Support NeoGAF

[Orayn]

Although thoroughly unrelated, I get a kick out of this thread after just having one where someone was criticized for not speaking up when something offended them.

The irony would be hilarious if it weren't so repugnant.

Which thread? I'd like to get a kick out of this.

The thread that killed Jaffe's GAF account.

The followup.

 

[AppleMIX]

Okay so back to the article the journalist gave examples and said 'I hope [think they should] remove [change] this scene before its released'. She gave criticism, the developer wasn't forced/demanded to act. She gave her opinion and a suggestion. They didn't even change the scene; there's nothing really to argue for or against in this scenario. Other than whether or not to call something that wasn't censored censorship.

Demanding has nothing to with force.

You can still demand something and in this case David Cox thankfully rejected that demand.

Christians could demand a game like Binding of Isaac be removed from Steam but that doesn't mean Valve/Edmund McMillen have to listen.

The criticism you gave an example of earlier is just an implicit demand.



"I'm not happy with this thing the way it is, I think it would be better if it were this way instead."

It's expressing a desire to see something changed, just not making an detailed request. So I can demand anything I want as long as I'm indirect about it. Correct?

Any sort of criticism is going to imply a demand. In a perfect world, every piece of media is personally tailored to my tastes and no one else. However, I realize that I am not the only human being on and other people have different tastes than me. The difference is like saying "I think this game would be better if you did X,Y,Z" as opposed to someone saying "I demand this game should do X,Y,Z so it better suits my tastes".

But it's up the discretion of the artist to decide to reject or acknowledge the criticism or feedback levied against their work. Take the relationship between, say, an indie developer on Kickstarter, and their backers. If people contributed their ideas and the developer takes them to heart and changes their original vision, how is that censorship? That may not be such an extreme example, but a large part of a majority of games is that they exist to not only follow a director's vision, but to have the player in mind.

Things change in reaction to what works and what doesn't all the time. I criticized Kat's weakly-constructed argument, but she, without a doubt, has the right to say what she does and does not like about something, and whether she feels that something would be better off not being in the final product. Heck, she even has the right to rally people up and request that it is changed. But that has nothing to do with censorship. And people can likewise offer counter-criticisms.

Assuming they're not demanding a change, it falls within the realm of criticism and is perfectly valid.

 

[Orayn]

Any sort of criticism is going to imply a demand. In a perfect world, every piece of media is personally tailored to my tastes and no one else. However, I realize that I am not the only human being on and other people have different tastes than me. The difference is like saying "I think this game would be better if you did X,Y,Z" as opposed to someone saying "I demand this game should do X,Y,Z so it better suits my tastes".

I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it: Both statements express a desire for exactly the same outcome, the first is just more polite about it. Throw in a touch of ascribing impolite methods to people whose motivations you disagree with, and suddenly it's very easy to arbitrarily call something a dreaded call for censorship because you don't like what someone has to say.

Keep moving those goalposts, though. This is fun in a stupid, irritating kind of way.

 

[Zetta]

I wish we could all see the scene which she saw so we can more or less she where she was going. From what I've read from others who have there was no sign of what she was talking about so to her it was different. Once this scene is out though I'll guess well know if her comment was warranted or not.

 

[Finaika]

Although thoroughly unrelated, I get a kick out of this thread after just having one where someone was criticized for not speaking up when something offended them.

Being offended by someone personally wanting to kiss your vagina is different than seeing an offensive cutscene in a videogame.

 

[akidnamededdy]

What a shocker.

 

[AppleMIX]

I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it: Both statements express a desire for exactly the same outcome, the first is just more polite about it.

I'd really like to know if the mythical censorship goalpost in a single place or if you're just going to keep moving it, because this is incredibly irritating.

But their is a clear difference that YOU don't seem to get.

When I criticizes something, I'm offering feedback and analysis and the developer is free to listen to the arguments I make and change if they so desire. I do not require that the game change to suit my personal tastes but argue why I think the game would be better if they did. If they reject my criticism, I can just simply buy a different piece of media. I do not demand the game change for me personally.

A demand asks a piece of media to change. It is asking the developer to take my personal opinion ABOVE everyone else's. It asks the developer to ignore anyone else's thoughts and put mine at the top.

One provides constructive feedback and discussion and the other is regressive because it circumvents discussion. It doesn't become about who has the best idea/argument but rather who can scream the loudest and claim something is offensive at the developer.

