Coming from a Nintendo rep...
“In certain circumstances, S-Level characters are able to wake up their spouses by blowing into the microphone or by tapping the screen to touch their hair, face or shoulder. These randomly triggered events are unrelated to the mini-game in the Japanese version.”
So you can tap or blow into the mic to wake someone up...that's it. This content is separate from the petting mini-game found in the Japanese version. Stick a fork in this topic...it's DONE!
It's not done, and there will be more and more unsatisfying, pointless censoring.
It may be unsatisfying and pointless, but it's not censorship, because it is the decision of the people funding the game.
Shh... they don't listen to reason.
Or, you know, we actually do. Have you even seen the previous articles on this topic, or do you just assume that any opposition is a bag of bricks who don't know rational thought? I can assure you that if you visit the previous articles, you'll find reasonable debate from both sides of the argument.
I still refuse to believe that people are actually upset by this. I just have to believe that people don't want to pet another virtual human being that badly to keep downvoting and getting upset by this.
And if censorship is your only reason, look up the definition of the word please. It's not censorship.
Even looking up a definition won't stop some people from calling it censorship. In one thread I was (mistakenly, as it always is) in someone quoted a definition and seized on the word "official" like it proved his point. He didn't realize he proved mine, because it never occurred to him that an official is one holding office, i. e. in the government. "See, Nintendo is officially censoring Fire Emblem!" he essentially wrote. No, dude, they aren't.
"People" are not offended or upset by this. It's just that one or two people that go on every site and make a fuss about it. It's probably only a couple hundred out of the millions that will buy it that give a damn. They don't realize they are in such a small minority.
You're right. I should look up the definition of censorship, shouldn't I?
In fact, I'll even paste teh definition here. Let's see what it says. 
"the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
Hmmm... OH! Look at that! Those last three words! Do you see them? Let's sound them out.
Su-ppress-ing un-ac-cept-ab-le parts.... Hmmm...
Would you say that they removed the parts because they were acceptable or... unacceptable?
Left For Dead had to have all the blood removed in Austrailia or they wouldn't let the game come out. That is censorship. This is Nintendo localizing a game for another territory. If you can't tell the difference then I'll wait for you to graduate middle school lol.
Since you know what censorship why don't you tell me the definition? You act like you know what you're talking about. Why don't you prove it?
I'm sure a dozen different people have already explained it and you still don't know the difference. I won't change your mind I'm sure. Google it...if you can't see how it is different then I'm not sure how to help you.
I can't believe there are people who are actually angered by this. Can't we all just shut up about this already?
Comments like this are part of why people make noise about it. This is also about acknowledgment as well a plea to stop further censorship in our future games. Speaking up and letting people know your dis-satisfaction will help over time is what I believe.
The only way Nintendo is going to consider NOT localizing games this way in the future is if Fates doesn't sell well in English-speaking countries. But that won't happen. All the people complaining will still throw their money at Nintendo on Friday. That's just how they work.
(And I find it strange that THIS is the hill they're willing to die on. There are tons of localizations of games that actually CHANGE the game, but no, let's complain because we can't tap on someone's face.)
Look at people who complain about Michael Bay directing his awful Transformers movies. Despite the complaining, the last one still made over a billion dollars. And they wonder why Paramount keeps bringing him back to direct more installments.
(And I find it strange that THIS is the hill they're willing to die on. There are tons of localizations of games that actually CHANGE the game, but no, let's complain because we can't tap on someone's face.)
If it's censorship, then anyone who complained about did it to themselves.
So... One censors himself by complaining about content taken do to cultural differences?
This could also apply to a game that hasn't gotten a western release date, yet.
It's not censorship, it's localization. Censorship involves a person or entity being unwillingly silenced by another person or entity. Localization is when a message changes willingly in order to best resonate with people who the message is being delivered to.
Would you rather they just left the game in Japanese? Translating it for localization causes all sorts of information to be lost. (hence the phrase "lost in translation") They are changing small aspects of the game to better communicate their intended message to their designated audiences.
It's not censorship. Show that you are capable distinguishing subtleties and forming a reasoned thought.
Literally typed "define censorship" in Google. Got this.
"the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."
Look at those last 3 words.
This. Is. Censorship.
No ifs ands or buts about it.
Under your strict definition, language translation is censorship.
