• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Western Localisation Of Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Features Costume And Age Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suzushiiro said:
Yeah, the goalpost moving for what qualifies as "censorship" in these debates is similar to how people tend to do mental gymnastics with definitions to claim that their shitty hateful remarks about/acts toward a race don't count as racism. [Word] is universally considered to be bad, but people still agree with/want to do some of the things that [word] refers to, so they try to change the definition of [word] to not apply to things they're okay with. I'd have slightly more respect for these people if they just said "yeah, it is [word], but [word] is okay in this case because [reasons]."

EDIT: Thinking more, I suppose it's a problem on either side that the line for something being okay/not okay is based around the definition of [word]. Why should this counting as censorship or not have any bearing on how okay it is?
Click to expand...
I think you've hit the nail on the head there; it's semantic titwank that distracts from the issue at hand. Regardless of the term used, the argument should be about why and how those changes were made, how well they fit and how justified they were. You know, the actual cause and effect. Granted, there's probably a bit of sincere confusion about the term mixed in there and something like the changes to the petting game in Fire Emblem: Fates falls into a little bit of a gray area seeing as the developers themselves (the very authors, not just copyright holders) weren't sure that feature fits the game and you could argue those changes improved it in that regard, but when changes are very obviously enforced to avoid ethical controversy and backlash like in this instance, they are censorship.

Trying to dismiss criticisms to these changes as them being a "natural" side-effect of the localisation process does feel disingenuous, though. The person arguing that basically asserts the original contents were as incomprehensible to "Western audiences" (bollocks generalisation, if you ask me) as a language only a tiny minority understands or assumes some moral authority that deems those contents as unacceptable for the entire Western hemisphere. Neither of these fit the bill: The former doesn't because, especially in this instance, the original assets were clearly comprehensible to the target audience since the niche they cater to will have had prior exposure to idol culture and the latter doesn't because their own delicate ethical sensibilities regarding things that don't exist aren't the ones everyone has to abide by -- no matter with how much condescending holier-than-thou snark they try to push it.

Your edit is absolutely true too. Establishing it as censorship isn't an argument on its own either. I'm not sure people realise how common censorship is in everyday life, but if they did they'd know it doesn't immediately make societies implode. And even I as someone who has been speaking out against censorship of media for almost two decades now (I live in Germany so go figures) still openly supported censorship of hate speech because I don't think speech that does little but incite hatred and violence against certain groups should be protected. Point is, back in that thread we didn't have a nonsense semantic back and forth that undermined the discussion and the topic was actually about how one can justify such suppression. Although I guess if we ever moved on to that stage in topics like this, it would turn out that the justification is mostly "I don't like it so no one should."

Not gonna ramble on more -- new swimsuits for DOAX3 are out!
 
Palculator said:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there; it's semantic titwank that distracts from the issue at hand. Regardless of the term used, the argument should be about why and how those changes were made, how well they fit and how justified they were. You know, the actual cause and effect. Granted, there's probably a bit of sincere confusion about the term mixed in there and something like the changes to the petting game in Fire Emblem: Fates falls into a little bit of a gray area seeing as the developers themselves (the very authors, not just copyright holders) weren't sure that feature fits the game and you could argue those changes improved it in that regard, but when changes are very obviously enforced to avoid ethical controversy and backlash like in this instance, they are censorship.

Trying to dismiss criticisms to these changes as them being a "natural" side-effect of the localisation process does feel disingenuous, though. The person arguing that basically asserts the original contents were as incomprehensible to "Western audiences" (bollocks generalisation, if you ask me) as a language only a tiny minority understands or assumes some moral authority that deems those contents as unacceptable for the entire Western hemisphere. Neither of these fit the bill: The former doesn't because, especially in this instance, the original assets were clearly comprehensible to the target audience since the niche they cater to will have had prior exposure to idol culture and the latter doesn't because their own delicate ethical sensibilities regarding things that don't exist aren't the ones everyone has to abide by -- no matter with how much condescending holier-than-thou snark they try to push it.

