Localization and Censorship?

[Extrasolar]

15 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

"What's the harm in changing a piece of art in order to keep from hurting people's feelings?" That's what your post sounded like. 

I don't know about you, but I think good portrayals of previously marginalized people are a good thing. How Japan portrays marginalized, i.e. "not the norm" people is way different, and in a lot of cases, they are less progressive than we are in the west. Localization has to adjust for these discrepancies with characters, which is why you get things like Kyza being changed in Radiant Dawn's localization (did you know he was originally an effeminate gay stereotype played for laughs and obsessed with Ranulf, who was possibly implied to be an "okama" (i.e. drag queen)? See this for more details: http://amielleon.dreamwidth.org/90765.html

Considering that for the longest time, marginalized people have had literally had no voice or say in how they were depicted in media (and media informs real life; there are plenty of people who know nothing abut LGBT people other than what they've seen, read, or played, which can be harmful to those people in question), it would be nice to get some well-written or researched portrayals of them.

And there are certain things that just generally disgust a general Western audience (not saying that there aren't westerners that are fine with them, because there definitely are), but as a whole, the west is hyper-sensitive to the sexualization of children, which is why ages in general tend to get upped in localization, especially when marriage and/or sexuality is involved. In Japan, it's not that big of a deal, but I'll stop myself from elaborating on that subject, as it's a very touchy one. Just gonna fall back on different cultural standards.

15 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

I get where you're coming from in terms of wanting to boost sales but I hardly think any reasonable person would have been totally turned off of Fates because Soleil was written the way she was. 

Not saying that they necessarily would have been turned off, but it would be harmful in the depiction of LGBT people in the long run. I know plenty of people, unfortunately,  who constantly insist that lesbians and/or bisexual women are just "pretending" or "experimenting" rather than being actual lesbian or bisexual women, Seeing something like Soleil confirms that line of thinking, which is wrong imo.

Media informs life. People have to be responsible of how they depict people with marginalized identities.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Extrasolar

[De Geso]

1 minute ago, Extrasolar said:

I don't know about you, but I think good portrayals of previously marginalized people are a good thing. How Japan portrays marginalized, i.e. "not the norm" people is way different, and in a lot of cases, they are less progressive than we are in the west. Localization has to adjust for these discrepancies with characters, which is why you get things like Kyza being changed in Radiant Dawn's localization (did you know he was originally an effeminate gay stereotype played for laughs and obsessed with Ranulf, who was possibly implied to be an "okama" (i.e. drag queen)? See this for more details: http://amielleon.dreamwidth.org/90765.html

Considering that for the longest time, marginalized people have had literally had no voice or say in how they were depicted in media (and media informs real life; there are plenty of people who know nothing abut LGBT people other than what they've seen, read, or played, which can be harmful to those people in question), it would be nice to get some well-written or researched portrayals of them.

And there are certain things that just generally disgust a general Western audience (not saying that there aren't westerners that are fine with them, because there definitely are), but as a whole, the west is hyper-sensitive to the sexualization of children,, which is why ages in general tend to get upped in localization, especially when marriage and/or sexuality is involved. In Japan, it's not that big of a deal, but I'll stop myself from elaborating on that subject, as it's a very touchy one. Just gonna fall back on different cultural standards.

Not saying that they necessarily would have been turned off, but it would be harmful in the depiction of LGBT people in the long run. I know plenty of people, unfortunately,  who constantly insist that lesbians and/or bisexual women are just "pretending" or "experimenting" rather than being actual lesbian or bisexual women, Seeing something like Soleil confirms that line of thinking, which is wrong imo.

Media informs life. People have to be responsible of how they depict people with marginalized identities.

There is nothing wrong with wanting groups to be portrayed accurately, however changing art that you didn't create in order to accommodate your own interests is dangerous.

If you want well-researched gay characters, write one. But don't change what others have made in order to fit your view of how a character "should have been."

Examples of a negative stereotype existing in media do not inherently influence what people think about a group. Reasonable people don't think all blacks are criminals because there are black criminals in media, come on. 

Quote

People have to be responsible of how they depict people with marginalized identities.

No. Artists are absolutely not responsible for how people interpret their work - they have a vision which they put on paper and share with the world. 

If you find an artist is uninformed in their portrayal or depiction of a group, that's fine. You can say they did it poorly, you can disagree with it all you like, and I won't argue with you. But to insist that it must be changed because it isn't accurate is unacceptable. 

[Moblin Major General]

25 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

@Extrasolar "What's the harm in changing a piece of art in order to keep from hurting people's feelings?" That's what your post sounded like.

