:

Choose not to be harmed – and you won’t feel harmed.

You CHOOSE to feel offended.

You CHOOSE to feel offended.

And so do you, all your hypocritical points are invalid.

How am I offended? Can you show me where?

That's something, coming from someone who just finished telling me how hypocritical it was to attack white men. It's just a joke. You're choosing to be offended. Now please stop replying to all of my comments.

What am I being offended by? Tell me.

And what's just a joke? Killing all white men is a joke?

Yeah, he's all fluff. He even got my comment deleted because he deemed it offensive to his sensibilities.

This whole debate always gets me, because everyone who cries that Nintendo is some sort of dastardly villain that does these edits on purpose while ignoring the intervening of the children's entertainment industry who should be the real targets of these sorts of situations.

So few people actually understand the process that companies like Nintendo have to submit to themselves to even get these games on the shelves.

Why are people passing on Fire Emblem? It looks incredible.

I might not. I probably will, though.

There are so many things that I fear will be censored. Like you turning a lesbian straight. And... hell... everything else.

Because a minuscule amount of people who think censorship shouldn't exist are becoming an obnoxiously loud vocal minority who think they can change the world- erm, I mean Video games by making Nintendo lose 200 sales or so.

"Censorship" as they put it, is usually the fluff of the game anyway, such as this going from Native American themed to Cowboy themed, or Lyn's clothes getting covered up in the new Xenoblade.

Like, I personally prefer the idea of a Native American themed class, the Tomahawk set looked cool (look up the other characters if you can) but the Cowboy set is still the exact same thing, just with a different lick of paint, we're still getting it, it's not being cut out or removed, if we ended up losing an entire class because of this, sure, complain, that's stupid, but we aren't

I don't think people are upset because they really really liked the Tomohawk class and wanted it so much. People are upset that it's apparently necessary in today's society to bend to the will of the people who are offended.
See this post for a more elaborate point on this: http://gonintendo.com/stories/247372-rumor-bravely-second-swaps-out-tomahawk-class-for-cowboy?page=1#comment-38506

And good for them. Most decent people these days care about things like that. If Japanese companies like Koei Tecmo and Square Enix stopped doing this crap in the first place, NoA wouldn't have to clean up their mess.

Good for them?

How is it a mess?

The PC crowd is full of hypocrites. You can say that a straight white man should die and say that men's health day is 'toilet day' but if you make a FAKE character and dress her up like a Native American then you're racist?

Jesus Christ. This is some doublethink. Have you ever read 1984?

I never said any of those things. Don't associate me with the most extreme examples of people on "my side" of the issue unless you want me to associate you with the gamergate crowd. It's not the character that's racist, it's the outfit. If you dressed up a fictional character in blackface, it'd still be just as racist if they were a real person!

First off, gamergate has never officially supported harassment or racism but well-known feminists have. I have reason to believe that you think racism against the majority is okay since you are so okay with them portraying cowboys so unrealistically.

Secondly, how is black face even comparable? Blackface isn't even a stereotype. It's a fucking caricature. It's too exaggerated to even be comparable.

And even then Al Jolson is a lot different than Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. One looks like a clown and the other doesn't There's effort put into it. Not even all blackface is the same.

OH!!! LOL! Okay, I'm gonna stop the conversation before I get in trouble, but hoo boy. If you think gamergate and third wave feminism (which is a much larger, longer-running movement than piddly little gamergate and is not "the other side of the argument") are black and white, let me tell you. There are well-respected feminists out there that have done horrible things. There are well-respected gamergaters out there that have done horrible things. Neither movement has "officially" supported harassment, because both movements are cluttered and divided and mean different things to different people. Don't fool yourself into thinking either has any defined "leaders" or one is better than the other. The sensible people, regardless of if they're gamergaters, feminists, or both, probably want to reach the same goal. The extremists that make up the face of either side only encourage nutbags to keep slinging mud.

