Crash Station
Member
For this game? We don't need to since we already know the tactical gameplay is top tier.
Fire Emblem Fates' localization doesn't have the petting minigame
- Thread starter kulapik
- Start date
- Status
For this game? We don't need to since we already know the tactical gameplay is top tier.
Elaugaufein
Member
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Crash Station
Member
Finding something off putting doesn't necessarily mean you're making a moral judgement. And you people need to learn that ASAP because it gets so boring having to explain this every single time. I find a ton of things off putting in games - some of them even make me avoid games (unlike this idiotic minigame, I have the game pre ordered since forever). Yet I'm clearly ~offended~ by this. "Lol DAE people are very easily offended?", that's the common reaction to criticism of anything fanservicey.
Yeah, why would anyone be happy that a product is more like they want it to be?
It's nonsensical!It was a good analogy - the disconnect comes from the fact that some people don't perceive this as crap, but as their favourite part of their meal. Opinions and stuff. Now if you want people to watch their language when criticizing fanservicey minigames, I'd say you're very easily offended
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
"Offended" doesn't mean people are frothing at the mouth. It's a term broad enough to include negative reactions of varying severity. Given the descriptions of this feature as "creepy" or even "pervy anime shit" and the glee of people about its removal I don't think it's unfair to describe some people's reaction to the feature as "offence." You yourself have said you'd be "so salty" if it turned out the feature is left in so there is clearly some annoyance or resentment towards it -- both terms given as a synonym for "offence."
But much like the nitpicking about what constitutes censorship, I feel people are only bringing it up to get away from a term they don't like. If ZombiePlatus' post was phrased as "I still feel like being disturbed/[different word for displeasure] by the inclusion (...)" would that have made it kosher for you? Because their post didn't hinge upon the offence, it was about being this peeved about such an innocuous, optional feature that seems to be less worthy of umbrage than many other elements of media we tolerate.
Elaugaufein
Member
Finding something off putting doesn't necessarily mean you're making a moral judgement. And you people need to learn that ASAP because it gets so boring having to explain this every single time. I find a ton of things off putting in games - some of them even make me avoid games (unlike this idiotic minigame, I have the game pre ordered since forever). Yet I'm clearly ~offended~ by this. "Lol DAE people are very easily offended?", that's the common reaction to criticism of anything fanservicey.
Yeah, why would anyone be happy that a product is more like they want it to be?
I don't think posts like 20XXs can be handwaved away as merely finding something offputting. It's not exactly being subtle about the judgement it's making of anyone who doesn't want it removed. It'd be like if I was making veiled references about how everyone for this being cut is looking to get fitted for a pair of jackboots.
And I'm pretty sure I haven't accused you of being prudish.
Finding something off putting doesn't necessarily mean you're making a moral judgement. And you people need to learn that ASAP because it gets so boring having to explain this every single time. I find a ton of things off putting in games - some of them even make me avoid games (unlike this idiotic minigame, I have the game pre ordered since forever). Yet I'm clearly ~offended~ by this. "Lol DAE people are very easily offended?", that's the common reaction to criticism of anything fanservicey.
Yeah, why would anyone be happy that a product is more like they want it to be?
Of course, but it has nothing to do with what they said.
If people talk about moral judgment it's because there are plenty of explicitly judgmental comments in this thread.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
Finding something off putting doesn't necessarily mean you're making a moral judgement. And you people need to learn that ASAP because it gets so boring having to explain this every single time. I find a ton of things off putting in games - some of them even make me avoid games (unlike this idiotic minigame, I have the game pre ordered since forever). Yet I'm clearly ~offended~ by this. "Lol DAE people are very easily offended?", that's the common reaction to criticism of anything fanservicey.
Yeah, why would anyone be happy that a product is more like they want it to be?
Offended/put-off/disturbed/triggered/unsettled...
Pick whatever crayon you want outta the box. Bottom line is, some people here are going "My feathers are so ruffled by this thing that I'd rather have it scrapped completely. Even though it's a stupid, tame extra that's *optional*"
I mean what is this minigame gonna do? Sully the emotion integrity of the game? Taint it's hypothetical revered status with the average Joe? Cause if that's what people are worried about, they're seriously being way too uptight.
Ah okay, everything I dislike offends me now. Odd that this only happens when I dislike fanservice, though.
GrandHarrier
Member
I like anime. I didn't want to rub people's faces. Is that actually a thing people in Japan do?
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
"Shut up, you're offended!". It just happened again!