It probably was, but I approve of that sentiment in some cases. If Treehouse wasn't careful with how they localized the game, the ESRB would've ended up slapping a big black M right on the front of it, which would've tanked NA sales immensely. Think about the difference between David and the Sistine Chapel painting. One is in a museum, where his dick hanging out isn't offending anybody. The other WAS IN A FUCKING CHURCH! You don't paint nudity in a church, Mike.

[Extrasolar]

11 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting groups to be portrayed accurately, however changing art that you didn't create in order to accommodate your own interests is dangerous.

Eh . . . I think there's a big divide between changing things to "accommodate your interests" and changing things because "this could quite possibly harm the perception of [x] identity, get people of [x] identity discriminated against and/or hurt."
 

11 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

Reasonable people don't think all blacks are criminals because there are black criminals in media, come on. 

Oh, you would be surprised. Now, this may be skewed because of the people using the internet, but I have met and talked to plenty of people, on internet and not, who fall back in media stereotypes for minorities because they're simply not informed, as unfortunate as it is. There are tons of people in the world still like this, because the media they consume doesn't bother with portraying minorities with any shred of realism or dignity.

11 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

No. Artists are absolutely not responsible for how people interpret their work - they have a vision which they put on paper and share with the world. 

If you find an artist is uninformed in their portrayal or depiction of a group, that's fine. You can say they did it poorly, you can disagree with it all you like, and I won't argue with you. But to insist that it must be changed because it isn't accurate is unacceptable. 

Oh, an artist can do whatever they like in their work, I agree. But in order for their work to be released to a general audience, it's got to meet some basic standards of decency, unless you want the likes of child porn or sexual abuse, heavy racism and sexism and the like being mainstream. There are some things that just aren't tasteful, no matter where they come from.

Of course, there's flexibility depending on the rating, but if you straight-up disregard any content changes to preserve good taste, you'd end up with stuff like A Serbian Film being released to the mainstream (warning on looking that up, as it's intense, to say the least).

Considering the amount of victims of abuse and/or racism and sexism in the past, it's a bit scary to think what having to see and relive that over and over again. Media has led to . . .certain unfortunate things before. I don't want to invoke Godwin's law here, so I'm not going to pull out the obvious example.

In a lot of ways, artists and media creators have a lot of power over society and how society views its members. When people just flat-out don't know the real details of someone's identity, they fall back on what they see in media.

I don't know why sensitivity is seen as such a dirty concept; after all, without that, we'd still have 20s-era Minstrel Blackface shows everywhere, horribly stereotyped portrayals of Chinese and/or Japanese people, etc., and it's hard not to see how harmful that would be should they have stuck around.

It took someone to say "what a minute, guys, all this stuff is making non-minority people assume that this is really what black and/or Asian people are like, and they're discriminating against them because of this. Shouldn't we portray them more accurately and tastefully?"

It's much of the same with modern-day localization, whether it deals with sexuality or race issues.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Extrasolar

[De Geso]

1 minute ago, Extrasolar said:

Eh . . . I think there's a big divide between changing things to "accommodate your interests" and changing things because "this could quite possibly harm the perception of [x] identity, get people of [x] identity discriminated against and/or hurt."
 

Oh, you would be surprised. Now, this may be skewed because of the people using the internet, but I have met and talked to plenty of people, on internet and not, who fall back in media stereotypes for minorities because they're simply not informed, as unfortunate as it is. There are tons of people in the world still like this, because the media they consume doesn't bother with portraying minorities with any shred of realism or dignity.

Oh, an artist can do whatever they like in their work, I agree. But in order for their work to be released to a general audience, it's got to meet some basic standards of decency, unless you want the likes of child porn or sexual abuse, heavy racism and sexism and the like being mainstream. There are some things that just aren't tasteful, no matter where they come from.

Considering the amount of survivors of the latter, it's a bit scary to think what having to see and relive that over-and . Media has led to . . .certain unfortunate things before. I don't want to invoke Godwin's law here, so I'm not going to pull out the obvious example.

In a lot of ways, artists and media creators have a lot of power over society and how society views its members. When people just flat-out don't know the real details of someone's identity, they fall back on what they see in media.

I don't know why sensitivity is seen as such a dirty concept; after all, without that, we'd still have 20s-era Minstrel Blackface shows everywhere, horribly stereotyped portrayals of Chinese and/or Japanese people, etc., and it's hard not to see how harmful that would be should they have stuck around.

It took someone to say "what a minute, guys, all this stuff is making non-minority people assume that this is really what black and/or Asian people are like, and they're discriminating against them because of this. Shouldn't we portray them more accurately and tastefully?"

It's much of the same with modern-day localization, whether it deals with sexuality or race issues.

The thing is, if the masses don't approve of a piece of art (for one reason or another), it will fail to become mainstream.

The game Hatred is a good example. The subject matter of the game is pretty gross, and most people thought so, so it didn't sell and lo and behold there is no mainstream acceptance of the ideas portrayed in the game (by the main character). 