This is silly. We got so far off topic so fast. Let's call it quits before it ends in more mudslinging.

Alright. You're probably right.

I will say that I have been personally told to die because I'm a white male but I've never told anyone else to die so things that have actually happened might be skewing what the narrative actually is.

This is gonna anger some people by me saying this, and I apologize in advance, but if they're trying not to offend Native Americans, then personally I feel like they're doing a horrible job. You have a character whose design was based off the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and the localization is replacing the design with that of the peoples who, over the course of U.S. History, stripped them of their land and forced them onto reservations. I mean, I dislike stereotypes just as much as the next person, and you can have a character with the Tomahawk design and class without being stereotypical, but by white-washing this character's minority? If I didn't know any better I would think that what the localization team is doing here is outright racism.

Anyway, just my two cents.

As someone who is Native American I completely agree with you.

Best response in this entire thread.

Interesting. That's a pretty solid argument, actually. I kind of hope this is nothing more than a rumor,

This is not whitewashing. The character is not Native American, it's a costume.

It's not a Native American character. It's a costume for a very much non-Native character. It's literally taking someone's culture and using it as a dress-up game. There's a long history of that in North America, and it's called redface.

Like others have said, this is a great argument, lots of valid points, the only problem is the character isn't actually of dark skin, she's normally very much pale, they simply darken the skin tone for the costume.

I am completely okay with this. Mostly because stereotypes are NOT COOL; there's a reason the Washington Redskins have been getting a lot of flak for their horrendously racist name and why racist caricatures of mascots have rightfully been getting axed. I can understand SE wasn't trying to hurt anyone, but circumstances are different in the West where Native Americans have been subjected to horrendous bigotry for centuries and having a class changed from a Native American caricature to just a silly Cowboy is a small price to pay.

dark weres
Sun Nov 22 15 03:58pm
(Updated 1 time)

It's funny how quickly Neogaf members started blaming Nintendo for this, and not Square Enix, the people responsible for changing the content of their game.

Of course, that's fine with Square Enix, as long as people are defending SqEx and attacking Nintendo, there's all the more reason for them to push their "Our RPGs won't sell on Nintendo consoles" agenda.

Sun Nov 22 15 04:06pm
(Updated 1 time)

I won't say Square Enix is the better because if you look what they changed in Drakengard and Drakengard 3, but such changes, this is even for Square Enix too much. This smells like Nintendo of America censoring all over.

Like TROJANHORSE711 already wrote, they made it only worse.

I could definitely be wrong on this, but I have a hunch this is the work of 8-4, who I know for a fact worked on Bravely Default.

8-4? Really? Jesus Christ.

I think they're name is appropriate. It's like they came right out of 1984.

dark weres
Sun Nov 22 15 04:50pm
(Updated 2 times)

Smells of what kind of Nintendo of America censoring?

The kind that tells Platinum Games to make Bayonetta's costumes show more cleavage?
The kind that advertises front and centre "Partial Nudity" and "Sexual Themes" of Conception 2 on their own Youtube Channel?
The kind that has Callie and Marie speaking in often-lewd double-entendres?

ESRB and IARC only rate games, and tell developers what rating they'll get for wherever they want to release it.

If you're willing to put up with an ESRB Adult-Only rating and the complications involved with releasing a game deemed adults-only (ie: it won't be distributed via online stores, you won't get any loud endorsements, twitch / youtube will not let you stream adult content), then you can make a porn-game for the Wii U / 3DS if you wanted. Nintendo of all groups, won't get in your way.

Doesn't seem like any kind of censoring. Sounds more like people defending Square having changed the content of their own game by saying whatever it takes to pretend it's Nintendo's fault.

Actually... that's not quite correct. Nintendo (as well as Sony, Microsoft, and Vavle's Steam**) will NOT allow AO-rated content on their platforms.

**NOTE: Steam has allowed the sales of Hatred, which is AO-rated. However, this is purely due to its violent content, and NOT for sexual content, which may be why it's available.