The goal post has never moved and it is what I argued since the beginning.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Being offended by someone personally wanting to kiss your vagina is different than seeing an offensive cutscene in a videogame.

Well, of course, hence why I mentioned these were utterly unrelated.

Anyways, I'm a horrible person because I'm preoccupied with hoping I find the gameplay less offensive than the first game. I'll let others determine whether or not that means I'm calling for the game to be changed.

 

[Orayn]

When I criticizes something, I'm offering feedback and analysis and the developer is free to listen to the arguments I make and change if they so desire. I do not require that the game change to suit my personal tastes but argue why I think the game would be better if they did. If they reject my criticism, I can just simply buy a different piece of media. I do not demand the game change for me personally.

Kay Bailey's article did that. She explained why she thought the scene wasn't helping their narrative because it seemed to be included for cheap shock value and to artificially play up the supposed evilness of a character we're still supposed to play as and identify with throughout the game. That's feedback. That's her giving Cox and MercurySteam some complaints with a bit of reasoning behind them.

A demand asks a piece of media to change. It is asking the developer to take my personal opinion ABOVE everyone else's. It asks the developer to ignore anyone else's thoughts and put mine at the top.

Maybe this is where we're not communicating. You're reading the following two sentences:

So while I applaud Cox and his team for their desire to take on challenging material, I really hope they cut the Family Scene before Lords of Shadow 2 launches next month. In the end, it's a scene that serves to trivialize sexual assault while failing to accomplish its attended goal -- making us feel like Dracula is awful and evil.

...As Kat making a universal demand on the behalf of all people everywhere, backed by a vague, unspecified thread if her demand isn't met. I'm interpreting it as her saying what she wants instead of dancing around it. We did come to the understanding that criticism is just an implicit demand for a change, right?

One provides constructive feedback and discussion and the other is regressive.

Alright, fine. Let's construct something. Is this version acceptable?

So while I applaud Cox and his team for their desire to take on challenging material, I really hope they cut dislike the Family Scene. before Lords of Shadow 2 launches next month. In the end, it's a scene that serves to trivialize sexual assault while failing to accomplish its attended goal -- making us feel like Dracula is awful and evil.

Is that really all your grievances boil down to? Not using a certain selection of words while still expressing what you otherwise consider a perfectly reasonable, acceptable sentiment? Or did you just forget that her article, imperfect as it is, consisted of more than just a single line reading "REMOVE THIS SCENE OR ELSE."

Listen, this isn't a personal crusade against you. I'm just really tired of seeing this line of reasoning because I think it's flimsy, inconsistent, and self-contradictory.

 

[Alfredo]

I just wanna see the damn scene already so I can form my own opinion...though I doubt whatever I think will be uninfluenced by whatever crap I've read on the matter.

 

[AppleMIX]

Kay Bailey's article did that. She explained why she thought the scene wasn't helping their narrative because it seemed to be included for cheap shock value and to artificially play up the supposed evilness of a character we're still supposed to play as and identify with throughout the game. That's feedback. That's her giving Cox and MercurySteam some complaints with a bit of reasoning behind them.

Yes, she did but criticism and demand are not mutually exclusive. You can provide criticism and than use that criticism as leverage to demand a game change.

She is explicitly says

So while I applaud Cox and his team for their desire to take on challenging material, I really hope they cut the Family Scene before Lords of Shadow 2 launches next month. In the end, it's a scene that serves to trivialize sexual assault while failing to accomplish its attended goal -- making us feel like Dracula is awful and evil.

Maybe this is where we're not communicating. You're reading the following two sentences:

...As Kat making a universal demand on the behalf of all people everywhere, backed by a vague, unspecified thread if her demand isn't met. I'm interpreting it as her saying what she wants instead of dancing around it. We did come to the understanding that criticism is just an implicit demand for a change, right?

No, I'm saying that she is asking the game be changed because she finds it offensive and thinks the scene doesn't work.

Alright, fine. Let's construct something. Is this version acceptable?



Is that really all your grievances boil down to? Not using a certain selection of words while still expressing what you otherwise consider a perfectly reasonable, acceptable sentiment? Or did you just forget that her article, imperfect as it is, consisted of more than just a single line reading "REMOVE THIS SCENE OR ELSE."

Yes, it is a small change but it means a whole lot.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/10/26/the-stanley-parable-creator-removing-offensive-content/

It means that a game I purchased doesn't get changed without my permission because someone didn't like it.