The story, underlying messages, and intent behind character interactions are all intact in the US version. They changed the content of the game to better represent their intended message to their US market.
It's a subtle difference. You obviously are too rigid in your mindset to see my point of view.
They didn't keep the underlying messages when they changed the tone of the game.
"Super-dupity dangerous?" Really?
"Rawr!" C'mon.
How would you have censored it then? (since any translation is censorship under your definition.)
I'll continue to fight censorship as long as i live, as pointless or not, as big or small.
I have some serious questions to those in favor of this censorship.
As far as I am aware, this mini-game is optional.
Why aren't you ok with this?
How does an optional mini-game affect you?
Wouldn't the right choice be to just leave it in the game and ignoring it?
What do you gain in removing it?
Why do you advocate for censorship when it benefits you? Wouldn't the same happen to you in different circumstances?
Why are we going back to the old days of Nintendo censorship?
What exactly is wrong with the mini game to begin with?Do you pet dogs/cats? Does it imply something? If it does, does it act upon it? And if it does act upon it, what exactly would be the issue?
I'm whatever on the mini game, but as far as I'm aware it gives you stat/relationship bonuses, so regardless of it being optional I would have used it, and wouldn't have enjoyed it because it's a shallow feature. It definitely looks weird to be touching a characters faces to please them and that's not really what I want people to see when they're experiencing/viewing Fire Emblem.
I understand having principals when it comes to censorship, but I just have a hard time getting behind it when it comes to video games, because in most cases they are not meant to be a form of art. What message were the developers trying to send with the face touching feature that is being hindered from its removal? It didn't tell a story, and you can still bond with the characters. Honestly I'm sure there were some developers who didn't like the face touching feature but they put it in because they were appealing to an audience, an audience that is not North America/Europe.
You can ask the same thing about what was gained from removing the feature, which goes back to why I'm whatever on it. It's a throw away feature so I don't care if it's in or not, but I am glad that I won't need to use the feature.
It's the culture of "all change is bad" that annoys me because it makes it seem like those people don't care about the actual issues, just about being on the defensive side of the arguement.
This is why I find the use of the word "censorship" iffy, but I also don't understand why these discussions about semantics happen. *looks at the posts above* To me, it doesn't matter if people call it censorship, localization or whatever they want. It's clear what everyone is talking about, and we should be discussing that, not what we call it.
Whether games are a form of art is irrelevant to me in this case. There is some content in the game, and it gets removed or changed during localization. That's what happened, and I can understand that some people don't mind, but I can also definitely understand that some people DO mind, whether on principle or on a personal level (i.e. they liked the content and wanted it in). In this case, I'm against these edits on principle.
Don't get me wrong, I stand behind localization. If I look at the Ace Attorney games, I think they're masterfully localized. The localization was changed from Japan to the USA, a character who loves ramen now loves burgers... They're all edits, but these edits are made to make the game more familiar and identifiable for Western players.
Some of the edits that happened in Fire Emblem Fates (removal of the minigame, removal of several bikini costumes, removal of that controversial scene) aren't made to make the game more familiar for Western players... They're made as to not offend people and to avoid a controversy. (And this is also why some people struggle to call it localization; because these edits aren't made to make the game more familiar.)
In that regard, I understand why NoA made the edits, but I still don't agree with it. It shouldn't be necessary to change a game to avoid controversy. We're regressing as a society if media begins changing itself just so some people don't get offended. ...Yes, it should change if the content is offensive by nature and intent, but that's not the case here, so it should've stayed as is.
So, about your last paragraph... No, not all change is bad. Particular changes are bad.
Yes I can understand these points, and agree that we should live in a society where these things don`t matter or offend, but they do. I don`t think we should expect Nintendo of all companies to be the initiator of change in the world when they have always been a conservative company.
And in my opinion, all you need to do is look at the Japanese release to see the backlash this game got from the west when people found out there was a potentially homophobic scene and face touching in the game. I can totally understand why the localization team`s first response was to change this content.
So either way you piss people off, but I guess this way you piss people off over ommissions rather than offensive content. The bikini`s were definitiely a stretch though.
People will always find offense to everything.
I don't think living in a world were being offended/advocating censorship should be on a higher pedestal than things like free speech/free expression.
I don't think terms like being offended and having free speech are mutually exclusive, nor do you have to be pro censorship to understand why something was altered, and vice versa.