They won't allow AO content on their electronic, online stores. Nintendo for one (possibly others), will certainly allow you to develop it and release a game without checking its content or quality, as that's the ESRB's job, but if the ESRB gives it an A.O. then you'll have to make a deal with a adult-speciality stores or adult-oriented producers and distributors to burn enough copies and get it into consumers' hands.

No... they won't allow physical releases of AO-rated games, either. It's why Manhunt 2 (Wii, PS2, and PSP) had to be edited. Nintendo and Sony wouldn't allowed it to be published on their systems with an AO-rated (there is, though, an uncensored PC version). It's also why GTA: San Andreas' sales stopped when it got re-rated AO because of the hidden "Hot Coffee" mini-game.

And here I thought that I wouldn't have to use this image for another few months. Though at least its not about censoring underwear again, even if the reaction is the same (if somewhat more justified).

What if the Cowboys get offended now? uh?

This is more exhausting than anything else, censorship angers more people then never doing it at all. I don't like the mini storms that start up when publishers decide whats best for us based simply on implied PC cultural values, but the path to getting out of unnecessary censorship is a long one and these outbursts will eventually lead to it one day... I hope.

The mini storms arise because people have no idea what censorship actually is. Publishers, being the ones bearing the financial risk, are entitled to decide what they are spending their money on, and their decisions aren't censorship, they're business. Furthermore, nobody is deciding what is best for you. Publishers decide what is best for their product, and then you decide what is best for you in which products you buy. Even if this story is true not one single right of one single person has been violated.

Just because it is the publishers who initiate the censorship does not mean it is not censorship. In fact self censorship in a way is more unhealthy and damaging than a third party censoring ones self. This develops friction between developers, fans and publishers. And besides, when has it not been an issue were the company has screwed the customers in various fashions through out the years. I'm not talking just about money reasons, there are many examples of industry leads that go out of their way to impose what they feel is right in their products and can use the media to their advantage.

I don't doubt that a few people in charge of localization would have no problem putting in what they feel is more in tune with their beliefs, (rather than what the devs intended). It's the same thing with adding in stupid memes cause a few people think their funny, business-wise it's not a big deal and the hire ups at Nintendo won't even consider it a problem unless they see the backlash caused from it.

So yes I stand by thoughts that this is censorship, and getting angry about it important for change to happen in the future.

It's not censorship, no matter how many times you insist it is. And if you want change form a publishing company and then cede control over how your money is spent.

You're wrong:

Censorship- the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions

Censorship- the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts

Censorship would be a third party telling the publisher what they may publish, or the public what published material they may consume. When the publisher decides what to publish it is business, and the complement to the public's right to decide what to buy.

Quoth Elaine Stritch, "whoooooooooooo cares?!"

Seriously, I get tired of everyone getting their panties in a bunch, screaming censorship and threatening boycotts over a minor change. If it was a major alteration to the story or the gameplay, yeah, I'll grab my pitchfork too, but all this whining over altered costumes? Girl bye.

Sun Nov 22 15 04:59pm
(Updated 1 time)

Everyone's got a right to express how they feel, it's the internet. Also FYI, getting your panties in a bunch about others getting their panties in an uproar is little ironic eh.

My panties are smooth and fit my form thank you very much.

So you admit you've gotten your panties in a bunch?

I didn't say bunch, I said Uproar! My panties will shake the very foundation of the country unless we get our half-naked native costumes back.

Mea culpa. And either my sister-in-law is calling about Thanksgiving or your panties are powerful indeed.

Yes, people have the right to express their opinions on the Internet. That's why they're expressing their opinion that people crying "censorship" are being stupid and don't know what they're talking about. Free speech isn't an excuse for everything.

Sun Nov 22 15 05:57pm
(Updated 1 time)

I'm not sure I think you know what your talking about, I ain't saying you can't complain that I complain nor was the person I was complaining about complaining that I was complaining is saying I don't know what I was talking about.
But now you do, right?