Your edit is absolutely true too. Establishing it as censorship isn't an argument on its own either. I'm not sure people realise how common censorship is in everyday life, but if they did they'd know it doesn't immediately make societies implode. And even I as someone who has been speaking out against censorship of media for almost two decades now (I live in Germany so go figures) still openly supported censorship of hate speech because I don't think speech that does little but incite hatred and violence against certain groups should be protected. Point is, back in that thread we didn't have a nonsense semantic back and forth that undermined the discussion and the topic was actually about how one can justify such suppression. Although I guess if we ever moved on to that stage in topics like this, it would turn out that the justification is mostly "I don't like it so no one should."

Not gonna ramble on more -- new swimsuits for DOAX3 are out!
Click to expand...

Quoting this so it appears twice because it's a good post. This is exactly what bugs me about these discussions.
 
I don't understand why Nintendo is feeling the need to do these type of censorship stuff in the first place.

I mean if you're already going to age up your characters then their really isn't any point to it and none of the stuff they are censoring would affect the rating one way or another since the game was always going to rated T for T regardless.

Like why are swimsuits suddenly so scandalous? It's nothing you don't see if you go down to a local pool or beach in real life.

What makes this even more weird is that Nintendo was perfectly fine releasing Bayonetta as is but opps to censor something that is much more tame in comparison.
 
Palculator said:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there; it's semantic titwank that distracts from the issue at hand. Regardless of the term used, the argument should be about why and how those changes were made, how well they fit and how justified they were. You know, the actual cause and effect. Granted, there's probably a bit of sincere confusion about the term mixed in there and something like the changes to the petting game in Fire Emblem: Fates falls into a little bit of a gray area seeing as the developers themselves (the very authors, not just copyright holders) weren't sure that feature fits the game and you could argue those changes improved it in that regard, but when changes are very obviously enforced to avoid ethical controversy and backlash like in this instance, they are censorship.

Trying to dismiss criticisms to these changes as them being a "natural" side-effect of the localisation process does feel disingenuous, though. The person arguing that basically asserts the original contents were as incomprehensible to "Western audiences" (bollocks generalisation, if you ask me) as a language only a tiny minority understands or assumes some moral authority that deems those contents as unacceptable for the entire Western hemisphere. Neither of these fit the bill: The former doesn't because, especially in this instance, the original assets were clearly comprehensible to the target audience since the niche they cater to will have had prior exposure to idol culture and the latter doesn't because their own delicate ethical sensibilities regarding things that don't exist aren't the ones everyone has to abide by -- no matter with how much condescending holier-than-thou snark they try to push it.

Your edit is absolutely true too. Establishing it as censorship isn't an argument on its own either. I'm not sure people realise how common censorship is in everyday life, but if they did they'd know it doesn't immediately make societies implode. And even I as someone who has been speaking out against censorship of media for almost two decades now (I live in Germany so go figures) still openly supported censorship of hate speech because I don't think speech that does little but incite hatred and violence against certain groups should be protected. Point is, back in that thread we didn't have a nonsense semantic back and forth that undermined the discussion and the topic was actually about how one can justify such suppression. Although I guess if we ever moved on to that stage in topics like this, it would turn out that the justification is mostly "I don't like it so no one should."

Not gonna ramble on more -- new swimsuits for DOAX3 are out!
Click to expand...

I wanted to quote this again, because it is a quite eloquent argument.

The word 'censorship' is more closely associated with other people making them come in and do it, which could apply here, but that would spawn a whole argument. I kind of like the word 'suppressed', personally. Nobody is making them (Nintendo, in this case, do it), but they aren't doing it in a vacuum. They are doing it because of a fear of backlash or some other group in Western culture deciding that they need to make an issue of some part of the game itself, or all of it.

The semantic argument should be dismissed here, because it ultimately obscures the more interesting question:

'Who is this game for, exactly?'

This game seems to be being sent off to die (its on a console that, with the announcement of Zelda U delayed to 2017 and the NX console/version of Zelda to be coming out) on a dead console. There isn't a single big release left between now and March of 2017 that I can think of.

The content of this game (Japanese idol/gravure/entertainment culture) is by definition for a niche audience (Japanese otaku / Japanese enthusiasts). I can't think of anyone outside of that who would even consider this game ( because the Fire Emblem influence is by and large gone ). Those are the very people who are going to be most bothered by the suppression of content. I think it is entirely fair if you look at the content that was suppressed, and are less/not interested in the version of the game that you will be getting.