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
Steve Youngblood
Member
First of all, I'll note that 21XX's comment wasn't necessary. Secondly, you're asking the questions in the last paragraph in a sardonic fashion, but I think that's kind of the crux of what people are getting at. Yes. I mean, I'm a 31-year-old adult with a job and a family. I'm not worried that the captain of the football team is going to see me rubbing anime girl's face with a stylus on my handheld video game machine and then proceed to laugh at me and give me a swirly in the bathroom. I'm not so much concerned with hypothetical Joe Sixpack. But me? I've argued repeatedly my concerns about tone and venturing deeper and deeper down the 'shipping rabbit hole.
I was almost certainly buying Fates anyway (haven't pre-ordered already simply because I'm an eShop guy), so this wasn't a make-or-break deal for me. Further, I was never consulted about the Japanese version's inclusion of the feature nor NA's removal of it. So I don't feel any personal responsibility about it. But if someone asked me as part of a market research survey "are you more or less inclined to buy Fire Emblem with the inclusion of a face-petting feature?" I would answer "Less Inclined." Given that, yes, I'm in favor of its removal.
But again, wherever the chips fall, I don't take personal delight in seeing other people bummed out. If ultimately Treehouse came to me inexplicably and said "we can't make this decision, you make the call," I might just go ahead and say leave it in because I don't really want to be the person who was personally responsible for cutting a feature people wanted that existed in the Japanese version already. But my preference as to what I think makes it a better overall product? Yeah, cut it. I'm not going to call it creepy, but it seems weird and out of place to me.
MHWilliams
Member
Imagine the many threads we've had in the previous generation about people who dislike additional optional DLC or extra multiplayer modes for single-player titles.
Examples:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1107479
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=359699
They don't want those extra modes and content to not be a thing because they're offended by them. They just don't like them, would prefer the devs have spent their time elsewhere, and are glad they're gone. That's not offense, triggering, or whatever.
I assume this is what the poster is trying to get at.
Like what? I've been trying to address everything :0
Things that offend me very deeply and hurt my prude sensibilities:
- Movie characters in MK
- Cloud in SSB
- Danica Patrick in Sonic Racing Transformed
- QTEs in any game
- Greedy on disc DLC
- Those weird alternative sections in TW101
I'm getting triggered just by listing such things
I should like, shut up and get over it, instead of being able to criticize those things."Shut up, you're offended!". It just happened again!
While we obviously have different opinions about this, if I simply don't like something I'm able to easily ignore it, and I wouldn't mind its inclusion.
To make a Fire Emblem example, I don't like casual mode, I think it removes one of the elements that make FE what it is and playing with it means missing out on the true experience
I don't like it, and I'm still happy it exists for the people who want it, I don't want it to be removed and I think the game would be a worse product if that happened.
In the end I think cosmicblizzard explained it well enough:
WrenchNinja
Member
what
Probably means Casual/Phoenix.
I meant casual mode, I think it was pretty obvious by the context
Thanks for pointing it out though, I corrected it.
No. On my case I simply thing the petting minigame is the single dumbest addition the series has had, and thus I don't want it coming back on the next game. The gameplay effects this has can be easily implemented in any other mechanic and the context of army leader being able to call up every member of their army to their room for caressing time is dumb and weird.
Not really any different from me being hypothetically happy as hell if Smash Tour stops being a thing in all future smash games.
Not everyone has to be offended if they think a game addition is dumb or want it out for the next iteration. Its optional, but it still exists in the game and is up for criticism.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
I think Phoenix will get scrapped in later games.
Edit: In the beginning of DLC era, no one was still worrying about offending people because it was still largely being treated as a male mecca on forums despite rising increases in female gamers and other neglected demographics with DS, Wii, Kinect and later smartphones.
There was definitely still the case of people not liking when certain companies have stopped catering exclusively to them and name-calling.
In a way, saying someone is offended in a negative light is like the new non-gamer/casuals crap that get flung around. Same dance, different dress.
Edit: In the beginning of DLC era, no one was still worrying about offending people because it was still largely being treated as a male mecca on forums despite rising increases in female gamers and other neglected demographics with DS, Wii, Kinect and later smartphones.
There was definitely still the case of people not liking when certain companies have stopped catering exclusively to them and name-calling.
In a way, saying someone is offended in a negative light is like the new non-gamer/casuals crap that get flung around. Same dance, different dress.
Crash Station
Member
Yeah, why would anyone be happy that a product is more like they want it to be?
We're going in circles, so I'm just going to quote myself from earlier. This sums up how I feel.
Now keep in mind, I'm not directly accusing anyone of being selfish. I've just read most posts in this thread and have not seen any acceptable explanation for why someone that isn't offended is being selfish in this one instance for wanting the mini-game removed. Even Steve's have boiled down to "people have different opinions", albeit in a very graceful way.
Here are the "rational" reasons why I think someone would be happy it's gone:
1. They're offended (we can't help what we're offended by)
2. They're Nintendo that legitimately think the mode's inclusion would harm the brand because people would be offended by it.