??? If you're trying to confuse me, it worked. I guess he didn't say that, no, but the fact that you felt the need to reply to their comment with "everyone has free speech" implies that you think he's trying to silence you. They just expressed their opinion that it's not a matter worth pursuing.

Anything is worth pursuing if one feels so my friend. Also ya, I meant to make my comment confusing. Even when you get angry you gotta learn to take a comical side every now and then.

And people who are fine with censoring are stupid too.

What kind of a comeback is that? First of all, I think enough people have sufficiently proven that this does not qualify as censorship. Secondly, you literally just said "yeah, I'm stupid, but you're stupid, too". I never even called anyone stupid. Acting stupid and being stupid are two very different things.

That's why they're expressing their opinion that people crying "censorship" are being stupid..."

How is this not censorship? How has anyone PROVEN that?

I don't follow. It's not censorship because this is being done by Square Enix, Nintendo, or 8-4, and all three of them have to have agreed on it. It hardly even qualifies as "self-censorship".

And warm. Nobody has proven anything, and I don't know why they need to in this situation. Key words in what you highlighted are "expressing their opinion". And I'm still not calling anyone stupid. The use of "being stupid" implies something quite different than if I had said "are stupid". We're talking semantics here.

I'm gonna end it off here, kid. I really love GoNintendo and don't want to get in trouble for instigating fights. You're allowed to have an opinion, just stay informed. Make sure you know what you're talking about.

First you said there was a difference between "acting stupid" and "being stupid" but now you're differentiating between "being stupid" and "are stupid" which are the same thing?

Why use those words when you're just going to change them?

How is replacing a native american outfit with a gun-toting cowboy any better? As someone from Texas can I be just as deeply offended by this change as the native americans and request the original outfit back? Stop changing unnecessary stuff in games! If the creator put it in there just leave it alone.

Sun Nov 22 15 05:13pm
(Updated 1 time)

You know this does bring up an interesting thought, their is a new resurgence to extinguish anything deemed offensive to the main-stream. I always considered that even if something is offensive, it's not inherently bad that it exists.

There are a lot of things that offend me and if I'm honest I won't say I'm happy they all exist but to take this absolute approach with removing anything that can make a recognized group of people feel bad is absurd. Maybe I'm crazy but I think everything has their positives and negatives, even censorship itself I don't mind existing. I hate it but given the right situation it can produce a positive in my eyes. Looking back, there were times when you couldn't make fun of religious figures and while I feel that was inherently negative, it helped spring up a counter culture that would eventually bash the hell out of many faiths and because of so many years of repressed censorship, the results were that much sweeter.

As we all grow more, generation by generation, things will work out. Even though I'm angry now, I'm thankful that I'm angry so there is that.

Censorship has no positives. Can you give me one?

Getting the game is a positive, Nintendo jumps through these hoops for a reason lol. But you don't understand how the industry works so I get that it would be hard to grasp from a rational perspective.

If the industry required censorship then every game that came over would have to be censored... but they aren't.

It's only Nintendo.

They don't jump through these hoops for a reason. The only reason I could even think of would be to keep third-wave feminists off their back. They're the ones looking for reasons to be offended.

Nintendo is scrutinized more because of their company. You're aware that Nintendo themselves labeled video games as toys right? See the thing is the US actually has very VERY strict children's entertainment committees. And Nintendo has to bend over backwards for them because of their standing in the industry.

Feminists are the least of their worries. They raised hell over the "Bayo 2 rape attack" which did nothing. Your anger is so miss-placed, per usual.

I mean just try to think about it, from a business standpoint okay? Do you know what it takes to go back to edit content? Of course you don't. But I'm just going to tell you, it's a lot of work, and adds a lot more work for bug testing.