Racist portrayals are no longer acceptable but they still exist. There are plenty of artists that make inherently racist, sexist things and again, those things are rejected by society. 

[Azure Sen]

42 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

@Extrasolar "What's the harm in changing a piece of art in order to keep from hurting people's feelings?" That's what your post sounded like. 

Okay, there are a few things wrong with this statement.
1( Fates (and PoR) aren't art. They are commercial products meant to appeal to as wide an audience as possible which, by default, means they have no artistic integrity (which is a term I have problems with but that's for another thread); they are not meant to express the ideas of the writer but to make money, and if that means changing things to make them more appealing then they'll do it.
2( Art that is offensive without purpose should not be validated. Yes, some art is purposefully offensive to contemporary tastes, standards, and sensibilities, but they're trying to illuminate a larger problem with society (see also: Dadaism). They weren't trying to make a point with Soleil, they were creating a character that would appeal to the fetishes of some of their fanbase.
3( You know, artists themselves frequently change things they don't think work, including things that people might find offensive; it's called editing.

19 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

No. Artists are absolutely not responsible for how people interpret their work - they have a vision which they put on paper and share with the world. 

Artists are not sacred intuitions immune to criticism or taking responsibility for their words or what they draw/film/etc. because they make "art." 

Edited March 7, 2017 by AzureSen

[Guardian]

Don't mind me, but in terms of what the topic is supposed to be about (not that I really mind/care), is there anything from Gaiden that would be changed via localization?

[Extrasolar]

4 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Don't mind me, but in terms of what the topic is supposed to be about (not that I really mind/care), is there anything from Gaiden that would be changed via localization?

Not really. I brought up how bare-bones the original plot and text was, and there wasn't anything really controversial about it in the first place.

@YouSquiddinMe Sure, there are the more obscure works in that vein, but there are plenty of mainstream works with questionable portrayals of people and identities that are largely questionable and/or offensive, and even though they are not so overt in their views as the game you brought up, they still exist. The problem is, people are much more willing to let questionable things in their favorite works slide, and react with hostility when such things are criticized as insensitive.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Guardian]

Alright, just wanted to ask, thank you. 

[Thane]

21 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Not really. I brought up how bare-bones the original plot and text was, and there wasn't anything really controversial about it in the first place.

I don't know, I'm pretty sure Rudolf's sheer stupidity is a deep, provocative message about how messed up a system where you inherit political power is. You heard it here first, folks, Gaiden did it before Path of Radiance.

Sorry for not having replied in the other thread by the way, I've been very busy recently.

[RedEyedDrake]

@Extrasolar:

"Japan does it so why shouldn't the United States", is what you're saying in the first paragraph (or previously first, it has been deleted since) of your first post on this page. Also, what Treehouse did wasn't them being "culturally sensitive" in the slightest. If you don't like the feature then don't use it. But intentionally removing options is beyond ridiculous. And turning it into something that they pride themselves over is downright deplorable conduct.

And I meant the face rubbing as "something that actually happens in universe". This feature is meant for the player and the player only. Corrin calling someone into his/her room is a medium for that, just like how Corrin is supposed to be a medium for whom you S Rank with him/her and other such things. And that all that it actually is. In parts such as these Corrin is an extension of the player, more so than ever, and treating the context of the situation as if it is an actual situation that is happening is absurd. The fact that the face rubbing is done from a first person perspective as well as the fact that you can customize Corrin's appearance to suit your preferences should combine to make at least this much blatantly clear.

So what if Soleil's character trope isn't a thing in the United States? It doesn't have to be for them to handle it in a tasteful manner instead of making a character who was never supposed to be an actual homosexual person into a homosexual person (in fact, I'd say that this is just as offensive as making a homosexual character into a heterosexual one) or parade the fact around. Instead of doing away with the truth of the character and creating a false premise Treehouse could have presented the misleading factors that are part of the trope in a different manner so that they wouldn't be misleading to someone not familiar with the phenomenon. And besides, Fire Emblem has already managed to convey Japanese tones and phenomena. The general tone of Owain's chuuniness was carried over just fine even thought it isn't being recognized as such by the average consumer from the United States.

And yes, I used the term "political correctness" in an ironic manner so as to mock it. Want to know why? Because "representing people that actually exist" isn't what the term "political correctness" means. The definition of "political correctness" is "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". It is an obsession with being perceived as non-offensive that prevents treating the aforementioned "groups of people" the way that they actually deserve to be treated. Which is as actual people that are equal to ones that aren't included in these "groups". "Political correctness" inherently marks any such groups as "other" and is therefore inherently disrespectful. And thus, people who are acting "politically correct" deserve to be called out on their behavior. Personally, I'd say that sticking a portrayal of such a "group" where the truth of the matter is that there wasn't such a portrayal to begin with counts as "political correctness" purely by itself, without even the need to mention the point about Treehouse patting themselves on the back the way that they did.

