Comment: ‚This is disgusting and ridiculous at the same time. And that’s exactly why I’m against „videogames for all“.
Yes, they’re producing commercial products tailored to the masses – to please a moral majority -, and therefore are not making art. It just offends those whose sexuality is affected by these decisions, and is mental bankruptcy on the creatives side.
Let’s say someone like David Lynch is working with the same mind set: making „Twin Peaks“ comfortable for everyone, „everything is fine“ and so on. Yet even most mainstream „horror“ will share those ulterior motives, inside its genre gates.
Where does this all lead? To which state of society?
And to Kotaku: there’s not a single word of „critique“ regarding this attitude. Therefore those articles are rather sexual prosecution, than journalism.
How can a good journalist like Stephen Totilo back that up? In good conscience?
What does liberality actually mean (anymore), in this day and age of „cultural acceptance“?‘
Replik (18. Juni): ‚“Culturalization“ in the meaningless sense presented here really is a capitalistic euphemism for censorship. You really shouldn’t start using it without thinking about it.
These implications, at least those of the documents shown in above video, are there for the sole purpose of making more profit in certain regions, to please regulators, public opinion and so on.
What definition of „culture“ do they even represent? In most cases the dominant western culture, to witch Japanese games had to adapt to. Any form of „whitewashing“ could therefore also be seen as a process of „culturalization“. And this, for example, is quite the opposite of battling racism.
Western nudity is prohibited by the Japanese CERO rating. China would not allow a lot of western and Japanese violent and sexual content. Other than that, there are very few western video games that would get changed when released on foreign markets. So it is and remains very one-sided, even to the extend of an imperialistic process of postcolonialism.
It does not endorse diversity, or social justice. And it certainly is not multicultural – this is a contradiction in itself when by that, „culturalization“ actually wants to eradicate different aesthetics for the benefit of one „culture“ in a certain market. On the contrary: it reduces expression to western mainstream tastes – totally ignoring the wishes and feeling of a minority audience, especially in sexual terms.
The only example of western video game content that had been altered to Japanese culture, which comes to my mind, are the aesthetics of Ratchet from „Ratchet & Clank“ – which in the past have been adapted for a Japanese audience. Therefore, instead of using the industry term of „culturalization“, „westernization“ hardly is more wrong.‘
19. Juni: ‚Or „Senran Kagura 1+2“, for that matter… Actually, the truth seems to be quite sad and double standard: what all of the recently censored titles on Nintendo platforms, like the last „Project Zero/Fatal Frame“, „Fire Emblem“, „Bravely Default“ or „Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE“ had in common was that they all tried to reach a much bigger audience. „Culturalization“ clearly aims for the big picture of video games in society.
It threatens first and foremost what a representative video game should look like (in contrary to video game public tradition), and not necessarily what contents are allowed at all. So, at least for now, they (Nintendo) don’t touch the little niché ones…
Or look at Sony and just listen what Japanese title SCEA’s Shawn Layden mentioned on this years‘ E3 press conference: he said „Nioh“, not „NieR“. Ok, „Nioh“ is also a PlayStation exclusive – but I hope you get the point. They don’t censor Suda 51 games too (anymore), because they obviously think they’re not representative for the industry as a whole.
In recent years, there were only two big Japanese games with risky content released uncensored, and western reaction to both was a mixed bag: the one was ironically „The Phantom Pain“ with the character Quiet, and the other was „Final Fantasy XV“ with the character Cindy Aurum. Quiet exactly produced the uproar among sex-negative feminists and journalists the „western values“ marketing guys fear so much, while Cindy Aurum rather did not.
Up to this point, the future is therefore quite uncertain: just let us (continue) to support titles like „NieR – Automata“. Not just because of the looks of it, but also because they dare to include fragile female characters and by that are not only battling sexuality reduced to western lifestyles, but also the culturally dominant stereotype of „strong women“ in the west. Even a game like „Zelda – Breath of the Wild“, in which the princess is allowed to cry, is – together with the inclusion of certain sexual character designs (even in a „Zelda“ game!) – not a lost cause.
There are certainly a lot of positive aspects too – the term can also mean to translate culture, and not language. Yet here, it clearly does not: what is considered to be „fanservice“ is not allowed. It means to reduce, or get rid of, unwanted and undesired content.
Even sexual desire itself. The only allowed form of sexuality being a sexuality of capable bodies, those which are considered „equal“ and „working“ (in the sense of „healthy“ and „functioning“ well).
It’s sexuality outside the norm, which is at stake here. Certain aesthetics are generalized and prejudiced on – its audience! And this is what I personally think is so sexually discriminating and certainly not empowering any kind of people, regardless of their gender.
Yes, some content in Japanese games is indeed questionable. It’s questionable for example, to sexualize an underage character – but this is not only true to western versions of particular games, when in the original Japanese version the underage character still exists (!).
They want to endorse western concerns, but then why only in the west? If the western view is right?
And the west should finally start to think about why it believes women should be „strong“ for example, why they don’t allow female characters to show any kind of weakness and so on – its not feminist to mimic patriarchy like many so-called „feminists“ (historically speaking most of the third wave actually) think of themselves, or their mission.
And, as a handicapped person, I think this is vile biology too: most of them even don’t judge people by their gender, but actually still only by their sex – or what they have (or have not) between their legs – deeply ignorant about anything else. Yet I don’t want to be reduced on a concept-level, as being a „male“ person of a certain age or whatever, and I don’t want to hear how a „female“ person should look like: there is no such thing as single imagery (of men or women).
By the way, I’m all for social justice and against machismo – male dominant culture. And I’m a feminist too, of course.‘