It also means that David Cox can create his game without fear of people demanding it be changed because it was offensive.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

The Stanley Parable creator agreed with people after they made their case that the joke clashed with the tone of his game. It's not really a valid comparison to keep bringing up.

 

[Sn4ke_911]

Cut confirmed.

 

[Jomjom]

The difference to me is simple. For me the criticism that Applemix is talking about is when the work of art is finalized, done and I accept it for what it is and then offer my opinions both positive and negative, like a post-mortem if you will.

What Kat was doing was experiencing something only a few select people did, offering criticism and then outwardly voicing her opinion that it should be changed so no one else could experience it for themselves and make their own opinions. Shes not an idiot, she knew her article could possibly influence the developer if it gained enough traction given that the game was not out to market yet. I am 100% not OK with people trying to decide my morality for me, ESPECIALLY when they had absolutely no hand in the creation of the work.

It is an egotistical and self-centered way of thinking to believe you can be the arbiter of what others should deem right and wrong and that your moral center is what's absolute.

 

[AppleMIX]

The Stanley Parable creator agreed with people after they made their case that the joke clashed with the tone of his game. It's not really a valid comparison to keep bringing up.

Actually it is.

Agreeing with the change doesn't change the fact that it was a demand and thus wrong.

Here is the tweet in question.

A white man giving black children cigarettes or setting them on fire in Stanley Parable = not cool or funny, please remove.

Not really open to interpretation.

The difference to me is simple. For me the criticism that Applemix is talking about is when the work of art is finalized, done and I accept it for what it is and then offer my opinions both positive and negative, like a post-mortem if you will.

What Kat was doing was experiencing something only a few select people did. Offering criticism and then outwardly voicing her opinion that it should be changed so no one else could experience it for themselves and make their own opinions.

More or less. I also think that retroactively changing a game because someone was offended is arguably more egregious since your removing something that someone already bought.

But say, if Galactic Cafe's next game was more sensitive to that issue I wouldn't have a problem.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Actually it is.

Agreeing with the change doesn't change the fact that it was a demand and thus wrong.

Here is the tweet in question.



Not really open to interpretation.



More or less. I also think that retroactively changing a game because someone was offended is arguably more egregious since your removing something that someone already bought.

But say, if Galactic Cafe's next game was more sensitive to that issue I wouldn't have a problem.

He didn't "agree with the change," he agreed with what people were saying and made the change. It was his change to make and he made it.

 

[ShadyJ]

Well it is a game for adults as the developer said.

 

[AppleMIX]

He didn't "agree with the change," he agreed with what people were saying and made the change. It was his change to make and he made it.

My issue is not that he listened to the arguments being made, its the fact that it was removed. He absolutely has a right to change his game (it's his game after), I think that retroactively changing your game is pretty egregious and shows that Galactic Cafe lacks any artistic integrity.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

My issue is not that he listened to the arguments being made, its the fact that it was removed. He absolutely has a right to change his game (it's his game after), I think that retroactively changing your game is pretty egregious and shows that Galactic Cafe lacks any artistic integrity.

Oh come on. If he allowed a change to be made against his will, that'd show a lack of artistic integrity, but that's not what happened. Some people pointed something out to him, and he considered it, and thought "you know what, I agree" and removed it.

That's no more censorship than an editor telling a director a scene should probably be left on the cutting room floor.

 

[AppleMIX]

Oh come on. If he allowed a change to be made against his will, that'd show a lack of artistic integrity, but that's not what happened. Some people pointed something out to him, and he considered it, and thought "you know what, I agree" and removed it.

That's no more censorship than an editor telling a director a scene should probably be left on the cutting room floor.

Except for the fact that he removed the scene post launch. He changed the game for quite literally 99.998 percent of people who already bought the game without even listening to what others had to say.

That is why they lack artistic integrity.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I am trying to understand, let me get this straight in my head.

The game based, however loosely, on vampire lore, probably pulled directly from Stoker and other influences, features, at least, something that could be alluded to as rape. The scene depicts Dracula killing a man, then biting the neck of a woman to sustain himself while she attempts to protect her children.

f this scene plays out how it sounds, it actually kind of misses the point of Dracula, being a seductive being who had women open their bedroom windows at night for him so he could feed from them willingly. The fact he's withered means this was likely a desperate act on his part.