Unless Nintendo were to rewrite the game entirely, I don't think that the audience for it is going to widen. The question is 'why do the changes at all?' given that I had only ever seen a modicum of interest in the Japanese version of the game, and given that it is a take on Japanese culture, there is a very legitimate argument to be made about how someone could be interested in a Japanese game company's take on Japanese culture, but be not interested in the same take when part of the game are suppressed in an attempt to make it more palatable to Western audiences/culture.
 
Lazy to catch up on thread, maybe this was stated before, but here it goes anyway:

Maybe all this was to comply with ESRB's teen rating (which the game now has according to Amazon)?

The game was anticipated to be rated Mature according to the Beastie Game trailer.

sozLlfq.png



Maybe, just maybe.
 
Mcdohl said:
Maybe, just maybe.
Click to expand...

I already posted examples in this thread like Agarest and Neptunia which seem to make that reason unlikely. At best, it may have been an issue with Australia's rating system in getting an equivalent 'T' rating.
 
Mcdohl said:
Lazy to catch up on thread, maybe this was stated before, but here it goes anyway:

Maybe all this was to comply with ESRB's teen rating (which the game now has according to Amazon)?

The game was anticipated to be rated Mature according to the Beastie Game trailer.

sozLlfq.png



Maybe, just maybe.
Click to expand...
JThey could have gone Mature, i dont know, it would be a very light M.

I guess FE cant be M?
 
Zolo said:
I already posted examples in this thread like Agarest and Neptunia which seem to make that reason unlikely. At best, it may have been an issue with Australia's rating system in getting an equivalent 'T' rating.
Click to expand...

Were those titles anticipated to be rated Mature by the ESRB itself?
 
Zolo said:
I mean, they were rated 'T', and they have much raunchier content than #FE has from what I've seen changed.
Click to expand...

Yep. Only thing that was really "needed" (to be secure) for a T rating was the age bump of the characters, which most people are used to with localisations.
The other stuff would have had no impact (apart from some themes, but again, a lot of games got T for worse).
 
Mcdohl said:
Lazy to catch up on thread, maybe this was stated before, but here it goes anyway:

Maybe all this was to comply with ESRB's teen rating (which the game now has according to Amazon)?

The game was anticipated to be rated Mature according to the Beastie Game trailer.

sozLlfq.png



Maybe, just maybe.
Click to expand...
The changes don't warrant an M by the ESRB as evidenced by other titles with similar content rated T. There is stuff in that trailer that has been since edited, that at the time the ESRB thought was ok for general audiences. The changes seen should not have been imposed by the ESRB.
 
muteki said:
The changes don't warrant an M by the ESRB as evidenced by other titles with similar content rated T. There is stuff in that trailer that has been since edited, that at the time the ESRB thought was ok for general audiences. The changes seen should not have been imposed by the ESRB.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard, the ESRB doesn't impose changes. They just rate what they're given.
 
cj_iwakura said:
From what I've heard, the ESRB doesn't impose changes. They just rate what they're given.
Click to expand...

They can some "advices" or rather warnings, but yeah, usually they just say "from what we're seeing, it'll be this" until a big review of everything.
 
cj_iwakura said:
From what I've heard, the ESRB doesn't impose changes. They just rate what they're given.
Click to expand...

Sometimes devs will make changes to their game to get the ESRB rating they want, but that's no different than a movie being changed to get a more desired MPAA rating. It's a entertainment industry thing.
 
Zabi said:
Sometimes devs will make changes to their game to get the ESRB rating they want, but that's no different than a movie being changed to get a more desired MPAA rating. It's a entertainment industry thing.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I feel like the ESRB is a better system overall. It's good to have a self-policing system in this industry rather than a government imposed one.
 
The ESRB works in a really weird away anyway. They don't really play the games but view videos prepared. Sometimes this leads to content being missed.

It was heavily implied Tharja was removed as a trophy for Smash Wii U "for decency" or to not get a T Rating, but later we get Bayonetta as DLC lol. DLC may change the overall rating but the original game stays intact at the lower rating. It's actually a convenient loop hole.
 