In an interview with Sakamoto the co-creator of Super Metroid when he was asked about the rumor of samus being naked when she died and the suit exploded in the Japanese version. However it's not in the japanese version. Sakamoto stated, There was a point when samus was naked post death in an alpha build of the game. However they clothed her up for the japanese launch because they knew they would have to edit it for the western version. That one example should speak volumes for the effort that goes in to re-editing.

But what do you care, when you like being angry. Reality just gets in the way.

But SHOULD this stuff be censored? SHOULD it? Answer that.

A girl dressed like a Native American won't lower the sales. A breast slider that helps you customize a character in a game that already has crap customization tools won't lower the sales. An incredibly niche M-rated horror game that has traditionally had lewd costumes keeping that tradition won't lower the sales.

Nintendo wants to shed the 'kiddie' image, right? They need to stop treating us like children.

Censorship is denying a man a steak because a baby can't chew it.

Are you sure? You do an awful lot of crying everyone someone brings up any sort of censorship. I think you're right in that target demo.

Also why does Nintendo want to shed the 'kiddie' image? That's their biggest audience. You don't understand anything, you seriously don't. You're self destructive, and I'll stop bothering you. Watching you squirm at the "boogie man" is hard enough as is. Keep "fighting the good fight" and getting mad at all the wrong reasons.

Sun Nov 22 15 06:34pm
(Updated 1 time)

What I'm saying is that while censorship has brought out a lot of anger and annoyance through-out the years, it has also brought some interesting counter methods to censorship that we never would have got as a result if censorship never existed. A lot of my favorite comedians make their careers and so many people happy cause they are able to point out the stupidity of it all. I get hours of enjoyment reading the comedic ways people deal with censorship on places like 4chan or even here. And when unnecessary censorship finally stops, or at least parts of it, the people who got angry for it will be all the happier when it does happen.

It's like the operation rainfall thing a while back. Getting the first Xenoblade over to America was such a huge victory for us, it showed what fans could do if they worked together. You could argue that just bringing it over from the start would have been better but then fans never would have realized what they could have done, (also we would then have to deal with America censoring the first Xenoblade game).

So do you think games like Hatred are what will change things? Because I don't. We as the consumers need to tell Nintendo to stop screwing up and sell the games as they should be.

And that's a kind of counter method to censorship, that I'm talking about. It will happen eventually, progress takes time.

Then how should everyone progress? I mean we can't wait for it to happen. Then it won't. We have to do something about it.

You are doing something about it, so am I, so are the people you are arguing with... just very slowly.

I get what your saying, you want change now and I respect that, but the issues we are dealing with are philosophical that have no absolutes. It takes time to convince a random poster, much less the people who work at Nintendo and the localization team.

So yes I say, get angry, be vocal, every little helps.

Okay, there are Looney Tunes cartoons that feature incredibly racist depictions of different races and cultures that Warner Brothers refuses to re-release due to their offending nature. Several of these cartoons feature Bugs Bunny, one of the most iconic and beloved cartoon characters of all time. These can be found on the internet, but do you really blame WB for not wanting to profit off these cartoons?

Are they even comparable to this, though?

This outfit and the name is offensive, I think. What does Nintendo or Square gain by keeping it in? If even one Native American is offended or even hurt by this, not matter how goofy it's supposed to be, then I don't think it's worth keeping. (I speak for no one but myself.)

Well, there is someone who will always be offended so why does it matter?

Why do you hold the emotional status of Native Americans over those who might be offended by cowboys being unrealistically portrayed. (I mean they can use magic too. That's a very pagan thing.)

Why are Native Americans special to you?

Maybe it's because cowboys haven't been on the losing side of genocide, erasure and appropriation for 400 years. I mean, just spitballin' here.