I really need to see the scene to comment further, but it sounds like Dracula being a vampire rather than a rapist and while I know, in context of the novel, the two could be considered one and the same, this must surely apply to every bit of media insprired by Dracula ever.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Except for the fact that he removed the scene post launch. He changed the game for quite literally 99.998 percent of people who already bought the game without even listening to what others had to say.

That is why they lack artistic integrity.

Your argument thus far has been "people should just deal with the artist's vision," so why can't you deal with this particular artist's vision? It's not like he Special Edition'd the game, Lucas style. He made one change to one joke that he agreed was unintentionally more loaded than he's meant it to be.

 

[AppleMIX]

Your argument thus far has been "people should just deal with the artist's vision," so why can't you deal with this particular artist's vision? It's not like he Special Edition'd the game, Lucas style. He made one change to one joke that he agreed was unintentionally more loaded than he's meant it to be.

Someone with artistic integrity would say this. " Look, maybe I did go over the line with that joke and I apologies. However, I will not change my game because thousand of people have already bought it and I don't want to infringe on their enjoyment of that joke. In the future, I will be more aware of what I put in my game. If this bothers you, I can give you a refund if you so desire".

It's not even like they George Lucas'd the game, it's worse. It would be like if George Lucas updated all regular copies with the special edition. Sure you can disable auto-updates but your average consumer might not even be aware of the issue to begin with.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

hurrah, that article was a fucking joke.

 

[Bedlam]

There is nothing wrong with saying "I hope they change/remove this." That's not censorship; she's not imposing her ironclad will on a company that has to change or face the consequences. Every one of you claiming it is censorship should be thankful you've never had to deal with true censorship in your lifetimes.

It's obviously not censorship per se (people use the term loosely here) but she is abusing a position of (relative) power. In this risk-averse industry, uttering something like that before a game's release may lead to a lot of pressure that could well lead to the publisher forcing the developer to remove certain parts of content out of fear of facing a PR shitstorm. I still think it's despicable.

This article was further proof of how utterly immature videogame criticism still is, even moreso than the medium itself. Articles like that hold the medium back. I attribute this current trend of oversensitive, reactionary writing primarily to the circumstance that virtually all contemporary "videogame critics" are in their Hipster age (late 20s/early 30s). Yup, I think it's as simple as that. That is why we get dozens of short-sighted whiteknight articles screaming "SEXISM!!!" when a publisher decides to release a stupid zombie plastic bust with big breasts. Sexism is an issue, also in this industry, but confusing it with sexual objectification is doing nothing but harm to the fight against actual sexism (discrimination of female employees etc.).

 

[Trevelyon]

If nothing else the comparison to rapelay continues to be one of the most mind-bogglingly embarrassing and absurd comparisons to be put into a gaming article. When presenting that as a point of reference it does discredit the overall piece.

What, seriously? Don't tell me that you haven't always got some infinitely obscure Japanese hentai fuck sim, let alone the covers of them all, on your mental rolodex ready to quickdraw outrageously absurd comparisons like a grizzled lawman of the old west?!?!? You can't be that out of touch.

 

[Wensih]

Except for the fact that he removed the scene post launch. He changed the game for quite literally 99.998 percent of people who already bought the game without even listening to what others had to say.

That is why they lack artistic integrity.

Okay, so now the problem is updating the work post-completion. So let's take this scenario of Stanley Parable and say it hasn't been released yet. There is feedback from people who play it saying this scene is not cool and clashes with the game, the developer agrees and removes it from the final product. Does he still have his artistic integrity? Or would this be considered self-censorship/censorship/whatever you want to call it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here because it seems like anything that touches art, even the creator, should not be allowed to interfere with the art. Should art just exist in a void with no context, no dialogue, no exchange of thoughts, no editing, and no meaning during its creation, only to add those things after its creation?

 

[Night_Trekker]

Nobody should ever respond positively to requests from the offended to remove content from any artistic work, ever.

Sadly, in this kind of situation, capitalism serves us poorly by its very nature. It's a shame when any complainer finds a foothold, but that's the reality of the market. People looking to make money and foster goodwill will back down almost every time out of self interest.

Horrific violence is a common place in video games, movies etc.

Allusion to rape, on other hand, is something that shouldn't and will not be tolerated. Some people just don't get how serious "rape" is.

I for one will skip this game (that looks truly awesome in many ways) because of Konani's stupidity.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure you wouldn't understand why.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It should be obvious, but I'll go ahead and say it:

This woman is really undermining the plight of other women by taking to task a game which does very little in the grand scheme to offend.