Trojita said:
The ESRB works in a really weird away anyway. They don't really play the games but view videos prepared. Sometimes this leads to content being missed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I never got this about their M.O. Here, the USK actually plays the games they rate. And even though they have been the subject of huge derision in the past due to ridiculous self-censorship they have required from developers, I still respect them for that.
 
Trojita said:
The ESRB works in a really weird away anyway. They don't really play the games but view videos prepared. Sometimes this leads to content being missed.

It was heavily implied Tharja was removed as a trophy for Smash Wii U "for decency" or to not get a T Rating, but later we get Bayonetta as DLC lol. DLC may change the overall rating but the original game stays intact at the lower rating. It's actually a convenient loop hole.
Click to expand...
There was also the change to female Corrin's attire for Smash 4, where her inner thighs were covered up (unlike in Fates, where she was left unchanged). However, this applied to any given version of Smash, not just the US one.
 
cj_iwakura said:
From what I've heard, the ESRB doesn't impose changes. They just rate what they're given.
Click to expand...
Imposed is a bad word..more like side effects of handing down a certain rating when a publisher's business plan requires a certain rating to reach an audience of a particular size. Not that that makes sense in every case or is what is happening here.
 
Zolo said:
I already posted examples in this thread like Agarest and Neptunia which seem to make that reason unlikely. At best, it may have been an issue with Australia's rating system in getting an equivalent 'T' rating.
Click to expand...

Palculator said:
Is there even a ratings board that's straight-up run by the government?
Click to expand...

Its unlikely it was for the Australian Board. While fairly roulette wheel in approach none of the changes so far likely would have changed the rating. Swimsuits are wildly unlikely to change ratings here given about 70% of our population is less than an hour from a beach. M is also not exactly a big deal here, its a guideline not a legislative rating (it's essentially 15+ recommended). Our closest equivalent is MA15+ which has legal penalties for sale to those under 15.

If anything I'd expect the Australian Board to have caused the alteration of the somewhat suggestive paint splatters, due to purely political reasons, any kind of or suggestion of sexual violence is at least one category higher for games than other media.


Ans the Australian Board is run by the government. The Classification Act can only be changed by the Federal Government with the assent of all state Attorneys General. It does operate moslty independently though as do most government bodies that aren't direct extensions of a parliamentary committee.
 
Eolz said:
Hm, interesting, should be in OP.
Could it be just costume DLC, while the content dlc is still ruled out?
Click to expand...

It's weird her special was able to be kept around but they changed everything else.

Also confirmed they went the black void route for under her skirt.
 
Here's two new videos showing some more stuff. This one (spoilers?) showing that the new outfit we saw does replace the swimsuit for that dungeon. But for some reason they still kept it for her special attack? I'm guessing because it fit's in better with the water attack.

And this one showing they cover the boss monsters boobs with smoke during the cutscene, but not during the battle.
 
bobbychalkers said:
....then what's the point in changing it?

I don't mind that change, I do like that outfit. I find it funny how they couldn't get around changing it for her super attack though.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't the out fit at this point as so much as they did a scenario edit. At this point, I don't even want 3rd Parties involved with Nintendo anymore if this is the end result.
 
kiryogi said:
The issue isn't the out fit at this point as so much as they did a scenario edit. At this point, I don't even want 3rd Parties involved with Nintendo anymore if this is the end result.
Click to expand...
It sucks but I'm not going to be bothered by it too much in the end. Although I prefer NoA stay far away from these types of games in the future and leave it to NoE or pass it off to XSeed. In this case from what I've seen of the Japanese version, Atlus could have just translated it and left everything else alone and it could still get a T rating.
 
Almond said:
Here's two new videos showing some more stuff. This one (spoilers?) showing that the new outfit we saw does replace the swimsuit for that dungeon. But for some reason they still kept it for her special attack? I'm guessing because it fit's in better with the water attack.

And this one showing they cover the boss monsters boobs with smoke during the cutscene, but not during the battle.
Click to expand...

Well, so much for battle translations.

And the ever popular "zettaini urusenai!" becoming something other than 'I'll never forgive you!', heh.
 