I've seen people use 2, but my response to that is we're consumers, not Nintendo. On an individual level, we should not care if someone is offended or not by a game that we play alone. And no matter how much people ARE offended by the mode, it is not going to make the game suddenly fail, so you don't have to worry about the franchise dying.
Any other explanations I've seen are just convoluted and reaching which I can't see how anyone would even think up unless they actually are offended and just trying to save face.
If casual mode gets removed, and it genuinely makes the game better in your eyes, you'd be free to express your opinion and literally no one would tell you you're offended by casual mode (because that'd be massively dumb).
And yes, you don't have to tell me it's easy for people to rationalize that not liking fanservice equals being offended, lol.
I doubt it. This is something definitely in line with the move to add in more relationship stuff. I bet Nintendo heard lots of people were frustrated even by the Casual mode in Awakenings when all they wanted to do was play matchmaker.
Crash Station
Member
KirbYuuYuu
Member
It doesn't seem very beneficial
https://kantopia.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/fire-emblem-fates-famitsu-survey-results-translated/
MHWilliams
Member
Then go with selfish. If I can't be selfish in my desires for my entertainment, then something seems a bit wrong. I prefer that Assassin's Creed games have no multiplayer at all. If stating that preference and being happy when a game like Syndicate is single-player is selfish in your eyes, then so be it.
Note, I'm fine with the petting mini-game myself, but it seems odd, because we're all varying degrees of selfish. Some did not want Fire Emblem to move more towards the relationship aspects. Are you selfish for enjoying their greater inclusion to their detriment? Nintendo is the one making changes and decisions as to the development and localization of any title. We as consumers are merely reacting to those choices.
Ah, Phoenix Mode. Yeah, that's something I'd prefer Nintendo did away with as well. Normal, with no perma-death, is probably the easiest mode I think FE should have.
Well, I'd actually prefer being called selfish. Feels much less dismissive! In any case, there can only be one Fire Emblem and it can't possibly please all fans. "FE has a stronger focus on shipping now, get over it" is just as selfish, I think. In reality we all want the game to be what we personally want it to be. But it's good being able to see it like that without involving hypothetical moral judgement and political sensibilities.
Yeah it's bullshit. It's just another way to dismiss people's opinions as being lesser to your own or to say they don't have a right to speak by alluding that their concerns are just histrionics and not genuine.
I think the audience for it in the West (most of which never heard of Fire Emblem before Awakenings) will probably use it more than Japan. It will probably still be the least popular mode, but considering how easy it probably is to code into the game why not?
EDIT: Also. some pretty massive spoilers in that survey, FYI. I saw the "Most Impactful Moments" or whatever and immediately closed the page.
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
I think the difference is this was already a thing that was made, was known to the people in this thread ages before release because GAFers are the type of people who stay up late to watch Japanese trailers, and obviously given the length of this thread some people liked the prospect of having that feature once the game was released this side of the globe. I agree it's not selfish to prefer current Assassin's Creed not to have a multiplayer mode when it didn't for ages now, but the response of "No, make this go away!" to an existing feature that is easily avoided by those that don't like it does seem a tad selfish to me. Especially when said feature had people looking forward to it here.
Applied to the Assassin's Creed example: Imagine it had a multiplayer mode that some people liked and you weren't forced to engage with at all. Being very adamant about seeing that gone would seem kind of selfish, no? At least a lot more so than just preferring the game in its current state.
Crash Station
Member
I agree with you. The difference here is we're talking about an optional mode in a finished product that is getting neutered for another region.
Here's the way I see it. If you want the main portion of the product to cater to you personally, you're selfish to an acceptable degree. Don't think there should be as much focus on relationships and time programming the game would be better spent on more maps/better story/better balancing/etc? Perfectly fine!
Hell, I'd be a hypocrite if I made any accusations there with how much of a pest I've been over Final Fantasy 7 remake getting a battle system that I am completely disappointed by and wish they would change it.
But wishing for the removal of an optional mode in a completed product? Yeah, I would call that selfish to an irrational degree.
See above. I would not call someone dissatisfied with the greater focus on shipping selfish to an irrational degree.
Yes, it is selfish to want a game to be changed to cater to you, but that's what every consumer is. Every consumer wants things to be best for them.
With that being said, the content we're talking about is optional. It seems reasonable to say that the removal of optional content is a bad trade for people who wanted it there, in terms of how much value is gained by the people who don't want it there.
Optional content is engaged with as a matter of desire, and is at worst a negative tinge at the periphery of the experience for those who don't want it there. The removal of it serves to get rid of that tinge, but also completely guts a positive experience that someone who wants it there would actively engage with.
There's a disproportionate trade happening in terms of which party is gaining and losing value in the game.