There are games that degrade and devalue women. There are games that are so wrapped up in the male audience, they utterly demand explanation for it -- you can be an artsy fartsy game all you want (ie: Heavy Rain), but if you're writing in horrible female characters whose purpose it is to actually be degraded, then whoever dreamed up that scenario ought to be under scrutiny.

This is not one of those games.

It's not that the sexuality of vampires just magically gets a pass, but the keyword is "vampires" - this is not some real-world scenario in which a woman (or a man) reacts realistically, or realistic reactions are demanded; it's fantasy based on sexuality, and it always has been. And if you want to take *that* to task, fine, but it creates a straw man for others to use when a company comes around and actually does majorly fuck up a sensitive topic.

What straw man? Well, before I was a feminist, I wasn't -- and that meant trying to gather up all the pure, steaming bullshit that bad writers would write (take, for example, when a woman writes about how she ought not to have the right to make choices about her own body), and I would fling that shit in their faces and say "THERE! Your argument is just as bad as this one, therefore all women are just complainers and we should stop fucking listening to you!"

That's what will surely happen for this woman who, out of all the games out there, or media in general, makes such a bullshit comparison as fucking RapeLay. RAPE-fucking-LAY. I mean, this reeks of stupid. Oh shit, a woman is holding her child -- RAPELAY alert!

That's not a battle to have. It's not worth it. Castlevania isn't worth it, neither is high fantasy of basically any variety. There are actual battles to have, to engage in, and in writing such a petty (and poor) argument, she disturbs the integrity of a cause that I strongly believe in. We should be having the discussion -- but we need the discussion to be around games that actually fuck up a way that matters; Vampires and their sexual escapades don't.

So, meanwhile, David Cage gets off to writing in weak female characters that get drugged and nearly date-raped/molested/killed, and also has to get naked for a pervert, and he wins awards. Dracula goes and does what Dracula has historically been known to do in his world of high fantasy hijinks, and we're calling it the next RapeLay. Fuck that noise. It's too important of a conversation to have it wasted on goddamn Castlevania.

I'm a feminist, and I endorse this post.

 

[IvorB]

During the course of the game, some female creatures (e.g., demons) appear topless with jiggling breasts.

Ha ha!

 

[Wensih]

It should be obvious, but I'll go ahead and say it:

This woman is really undermining the plight of other women by taking to task a game which does very little in the grand scheme to offend.

There are games that degrade and devalue women. There are games that are so wrapped up in the male audience, they utterly demand explanation for it -- you can be an artsy fartsy game all you want (ie: Heavy Rain), but if you're writing in horrible female characters whose purpose it is to actually be degraded, then whoever dreamed up that scenario ought to be under scrutiny.

This is not one of those games.

It's not that the sexuality of vampires just magically gets a pass, but the keyword is "vampires" - this is not some real-world scenario in which a woman (or a man) reacts realistically, or realistic reactions are demanded; it's fantasy based on sexuality, and it always has been. And if you want to take *that* to task, fine, but it creates a straw man for others to use when a company comes around and actually does majorly fuck up a sensitive topic.

What straw man? Well, before I was a feminist, I wasn't -- and that meant trying to gather up all the pure, steaming bullshit that bad writers would write (take, for example, when a woman writes about how she ought not to have the right to make choices about her own body), and I would fling that shit in their faces and say "THERE! Your argument is just as bad as this one, therefore all women are just complainers and we should stop fucking listening to you!"

That's what will surely happen for this woman who, out of all the games out there, or media in general, makes such a bullshit comparison as fucking RapeLay. RAPE-fucking-LAY. I mean, this reeks of stupid. Oh shit, a woman is holding her child -- RAPELAY alert!

That's not a battle to have. It's not worth it. Castlevania isn't worth it, neither is high fantasy of basically any variety. There are actual battles to have, to engage in, and in writing such a petty (and poor) argument, she disturbs the integrity of a cause that I strongly believe in. We should be having the discussion -- but we need the discussion to be around games that actually fuck up a way that matters; Vampires and their sexual escapades don't.

So, meanwhile, David Cage gets off to writing in weak female characters that get drugged and nearly date-raped/molested/killed, and also has to get naked for a pervert, and he wins awards. Dracula goes and does what Dracula has historically been known to do in his world of high fantasy hijinks, and we're calling it the next RapeLay. Fuck that noise. It's too important of a conversation to have it wasted on goddamn Castlevania.