Almond said:
Here's two new videos showing some more stuff. This one (spoilers?) showing that the new outfit we saw does replace the swimsuit for that dungeon. But for some reason they still kept it for her special attack? I'm guessing because it fit's in better with the water attack.

And this one showing they cover the boss monsters boobs with smoke during the cutscene, but not during the battle.
Click to expand...

Wait, the swimsuit outfit was supposed to be wearable in that dungeon in the stands version of the game? I thought all the swimsuits were DLC.

So does this mean the Western version will have costumes the Japanese version won't like with Fatal Frame V?

Honestly I would prefer the flame bra to the bare boobs aesthetically, the problem is it doesn't seem well done. They should have put some slight flame effects on other parts of her upper body as well as hooves.
 
SatoAilDarko said:
Wait, the swimsuit outfit was supposed to be wearable in that dungeon in the stands version of the game? I thought all the swimsuits were DLC.

So does this mean the Western version will have costumes the Japanese version won't like with Fatal Frame V?

Honestly I would prefer the flame bra to the bare boobs aesthetically, the problem is it doesn't seem well done. They should have put some slight flame effects on other parts of her upper body as well as hooves.
Click to expand...

There's two sets of swimsuits. One was from main story, other was DLC.
 
SeanTSC said:
Stuff like this makes me feel like NoA is just trolling us at this point.
Click to expand...

bobbychalkers said:
....then what's the point in changing it?

I don't mind that change, I do like that outfit. I find it funny how they couldn't get around changing it for her super attack though.
Click to expand...

I think it was censored for the cutscene because they're almost bare breasts and right in your face for that scene, while during battle the boss it's pretty far away and harder to see.

It seems like Nintendo has some sort of "boob limit" for it's T rated games. As long as 50% of the boob is covered, fine, any less than that? Nope, gotta hide it more. It's pretty silly.

SatoAilDarko said:
Wait, the swimsuit outfit was supposed to be wearable in that dungeon in the stands version of the game? I thought all the swimsuits were DLC.

So does this mean the Western version will have costumes the Japanese version won't like with Fatal Frame V?

Honestly I would prefer the flame bra to the bare boobs aesthetically, the problem is it doesn't seem well done. They should have put some slight flame effects on other parts of her upper body as well as hooves.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I watched the scene and thought flames looked kind of weird, and looked up the Japanese version. Sure enough, it was changed. It doesn't look very good.
 
thank goodness a fictional character anime drawing's fictional age is changed from 17 to 18, who knows what chaos could manifest if this important thing didn't happen.
 
Kinda late to the party, but man.. what the hell Nintendo?

None of this seems necessary. Might be enough for me to just not get it on principle (I already had a kind of middling view of the game as is)
 
localizers should definitely be focused on this important, useful work instead of, you know, translating more games with more accuracy.
 
Almond said:
I think it was censored for the cutscene because they're almost bare breasts and right in your face for that scene, while during battle the boss it's pretty far away and harder to see.

It seems like Nintendo has some sort of "boob limit" for it's T rated games. As long as 50% of the boob is covered, fine, any less than that? Nope, gotta hide it more. It's pretty silly.
Click to expand...
Cia from Hyrule Warriors got through with zoom in included...in a Zelda game, that pushed more than 1 million copies. Even the 3DS version that came out a little over a month ago wasn't changed.
SatoAilDarko said:
Honestly I would prefer the flame bra to the bare boobs aesthetically, the problem is it doesn't seem well done. They should have put some slight flame effects on other parts of her upper body as well as hooves.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, I'm not pressed by these changes as a whole but it stands out way too much in that cutscene. That would have been a better way to present it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Features Overview #1 Kliff and the Open World of Pywel | Crimson Desert
2
70
640
Team Skoda replied
Tombwater - Old Western Soulslike
7
199
RagnarokIV replied
What kind of character designs should Western studios pursue?
2
68
400
KanKamAndNob replied
GDC 2026 agenda includes DirectX State of the Union, DirectX ML session, and NVIDIA path tracing talk
1
178
Danny Dudekisser replied
Tokyo Xtreme Racer - Playstation 5 Trailer - Releases 26th Febuary
29
569
Senua replied
Top Bottom