But that is what is happening here.
Most people understand in their minds why something was altered, my issue is with those that are ok with it. That is agreeing with censorship.
This tells companies that their decision has merit, censorship that is. What other things will they censor next?
Remember, Nintendo themselves wanted to censor games like The Binding of Isaac completely because they were afraid of backlash. Not only that, some people (even here on GN) agreed with Nintendo on that decision stating that it would offend Christians. That is ultimately agreeing with censorship based on offensive material.
Not all people who are okay with this are okay with all forms of censorship.
As well as this, not everyone who buys a game that is censored supports censorship. Maybe they dislike censorship but like the changes that were made? Maybe they dislike the changes but don't care enough to protest?
I'm not sure what people mean when they say "what's next?" what reason would Nintendo have to censor even more? Do you think they're going to ban black Mii's or something? Not to mention almost everything censored in their games recently relates to sexuality, what else do you actually expect them to do? Remove boobs altogether?
I'm not taking a stand here, but I will say that these changes to the game don't affect me negatively and I feel confident that me buying this game will not convince Nintendo to start ripping out large portions of games for western releases. I think it's silly that they took out some bikini's, but I'm fine with my anime characters lacking that option. This is not me saying I support censorship or am against it, but that in this individual situation I don't think it will effect my enjoyment of this game.
@ShoeMaker
Not all people who are okay with this are okay with all forms of censorship.
As well as this, not everyone who buys a game that is censored supports censorship.
Maybe they dislike censorship but like the changes that were made? Maybe they dislike the changes but don't care enough to protest?
Based on this game alone, if they like changes made, then they cannot dislike censorship at the same time. Most people just don't care in general. My whole argument is about these kind of people. Since a decision was already made, it means that people who support censorship as well as those in apathy towards these small changes, ultimately support censorship towards this game. Had the decision not been made and possibly left to the players then and only then would those apathetic towards the issue would in fact be in the grey area.
I'm not sure what people mean when they say "what's next?" what reason would Nintendo have to censor even more? Do you think they're going to ban black Mii's or something? Not to mention almost everything censored in their games recently relates to sexuality, what else do you actually expect them to do? Remove boobs altogether?
I don't see why not to the last scenario, people are really prudish. Not only that it would also be minor pointless details according to them and thus would agree with the decision, doing otherwise would be hypocritical.
I'm not taking a stand here, but I will say that these changes to the game don't affect me negatively and I feel confident that me buying this game will not convince Nintendo to start ripping out large portions of games for western releases. I think it's silly that they took out some bikini's, but I'm fine with my anime characters lacking that option. This is not me saying I support censorship or am against it, but that in this individual situation I don't think it will effect my enjoyment of this game.
I explained this already. Btw as for your enjoyment of the game, more power to you, I am not against that nor is it a problem.
What is a problem though is your stance, because like I said, in this case you are supporting censorship.
Here's why...
Group A = People who are ok with this censorship.
Group B = People who aren't ok with this censorship.
Group C = People who are apathetic to the situation.
Scenario A:
Nintendo censors a small part of FE:Fates. << A decision was made.
Group A << based on this game/situation, they support censorship.
Group B << based on this game/situation, they don't support censorship.
Group C << based on this game/situation, they support censorship.
Scenario B:
Nintendo wants to censor a small part of FE:Fates. << A decision has not been made.
Group A << based on this game/situation, they support the decision to censor. Some try to mask this as localization.
Group B << based on this game/situation, they don't support censorship. Most do it out of principle, though a very small minority does it for the actual touching minigame.
Group C << based on this game/situation, they have no influence on the outcome. They are literally on the grey area.
Yep, definitely. I understand why it was changed, and I can't even completely blame Nintendo for it. If anything, I blame the people who cried foul upon misinterpreting a scene as being homophobic or being too prude to touch a virtual face.
What makes the swimwear even odder is that they left in things like a towel wrapped around the body, which to me, is an even stranger 'costume' to dress someone in. And they still left in some swimwear, and it's a bit unclear what the criteria was for removing them. ...And you can still see swimwear and underwear during costume changes or during certain scenes...