Completely agree, that more focus on "misogyny/sexism" in videogames should be focused more on games that are lauded as having strong women characters by critics; Heavy Rain and Tomb Raider were both held at high standards by critics, but playing those all I see are incompetent women and crap writing which isn't a good thing if part of the positive reception is the female characters.

I think most of the argument in this thread however isn't even focused on her point or discussion about her point. The arguments in here are focused more what defines censorship due to her commentary about removing the scene would improve the product. It's the same with the GTAV scenario, I felt the main argument wasn't that the game was "misogynistic", but whether or not the game was a satire. I don't care that the game was misogynistic or not because it's GTAV; it's a dumb video game, but I also don't agree that the game's misogyny falls under the "satire" defense.

 

[redlemon]

The most ridiculous thing about this is that it revealed a lot of people think vampires have nothing to do with sexuality. The whole sexual predator thing is pretty much part of the foundation of the vampire myth at this stage.
I find it really hard to believe people are that blind.

 

[Cynar]

I wish we could all see the scene which she saw so we can more or less she where she was going. From what I've read from others who have there was no sign of what she was talking about so to her it was different. Once this scene is out though I'll guess well know if her comment was warranted or not.

We'll see it eventually. This person may have issues or an agenda and applies them to vampires. She most likely just wanted the hits.

 

[Thorgi]

We'll see it eventually. This person may have issues or an agenda and applies them to vampires. She most likely just wanted the hits.

You know, you could have just left it at "We'll see it eventually" (which is a fair stance to take) and you would have had a reasonable leg to stand on, but then you had to throw around "agenda" and "wanted the hits," two weak shots meant to discredit the author but are always unsubstantiated. You've got to do better than that.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I think I've officially seen everything if now we're calling editing for tonal consistency a lack of artistic integrity worse than Greedo shooting first.

I suppose I can understand wanting an unedited version to be saved for archival purposes, but that's about the limit of my taking issue.

I'm kind of fascinated by the concept of artistic integrity being dependent on customer service, though. There's some cognitive dissonance getting in the way of how I feel about that. Like, if I made the most beautiful vehicle in the world, but it had a major design flaw that required the addition of the ugliest spoiler ever, what's the right course of action?

 

[Bedlam]

I think I've officially seen everything if now we're calling editing for tonal consistency a lack of artistic integrity worse than Greedo shooting first.

I suppose I can understand wanting an unedited version to be saved for archival purposes, but that's about the limit of my taking issue.

I'm kind of fascinated by the concept of artistic integrity being dependent on customer service, though. There's some cognitive dissonance getting in the way of how I feel about that. Like, if I made the most beautiful vehicle in the world, but it had a major design flaw that required the addition of the ugliest spoiler ever, what's the right course of action?

What's wrong about wanting to enjoy the original artistic vision of a game's creator instead of that of a random internet blogger/armchair designer? The latter should have no influence whatsoever on the content.

Also, as far as tonal consistency goes, the described scene sounds completely fine both in terms of fitting into the LoS lore and in light of vampire fiction in general. It seems her lack of knowledge in that regard was partly the reason for her completely misguided comparison to Rapelay. That and clicks of course.

 

[Sneds]

This deification of 'artistic integrity' has reached absurd levels. Would people get so outraged if a previewer wrote "I hope that the developers add more maps to the multiplayer as two Isn't enough"? Is it because the subject in this case is about sexual assault?

Game designers generally want feedback from the general public. That's why they put out Betas and hire play testers and community managers.

If Konami don't value Kat's feedback then they don't have to listen to it.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

What's wrong about wanting to enjoy the original artistic vision of a game's creator instead of that of a random internet blogger/armchair designer? The latter should have no influence whatsoever on the content.

Also, as far as tonal consistency goes, the described scene sounds completely fine both in terms of fitting into the LoS lore and in light of vampire fiction in general. It seems her lack of knowledge in that regard was partly the reason for her completely misguided comparison to Rapelay. That and clicks of course.

I was referring to the Stanley Parable discussion, and my understanding that the change was made because the creator agreed something didn't fit, not that he submitted to pressure to change something he would have wanted to keep.

This discussion is several miles away from the OP at this point, my fault for not being more specific.

 

[Ahasverus]

This deification of 'artistic integrity' has reached absurd levels. Would people get so outraged if a previewer wrote "I hope that the developers add more maps to the multiplayer as two Isn't enough"? Is it because the subject in this case is about sexual assault?