If this were a Voodoo Mage or some such I'd be just as offended. Representation is important, but this is not that, it's a costume. Not everyone is going to be offended, but that doesn't mean it's not offensive. Diversity never seems to be on anyone's mind when it comes to game protagonists. That's an issue I think is important and should get more attention, but it doesn't. Something like this gets attention, not because it may or not be offensive but because it's "censored." It's not the same as the original version. This is more important to some people than having more game characters of different races and ethnicities. There's something wrong with that. I'm sorry, I don't think I've answered your question. I don't know how to answer it, because all of this just bothers me.

Geewhiz this is starting to get really boring, yet exponentially infuriating, first project zero and the removal of the bikinis, then the boob slider and lin's outfits in XCX, and now this. To hell with the political correctness crowd and to hell with chasing after a particular rating from the certification boards. I want these games in their original unadulterated form.

Thank you for having integrity.

then the boob slider and lin's outfits in XCX,

Are you really complaining about that?
...shes 13, what the hell is wrong with you?

Mon Nov 23 15 08:01am
(Updated 9 times)

So do you know the story about Harvey Weinstein and Hayao Miyazaki, no!? Then let me elaborate, Weinstein received a gift, or to be more precise a samurai sword, with a letter attached, in the letter it simply stated, no cuts! Although later Miyazaki would state that his producer was responsible for this gift, he does take full credit for preventing Harvey, who has a reputation of cutting and editing films for the purpose of reaching a larger audience, from making any edits or censoring his film Princess Mononoke, which Mr. Weinstein's company Miramax had the western distributing rights back in the 90s. The end result is that we have an uncensored version of this master piece, and we are all better for it.
Now you may be asking how does this answer your question, in short you want to know what's wrong with me, nothing's wrong, except I believe this game or any of the others shouldn't be changed, even if the material in question is in its self questionable, it should still be submitted in its entirety to the likes of the ESRB and PEGI, so that it may receive a proper age appropriate rating! Not a version that kowtow's to the likes of the social justice crowd, or for purposes of reaching a younger audience, put simply I want, no cuts.
However I think it should be stated that maybe there's something wrong with you, as you only focused on the examples I highlighted, and not the reasons I think these edits have happened, or the simple fact I just want the games in their original form from how it was originally envisioned.

Sat Nov 28 15 12:23am
(Updated 1 time)

Yea basically nothing you just said matters because:

"exponentially infuriating"
"that they removed a really creepy outfit that doesnt actually affect at all my experience with the game"

Film is so radically different than Video games its difficult to compare the two consistently. The fact that the belt bikini was an ALTERNATIVE outfit proves this, The costume was not part of the artist's vision of the character, and was simply a player chosen costume which was modified for that particular character.
Any character can wear the belt bikini, but for the young girl the costume was made less...oversexed.

Ive heard this same argument before, when people were flipping out over the TERA lolis having their lingerie covered up, but just like with the boob slider, you cant argue artistic vision when youre in a character creator, especially for features they dont have.

Im not even necessarily "for" the censoring of these characters, but to flip out over not getting to see a little kid wear a gimp suit....comon.

Thu Dec 03 15 06:24pm
(Updated 2 times)

Yea, basically nothing you just said matters because:

You look like a God damn hypocrite! https://archive.is/YP9V9 (it's in your third post on this article, for someone who doesn't seem to like SJW's, you sure do like acting like one of them whilst using their tactics).

So his a couple things of what you did..

1. Strawman argument (informal fallacy), attempting to dismiss a very important point by saying that I was comparing video games to films, and that it had no relevance to the conversation, by you stating that both mediums are not comparable, guess what, I wasn't making any type of comparison. It was an allegory, I was using it to stress a point about very real business practices, and why they may censor or cut elements from a work of media be it videogame or film, in order to appeal to a wider demographic, and that sometimes you need to fight against this practice so we end up with an artistic work that is true to how it was originally envisioned.