"I also don't understand why these discussions about semantics happen"
Different words carry different connotations. Some people like using charged-language as an appeal to emotion, some people do not. Some people think it is appropriate to compare Nintendo to Nazi Germany, some people do not. Such is the nature of the internet. :-P
"Yes, it should change if the content is offensive by nature and intent, but that's not the case here, so it should've stayed as is."
So intentionally offensive media should be changed, but unintentionally offensive media should not be changed? That seems like one of the stranger positions to take.
Is there something wrong with being considerate?
"We're regressing as a society if media begins changing itself just so some people don't get offended"
Media has always changed itself to be in line with the wishes of its audience and its producers -- that is a feature, not a bug btw.
Let me start by replying to that thought experiment. In such a case it's offensive by nature (but not intent), and thus it can be changed without much issue. One thing that comes to mind right now is how it's a bit more okay to openly mock being gay in (older) Japanese media. But even then it doesn't have to be changed if it can be explained as a cultural difference.
Different words carry different connotations.Definitely. But I've often seen the discussion being more about the word than about the actual content, which seems like a wrong focus. You could just as easily say "I don't agree with the way you word things, but barring that..." and carry on with the actual discussion.
Is there something wrong with being considerate?Never said there was. If you'll look through my other posts on this topic (in this thread, but also in others), you'll find that it's actually the opposite.
Media has always changed itself to be in line with the wishes of its audience and its producers -- that is a feature, not a bug btw.Har.
"Let me start by replying to that thought experiment. In such a case it's offensive by nature (but not intent)"
If the offensiveness of some content varies by geographic location, how is it 'naturally' offensive? Who is the arbiter of this nature?
For instance, if I were to call someone a spaz or something, that is perfectly permissible in America because here it just refers to acting animated and is more of a light-hearted jest, like calling someone clumsy. I can just sort of drop it into polite conversation and no one would even bat an eye.
Now -- correct me if I am wrong -- I believe this is not the case in most European countries, where the word has a slightly different history of use and is considered very strongly derogatory?
So if I call someone a spaz, is that word offensive by nature?
"But even then it doesn't have to be changed if it can be explained as a cultural difference."
Where and how would these explanations be included?
If material in its original form and context did not require an explanation, shoehorning one into the work is still a change to the material, and frequently an awkward change to boot.
Including a 'We know this seems really cringe-worthy to you, but trust us, if you had a thorough and deep knowledge of Japanese cultural mores that is necessary to properly contextualize what you are seeing, this extremely weird conversation would be totally hilarious' does not seem like something that anyone actually wants out of a localization.
"But it really seems like people are more sensitive, touchy and easy to offend now than they used to be."
I agree, people who complain about censorship are waaaaay more sensitive and touchy than they used to be. 
I do not think the scene in question was 'homophobic' or whatever, but I can certainly understand where people are coming from when they feel uncomfortable watching it, which I rather doubt was what the writers intended, how the Japanese audience responded, or is in general something that anyone involved at any level (players/developers/publishers) actually wants to occur.
If the express purpose of the game is for its players to feel immersed, have fun, and occasionally laugh, then what is the point of Nintendo translating the scene in a manner that directly conflicts with that purpose?
A word, gesture, or action is offensive by nature in a region if that word/gesture/action is considered offensive throughout that region's cultural history
If material in its original form and context did not require an explanation, shoehorning one into the work is still a change to the material, and frequently an awkward change to boot.Adding an explanation is not really changing the material. It reminds me of how when Disney recently showed their ancient cartoons (that have racist tendencies), that they started it with a disclaimer after which they showed the cartoon unedited. I can't imagine anybody would even begin to claim stuff was changed, and the very fact you are claiming this makes me suspect you're making a counterargument for the sake of it.
I agree, people who complain about censorship are waaaaay more sensitive and touchy than they used to beHar. Again.
"A word, gesture, or action is offensive by nature in a region"
If something is only offensive within a specific region due to specific historical or cultural influences, then the offensiveness of that thing is by definition contextual rather than natural. There are very few things that are inherently offensive in and of themselves.
"throughout that region's cultural history"
What exactly is the time period that defines 'throughout' the history? Standards of propriety change even within specific regions and cultures as time goes by and circumstances change.
For instance, maybe in 20 years, it will be socially-acceptable for white people in the US to use the N-word (again), but 'Scotchtard' will be verboten after the Great Scottish Genocide of 2035 -- and it will be especially frowned upon coming from people from Papua New Guinea since they were the ones who perpetrated the killings.