Game designers generally want feedback from the general public. That's why they put out Betas and hire play testers and community managers.

If Konami don't value Kat's feedback then they don't have to listen to it.

This is not a feature that the game is lacking, it's an expression of the authors
Intentions with the character, there is something more inherently artistic about this versus a multiplayer map.

 

[Sneds]

This is not a feature that the game is lacking, it's an expression of the authors
Intentions with the character, there is something more inherently artistic about this versus a multiplayer map.

Okay, I take your point. But artists of all types are given feedback from colleagues and friends. Novels and articles have editors. Films have test-screenings. Offering feedback on unfinished artistic work isn't anything new. This has become increasingly common in the video game industry with the popularity of Kickstarter campaigns.

I backed Broken Age. Before the game was released, I could have posted on the Double Fine forums, "I hope that the game's art-style is changed" or "I hope that the scene with Jack Black is removed" or "I hope that they add more jokes". Would people call that censorship? People make similar comments like that on neogaf all the time - "I hope that they change Dante's design".

Is the issue that Kat's feedback was unsolicited? Well, Konami did invite Kat to her event on the understanding that she would write a preview stating her opinion of the game. And again, Konami can simply ignore it.

 

[Shmuely Bully]

Okay, I take your point. But artists of all types are given feedback from colleagues and friends. Novels and articles have editors. Films have test-screenings. Offering feedback on unfinished artistic work isn't anything new. This has become increasingly common in the video game industry with the popularity of Kickstarter campaigns.

I backed Broken Age. Before the game was released, I could have posted on the Double Fine forums, "I hope that the game's art-style is changed" or "I hope that the scene with Jack Black is removed" or "I hope that they add more jokes". Would people call that censorship? People make similar comments like that on neogaf all the time - "I hope that they change Dante's design".

Is the issue that Kat's feedback was unsolicited? Well, Konami did invite Kat to her event on the understanding that she would write a preview stating her opinion of the game. And again, Konami can simply ignore it.

There are major issues with film censorship and what sort of content is allowed vs. what is prohibited. I don't think you should make that comparison at all if you're saying that games aren't being treated differently: both film and games have been the victim of selective outrage regarding certain types of content. For just one example see the controversy regarding male vs. female nudity in film.

I'd prefer it if games were treated more like books and premium cable channels where just about any sort of content is permitted and having certain types doesn't prevent something from being sold.

Constructive criticism of the 'I don't find that funny' or 'That bores me' variety is different from claiming (without rational cause) that something is morally reprehensible and should be removed. Whether or not you want to call it censorship or not is mostly irrelevant.

 

[dream]

Horrific violence is a common place in video games, movies etc.

Allusion to rape, on other hand, is something that shouldn't and will not be tolerated. Some people just don't get how serious "rape" is.

I for one will skip this game (that looks truly awesome in many ways) because of Konani's stupidity.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure you wouldn't understand why.

Seriously. I am astounded by the shortsightedness of Reila's assertion. Allusions to and metaphors of rape SHOULD happen precisely because it's a serious topic that SHOULD enter the critical conversation surrounding videos,

 

[rvy]

Oh, FFS. Cox told me they wouldn't censor their own game. He lied to me.
No sale.

 

[Wensih]

Seriously. I am astounded by the shortsightedness of Reila's assertion. Allusions to and metaphors of rape SHOULD happen precisely because it's a serious topic that SHOULD enter the critical conversation surrounding videos,

Yeah, at the same time I would argue that Castlevania isn't really the best platform to bring these topics to surface. It's not a serious reflection; it's a summer blockbuster.

 

[Thorgi]

Constructive criticism of the 'I don't find that funny' or 'That bores me' variety is different from claiming (without rational cause) that something is morally reprehensible and should be removed. Whether or not you want to call it censorship or not is mostly irrelevant.

But what you just described is not constructive criticism. Saying "This is boring" gets the artist nowhere; like, thanks for saying you found it boring, but why? It's a weak criticism, it has no teeth. There's no way they can respond to that, other than acknowledging that you either liked or hated it.

I've been writing for a while, and I'm also venturing into the world of game development. At some point, I might tackle an issue that is pretty contentious, and when that happens, I want criticism on the same level of what people were saying about Castlevania 2: Lords of Shadow. If I made people feel uncomfortable in an obnoxious way or did something severely repugnant, I would want to know. And while I might not change it, it would make me reexamine how I make art, and if there was a better way to convey my message.