--
Also, it's fine to be happy about it. It's also fine to not be happy about it. Where I think a line is crossed is when you express your opinion in a way that attempts to shame people that have a different opinion.
RM8, I recognize that people attempt to call you prude because of your distaste for fanservice, and that's shitty. But look at the volume of that kind of talk that happened near the beginning of this thread, where people were being called weirdos/insane/creeps/pervs/gamergaters, etc, for having the opposite opinion. Clearly you must recognize the opposite is happening just as much, and is just as shitty.
I'd also like to thank Steve Youngblood for quelling those posts somewhat by calling it out.
With that being said, the content we're talking about is optional. It seems reasonable to say that the removal of optional content is a bad trade for people who wanted it there, in terms of how much value is gained by the people who don't want it there.
Optional content is engaged with as a matter of desire, and is at worst a negative tinge at the periphery of the experience for those who don't want it there. The removal of it serves to get rid of that tinge, but also completely guts a positive experience that someone who wants it there would actively engage with.
There's a disproportionate trade happening in terms of which party is gaining and losing value in the game.
--
Also, it's fine to be happy about it. It's also fine to not be happy about it. Where I think a line is crossed is when you express your opinion in a way that attempts to shame people that have a different opinion.
RM8, I recognize that people attempt to call you prude because of your distaste for fanservice, and that's shitty. But look at the volume of that kind of talk that happened near the beginning of this thread, where people were being called weirdos/insane/creeps/pervs/gamergaters, etc, for having the opposite opinion. Clearly you must recognize the opposite is happening just as much, and is just as shitty.
I'd also like to thank Steve Youngblood for quelling those posts somewhat by calling it out.
The removal of this optional minigame is not simply that, and I've mentioned this already. I'm hopeful that it sends the message to NCL that this stuff is becoming increasingly harder to market outside of Japan. I see it as some sort of wake up call to Nintendo - this feature was poorly received by Japanese players, and NOA doesn't even want to touch it. Do you really not see how this is a good thing for people who want less of this stuff in FE?
Hey, it's sad that we can't have two Fire Emblems to please both sides, but just as some people would love to have an even more "shippy" focus, some people will be happy to see a lesser focus on those elements.
Hey, it's sad that we can't have two Fire Emblems to please both sides, but just as some people would love to have an even more "shippy" focus, some people will be happy to see a lesser focus on those elements.
I'm not a fan of Assassin's creed repetitive side missions, but why would I celebrate if they get removed from the EU version? It's content that's already made. The removal isn't going to increase the budget in other areas of the game. It seems odd to me that anyone would celebrate that they get less game unless they felt morally offended by the content.
Even if it was just moral offense, why is that an invalid reason to be happy?
As for me personally, I've stated many times in this thread that in this situation, it's about how it makes the game look to have this as a marketed feature.
Crash Station
Member
In a very meta way, yes.
But we should be talking on an individual product level. Even if we take your concerns into account, it's almost a guarantee they won't be doubling down on this stuff for the next game. As you said, it was poorly received in Japan, involved internal conflict among IS and was just a mess all around.
But it's done. It's in the game. You can choose to use it or not and there is no scenario where it becomes so damn popular that IS considers it for the next game even if it was left in. We don't have that choice anymore.
I added an extra line to my post
Some people would prefer if FE would become a full blown dating sim. That doesn't mean people would be wrong to dislike that idea and be happy to see that it won't happen.Yeah, more than the removal itself, this outcome means the series won't have something I dislike in the future. Hey, I guess that sounds selfish, but again, we all want games to be more like the stuff we like.
I added an extra line to my post
I mean, yes, obviously anything that makes the game more like the thing you want is good for you, and it's fine for you to want that and be happy that things go that way.
If you're trying to defend yourself from people who say you shouldn't be happy about it, that's not me.
I am arguing, though, in my above post, that the loss of the minigame is worse for people who enjoy it - or, even at the very least just want to TRY it - than removing it is beneficial for people who dislike it.
I'm not following you here, cutting the feature won't get them any feedback about it, of course they already have the Japanese feedback that can help them decide what to do with the next installment, but that already exists and is not going away, regardless of what they do here.
Not releasing the feature won't get them negative feedback about it, it'll get them no western feedback on it at all.
Edit: Since you mentioned it, I think it's perfectly fine to want the game to appeal more to you in the future, it's what we all want after all.
You're being perfectly fair then, unlike some posters here.
So I guess where we disagree is that I indeed believe NOA refusing to localize this minigame will make NCL reconsider -to some degree- the direction of the series, along with the feedback from Japanese players.
Nohr has more fanservicey character designs, though :/ I find Hoshido way, way more appealing, but that's the "Awakening" game, lol.
- Status