"Adding an explanation is not really changing the material."
In what way is it not? If I have to read an accompanying blurb of text every time a joke is made that I might not understand, then the joke does not work the same as it did. What is the point of retaining a joke that is no longer funny?
No offense, but if you cannot imagine anybody believing that explaining a joke changes its meaning, that speaks more to the limitations of your imagination.
"the very fact you are claiming this makes me suspect you're making a counterargument for the sake of it."
It is weird to me how it is always my least controversial opinions that inspire accusations of being a contrarian.
Out of all the things I give you to work with, 'Jokes stop being funny when you have to explain them' is the one you think is trolling?
For anyone who is okay with the censorship, there's a concept that you better be aware of, it's called the Streisand effect. The net result is there is a hell of a lot more people aware of what's going on then you give credit for, more importantly you may find yourselves in the minority on this.
They are defending a precedent.
Just wait. In a few years Treehouse will use this precedent and really ruin some potentially great games.
I can already see it: A somber character in a game with a deep story censored and turned into "super-dupity stupid memes."
That's the thing I don't get, why would they defend a precedent that is effectively a policy that's 30 years old, and that they know is hated by every Nintendo fan, case in point censorship of the first Mortal Kombat and the backlash that led from that. let's say fire emblem wasn't censored, would any of them or the journalists demand those particular elements removed, I would believe that none of them would demand such a thing, but let's say it did happen and it came from a games journalist, they would be labeled no better than Jack Thompson, and would probably be committing career suicide.
But instead they hide behind this precedent because the game was censored, and call it no big deal and it's just localization and everything's okay, and if said elements were left in then there would be some sort of media backlash that could damage sales, which I personally do not believe would happen, and there is quite strong evidence for this, I will use Xenoblade X is my example, and to be more pacifically I'm going to use Lyn, now as you know people have been saying that it's good that you can't dress her in a swimsuit, because of the idea of sexualizing a child. Yet at no point has it occurred to anyone that's something far more genuinely grievous has taken place that's still in the game, she is effectively a child soldier! And yet no one said a thing about it, no controversy, no backlash. But there it is, a 13-year-old front line combatant in the employment of a private military group! Of course there is also the other example of her making rather lewd suggestive comments about a giant robot, again not a word.
That's why none of this flies with me, not any of the arguments or reasoning, and because of that I don't want to take them seriously, just from a rational perspective it would be irrational to deal with them.
That's why I do my thing, I make my statements on the forums, I write my emails and sign the petitions, and if need be boycott, even if I believe it some think you should only do as a last resort, but there it is. But I am glad that you and a few others of fighting for the same thing, and even though there are people who are quite happy to go along with the censorship, in many ways we are fighting for them as well, even if they do not see it nor can appreciate our stance.
These threads are great for filling this up
That's a good way to disregard all criticism!
Then how's this for criticism
Not only is this localization missing some chunks of the original Japanese game including but not limited to the not very controversial at all in the first place minigame and the original Japanese voices, the "translated" writing is a trainwreck of preschool grade humor and pop cutural references. I've never finished a Fire Emblem game before but sure as hell I've bought all of them since Sacred Stones (except for Path of Radiance). I'm not buying this. It is an early 90s quality Nintendo localization and textbook censorship all at once.
Bah. Stop with this. I am absolutely 100% against these changes, but to call the proposition apologists and to disregard their arguments like this is almost juvenile. What happened to intelligent debate?
And if you say that intelligent debate is impossible with the proposition (which isn't true), then don't lower yourself to that level.
Seriously, at this point is quite obvious: the biggest choice these games are putting to the players isn't to choose whether to be with the Hoshido or the Nohr family...
I just wanna play the game. I am still very shocked at how huge a deal this very little thing in this game has become.
For both sides.
It doesn't even matter if you can define this as censorship or not, it's retarded to get this upset by them removing it either way.
Not that it is censorship. The west and Japan have different standards. Localisation takes that into account. Same for when certain young characters with sexy designs get their age bumped up for English releases.
But if this is a big deal to anyone, get your priorities straightened out, and don't play the old 'waaaah, it's censorship' card. Change isn't always bad.
For those who are selective in the worded definition of censorship:
If in NA all censorship and censored material was hypothetically illegal, would then the localized game be illegal?