2. Cherry picking (fallacy), you took one of my examples I mentioned, and twisted it out of context whilst ignoring the other points in context of the article, this being about Lin's costume selection, when it was only one point in a list of examples of cuts being made to a larger list of games, and worse even insinuating that I'm upset over this particular cut for what I assume are rather devious reasons implied on your part, (Frankly your the one talking about an underaged character being sexualized, in fact I even hinted about it being "questionable content" in my reply to you, but you ignored that, when I was actually talking about how games should not be cut, but should be appropriately age rated! But instead you continually described this character being sexualized in your response, talking about her being in a gimp suit, which in truth says more about you and how you see this fictional character, then me.

These are just a couple of tactics they use, and you use two of the worst, I could go on, but your ignore it, or just deny you did any of the sort, just from looking at your idiotic response so far!

Uh oh, by trying not to offend an entire culture they've offended something even worse...


You cannot offend a culture. You can offend people.

And I'm part of the Native American culture and I don't find it offensive.

Why do you assume that all Native Americans think alike?

He... isn't assuming that. He's saying Nintendo (or whoever is responsible for this) is assuming that and wanted to avoid offense.

It seems like he's mocking "gamers" and is using it as a pejorative term instead of a market.

That's all fine and well. But I wasn't replying to that line. I was replying to this:

Why do you assume that all Native Americans think alike?

Turns out he was joking so what I said was a screw-up anyway. Sorry for taking your time.

the shoemaker
Sun Nov 22 15 06:56pm
(Updated 2 times)

That's quite the assumption of you to make of me.

I'm Metis and I don't find it offensive either.

It was meant to be a joke about how people online will get worked up over a non-issue.

Edit: No problem!

Oh. Okay. That is honestly my mistake then. I read too much into that and I apologize. I am 100% in the wrong.

Not an expert in American culture, but replacing Native Americans with their "natural enemies" doesn't look like a good idea at all. What were they thinking?

If they feared a bad response from within the US, would it've been that hard to change the class' clothing to that of other ethnicity like Mayans or Incas? I'm quite sure people from those countries would have felt honored. I know I would.

Sun Nov 22 15 05:17pm
(Updated 1 time)

Theoretical: what if this turns out to be a new class (i.e., the Tomahawk class still exists) and we all got our panties in a twist over nothing?

Then that would be the best possible outcome. Leave all the original content intact and just add more stuff to the game as a bonus. Coming from a title that already has knights, pirates, ninjas, and now cowboys I don't really see where any kind of uproar to remove a costume would've come from in the first place. It's almost Halloween-esque with all the dress up you can do.

Aw man! She looked awesome in that costume. That s*cks.

Looks more localisation than censorship to me in this case. Yokai Watch for example went under heavy changes during localisation, made by its core team, just to stick to the original vision of letting kids think they play in their real world.

In this case it looks like a marketing change, probably someone thought that cowboys sell more than american indians.

Then again I am not american so I have no idea if someone in an indian outfit is a taboo in the US.

Reading the comments here shows to me that apparently, yes, people do get offended over depictions of Native Americans. I never knew it was an issue either.

Yeah, Nintendo fans have it really hard when it comes to censorship.

Get over yourselves. These are minor details--every single instance of this stuff. NOA (assuming it's indeed their call) could keep making changes of this caliber indefinitely and it still wouldn't be of any practical detriment to their fans' gaming experiences. Seriously, pick your battles. Throwing discretion out the window just because some value you hold was incidentally violated is just inane...and it's exactly the sort of dogma that the anti-PC crowd complains about in the first place.

And that's the biggest problem. This isn't like 4Kids where they DID heavily edit stuff and wipe out context and meaning or like the Comics Code Authority which basically butchered American comics for decades due to incredibly vague and indecisive language which limited creative. This is just a game maker willingly changing content due to the fact that it, when you get down to it, is pretty offensive and racially insensitive to a complex and rich culture that unfortunately still has problems from an uncaring world. Being mindful of offending others is not censorship, it's being a decent human being.