It's called growing as an artist. You think you're doing a service to Mercurystream and Konami by shrieking "PC POLICE! CLICKBAIT! AGENDA! CENSORSHIP! HARLOT!" every time they receive this sort of criticism? You're doing quite the opposite. If you want gaming to really grow as a medium, you'll stop trying to silence critics.

 

[Ahasverus]

Oh, FFS. Cox told me they wouldn't censor their own game. He lied to me.
No sale.

They didn't lol This just proved that the journalist was trying to stir up a storm from nothing. Ther was never a rape scene. Can't wait for the scene to appear online so we can all point and laugh.

 

[AppleMIX]

This deification of 'artistic integrity' has reached absurd levels. Would people get so outraged if a previewer wrote "I hope that the developers add more maps to the multiplayer as two Isn't enough"? Is it because the subject in this case is about sexual assault?

Game designers generally want feedback from the general public. That's why they put out Betas and hire play testers and community managers.

If Konami don't value Kat's feedback then they don't have to listen to it.

The difference is explained in this post.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99423638&postcount=157

and here

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=99425774&postcount=161

Okay, so now the problem is updating the work post-completion. So let's take this scenario of Stanley Parable and say it hasn't been released yet. There is feedback from people who play it saying this scene is not cool and clashes with the game, the developer agrees and removes it from the final product. Does he still have his artistic integrity? Or would this be considered self-censorship/censorship/whatever you want to call it?

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here because it seems like anything that touches art, even the creator, should not be allowed to interfere with the art. Should art just exist in a void with no context, no dialogue, no exchange of thoughts, no editing, and no meaning during its creation, only to add those things after its creation?

No, I never argued that. I said that criticism is perfectly valid and important to art. However, the artist should never feel that he ought to change his work because someone is offended by it.

I really don't know how to boil it down any simpler.

Here is a part of a PM between me and Orayn which is think sums up my position.

I believe in a gray would for the most part. The only two absolutes I stand for: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. As long as your speech and expression doesn't harm someone, you should be able to say/create what ever you want. While she has a right to demand a artist change their work I personally find it morally disgusting to ask a artist to give up their freedom so someone can feel better about a piece of art.

also...

But what you just described is not constructive criticism. Saying "This is boring" gets the artist nowhere; like, thanks for saying you found it boring, but why? It's a weak criticism, it has no teeth. There's no way they can respond to that, other than acknowledging that you either liked or hated it.

I've been writing for a while, and I'm also venturing into the world of game development. At some point, I might tackle an issue that is pretty contentious, and when that happens, I want criticism on the same level of what people were saying about Castlevania 2: Lords of Shadow. If I made people feel uncomfortable in an obnoxious way or did something severely repugnant, I would want to know. And while I might not change it, it would make me reexamine how I make art, and if there was a better way to convey my message.

It's called growing as an artist. You think you're doing a service to Mercurystream and Konami by shrieking "PC POLICE! CLICKBAIT! AGENDA! CENSORSHIP! HARLOT!" every time they receive this sort of criticism? You're doing quite the opposite. If you want gaming to really grow as a medium, you'll stop trying to silence critics.

You can grow as a artist without a demand for a removal.

In the original thread I posted this.

While I have not problem with a author claiming offense (as arguably misguided and hyperbolic as it is). Asking the developer to remove content from the game because of personal offense is flat out unacceptable.

 

[akidnamededdy]

Oh, FFS. Cox told me they wouldn't censor their own game. He lied to me.
No sale.

They didn't censor it--there was nothing to censor in the first place. Just another games writer making a mountain out of an imagined molehill.

She never said there was a rape scene.

That's right, she just said there was a heavily implied element of sexual predation to the scene...and was somehow the only previewer who felt this way...and compared it to the notorious RapeLay, and said that she hoped the developer would remove the scene from the game.

 

[Wensih]

They didn't lol This just proved that the journalist was trying to stir up a storm from nothing. Ther was never a rape scene. Can't wait for the scene to appear online so we can all point and laugh.

She never said there was a rape scene.

 

[Wensih]

They didn't censor it--there was nothing to censor in the first place. Just another games writer making a mountain out of an imagined molehill.



That's right, she just said there was a heavily implied element of sexual predation to the scene...and was somehow the only previewer who felt this way...and compared it to the notorious RapeLay, and said that she hoped the developer would remove the scene from the game.

Yes.