No, a localized product would not be found illegal, merely being a product altered between multiple editions by the author, with no part of that hypothetical law, which prohibits any censorship or censored material, being able to prohibit the choice of the author to sell either edition WHEREVER.
This news is simply not an example of censorship. It is an example of many people being confused by content which they know has been affected by the process of censorship, but that process is not broadly defined as content found in one place, but not found in another. Of course it is more specific than that, all would agree, and that specific process was not in play here involving the single party in he matter, the author/distributer of a game
The energy and amount of conviction some people deploy regarding this makes me want to vomit.
To think some people would start making this political is simply laughable. If you want to fight against censorship, find yourself a cause worth deploying such effort for. If you think you're being useful to any kind of ethical matter here, don't fool yourself. If you have this much energy in you and if you really want to fight censorship, to change corporate policies and favor cultural diversity, if you really want to do these things and if you're not pretending you should probably go fight a real fight.
I usually avoid being judgemental or extreme in my comments but this has gone from slightly amusing to hands down pathetic.
I guess I'm one of the pathetic people, then, since I've been opposed to this in every article on the topic.
But you'll see that the opposition wasn't the start here. In fact, I wouldn't have said anything until I saw that the thread was filled with people discrediting the opposition. Just look at the first few posts and tell me if you wouldn't respond if they talked about something you personally care about.
I also don't see why it's okay to be just as fervently in favor of these changes but not against it. (Or at the very least, you don't address those people, who are in the majority in this thread, so I can only assume.)
That I post on these forums opposed against these changes doesn't mean I don't have principles elsewhere. I "fight real fights" just as much in other places. But for most people, making posts about this topic is about all they can do. People have jobs and lives beyond Nintendo, and they can only fight this cause in their limited free time. To then tell them to "fight a real fight" is absurd.
No you're not because as far as I know you're not one of the people who are making this highly political. Some around the internet are clearly thinking they're about to save the world by being extremely vocal about this. This is getting way over the top and somewhat ridiculous to say the least.
This is my opinion based on what I've seen around the internet. I'm sorry if you don't agree but that's what it is. Also I never said people don't have political fights or don't fight censorship in other areas. You brought it up, not me. I merely advised that they should redirect their efforts on more important debates which they might or might not already have in their lives as citizens. Obviously I wouldn't know, rather I'd rather not know because now that you mention it I suspect that, bringing up other examples of censorship in our societies, a lot of the more vocal opponents of censorship in video games would have a lot less to talk about. However as I said, I wouldn't know and I'm not going there anyway.
Also I never said I was supporting people who are in favor of the changes. Never said that, I don't get these guys, never will. You know I'm against these changes, we've talked about it before.
Ah, I see now. A simple misunderstanding. When you said political I thought you meant it in the sense of "trying to send a message to Nintendo", but you more mean it in the sense of "trying to fight for the greater good and better the world with our protest". Yeah, I'm not really of the latter sort since in the end it's just a video game company, who probably won't even listen much to our protests.
Hm, also reading your second paragraph, I see there has been some misunderstanding. I thought you said that by fighting the fight here, people are not fighting the 'real' fights.
And yeah, I know you're against these changes, so I was a bit surprised. But again, a misunderstanding. Reading your original post again, you're addressing people on both ends of the argument, who are making it overly political
So I'm pathetic because I don't want censorship in games? I want choice? Is that wrong? Is it pathetic?
I didn't say people against the changes were pathetic, this is not what I said.
This is why I should refrain from using harsh words on the internet because when you do people just skip the meaning of what you're saying.
Sorry, I do think I was guilty of this as well. Maybe part of it was the harsh wording, but it really did seem you're only addressing one side of the argument, which is what set me off. It took me a few read-throughs before I realized what you meant
How are people NOT upset or at least oppose to removing content? Even if you don't like it it's still wrong.
Well this sounds creepy. People actually want stuff like this in games?
This is ridiculous.
I give it 5 years. 5 years before they start taking things out that the rest of the people here want.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
-Pastor Martin Niemöller
5 years.
To think that all of this negative attention is actually drawing more people and sales to Fire Emblem Fates.
It's like the complainers didn't learn from how their fake-outrage affected Splatoon / Mario Kart / SM3DW / Mario Maker / Smash.