And that's what KILLS me about all these tantrums over "censorship": they're all about incredibly minor things that do NOTHING for the gameplay or its story. Fatal Frame's bikinis were, for lack of a better term, pretty misogynistic and just make things uncomfortable to look at; Xenoblade's bust slider and Lin's outfits were just silly and pointless; and now we have this. A racial stereotype changed to a goofball cowboy outfit. Gamers just cannot pick their fits properly.

I can't believe there are people actually fighting for censorship. I won't be buying this game just like I didn't buy Fatal Frame and I won't be buying Xenoblade... I'm actually nearly on the cusp of ending my support for Nintendo completely. Hurt feelings should never trump free speech and the creators vision should always be maintained.

Nobody is fighting for censorship. This isn't censorship. This is a publisher (Square Enix, by the way, not Nintendo, just in case who is making the decisions is important to you) controlling their content. Which is their right to do, as they as the ones taking the financial risk. Basically, they bought the right to do this.

And you have every right not to buy the game. At least do yourself a favor and stop exercising that right based on misunderstanding. You'll be happier for it.

What people call it doesn't really matter. They can call it censorship, localization or a PBnJ sandwich if they're so inclined. What matters is that someone changed the game to prevent someone for getting offended over something that isn't even intended to be offensive (it's more a tribute than anything). There is no misunderstanding about this.

Cowboys are more offensive than Native Americans.

I'm more annoyed at people jumping down NoA's throats when yet this is a SQUARE-ENIX game. For pete's sake at least direct your misguided anger at the proper source.

Man, when a localized change happens, public outrage is never too far behind. And it is ALWAYS exhausting...

I know the cases are different and times have changed, but it's ironic how some retro games considered classics have gone through heavier and arguably more draconian changes to appeal and appease to a Western audience (Earthbound for example), but a modern game dares to make the tiniest change when crossing the ponds (and doesn't even effect the core gameplay!) and the discussion of censorship get's super heated, along with threats of boycotting.

That's not to say people can't feel one way or another about the matter, but it feels like we're meeting varying issues with the exact same level of intensity.

Mon Nov 23 15 01:37am
(Updated 1 time)


Just now realizing that Bravely Default had "censorship". Of course, there probably wasn't this bad a reaction due to there being less of a bulls*** culture war going on at the time. Oh, and there were fewer games with pockets of non-violent risque content leaving Japan, so there wasn't a "trend" for the critics to fall back on.

Context is your friend.

Mon Nov 23 15 01:48am
(Updated 1 time)

Whether you can call it "censorship" or not doesn't matter.

What matters is that they had to change something because of how overly sensitive we are nowadays, and I think that's a bad thing. It's gotten worse over the years and that's why people are complaining so much. If this was something that happened very rarely I'm sure no one would complain about this change.

As for people comparing this to blackface, that's completely idiotic. Blackface was meant to mock and berate black people. Now let me ask you this: Does this costume mock or berate Native Americans? No. It doesn't.

That's the point. Something is only racist if it portrays a race or culture in an insulting or degrading way. You could make an argument that this is instead a celebration of a culture, since it's a fun and awesome class you can be.

In short we shouldn't be mad at the people who made this change, we should be mad at our current culture who need to constantly be offended by harmless things.

I completely agree here, with every little thing. You said basically everything I wanted to say, including the fact it doesn't matter what you call this stuff.

Mon Nov 23 15 03:37am
(Updated 1 time)

I don't think this is that stupid.
I mean I don't think they are doing it not to offend native americans. As others have pointed out, replacing one racial stereotype by another, the stereotypical enemy on top of that, is incredibly dumb and irrelevant and only making things worst in the end. So I don't think these are the reasons why they are doing it.

I think it's simply to adapt the game to a western audience. I think they simply believe that cowboys are really popular in the west and that westerners will prefer having a cowboy suit rathe than a native american suit. These are not good reasons either mind you, but I think it's more plausible.

This is pretty racist if true.


Today's VIP

budsan's avatar
Joined: August 2018

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!