Also, please don't try to compare things like puns to this. This is way beyond "apples and oranges". I'm talking about the sort of "localization" that Treehouse concerned themselves with, not things like getting the point of puns and idioms across or actual strengthening of the script like what you described with the Black Knight.

I have to ask, does "good portrayals of (previously) marginalized people" include turning the subject into a media and social network circus? Because, based on what I have seen being said on this subject in regards to the situation as it stands in the United States over the Internet, I get the impression that not only is what I have just described is how it usually goes but that no one notices the absurdity of it either.

On a slightly different note, I would also like to use this opportunity to say that using buzzwords like "bare-bones" in regards to Archanea and Valentia is conceited and uncalled for. The important part of storytelling is what sort of concepts are actually being conveyed, not how many words said concepts are being conveyed in.

 

@BrightBow:

You misunderstood what I was trying say there. So let's try again. This sort of tomfoolery may start out in games you don't give a rat's backside about in any shape or form but there is precedent for it spreading out into games that you can only compliment as "well, at least you aren't in the previous category" and beyond. And eventually into games or other media that you do genuinely care about. So why shouldn't I take a stand against this phenomenon right now? Especially when it is already in a game that is labeled as part of a franchise that I do have at least some genuine interest in? And I'm well aware of the sort of garbage that the Japanese developers over at IS have done with Fates, thank you.

 

@Guardian:

Alm and Celica are the game's official couple and have been raised together from more or less birth (they are supposed to be the same age) until they were ten years old or so. Meaning that this can be interpreted as the "raised together" sort of incest. And heavens know that Treehouse have demonstrated their inability to treat subjects that are quite a bit lighter than consanguinamory with due respect. Not even as recently as Heroes, in fact. "The inmates are running the asylum" and what not.

Edited March 7, 2017 by RedEyedDrake

[Extrasolar]

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

"Japan does it so why shouldn't the United States", is what you're saying in your first paragraph of your first post on this page. Also, what Treehouse did wasn't them being "culturally sensitive" in the slightest. If you don't like the feature then don't use it. But intentionally removing options is beyond ridiculous. And turning it into something that they pride themselves over is downright deplorable conduct.

That's not what I'm saying at all. You misunderstood my paragraph if that's what you construed from it. What I'm saying in the first paragraph is that Japan is behind the times on a lot of issues in comparison to the United States (and vice versa, of course, but speaking namely of their common portrayals of sexuality and gender identity being one of them), and that localization adjusts for these discrepancies to as a whole be more inclusive and less offensive than straight up porting-over the Japanese.

The Kyza example is a good example of this; he was a complete joke character because of his sexuality in the original, and his effeminate mannerisms and his sexuality in and of itself was overblown and ridiculous. As such a thing was pretty much the dominant portrayal of gay men since gay men were first allowed to appear in media in the United States, not changing it would be a backpedaling of progression and highly offensive, and damaging to the slowly changing and fleshing out image of gay and/or lesbian people in the media.

Could they have done this tastefully by keeping Kyza gay for Ranulf, but toning down his stereotypical mannerisms? (In the original Japanese of the "Cat Fight" base conversation, he demands that Lyre call him "Fabulous." Ouch...The only thing he's missing is the lisp, which isn't a thing in Japanese writing.)

Sure, but the character himself has no other real development and little time in the script, and thus, erasing it and keeping the general tone (Kyza is still obsessed with Ranulf's attention and fights with Lyre over him, but more as a way to prove himself a loyal and useful soldier). You get the gist of it across, and don't harm someone's identity in the process. He's still a joke, but this time, it's not on his sexuality, but his overblown bureaucracy.

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

And I meant the face rubbing as "something that actually happens in universe". This feature is meant for the player and the player only. Corrin calling someone into his/her room is a medium for that, just like how Corrin is supposed to be a medium for whom you S Rank with him/her and other such things. And that all that it actually is. In parts such as these Corrin is an extension of the player, more so than ever, and treating the context of the situation as if it is an actual situation that is happening is absurd. The fact that the face rubbing is done from a first person perspective as well as the fact that you can customize Corrin's appearance to suit your preferences should combine to make at least this much blatantly clear.

So you think that "it's actually the player doing it and not the character" is a justification for the weird, creepy feature? Again, that doesn't excuse the unfortunate implications of "the player" touching others, even a husband or wife, without permission. And regardless, Corrin's appearance and stats are decided by the player character, but they're very much their own character in the narrative. The player isn't a half-dragon with a magical sword caught between two kingdoms.

The fact that you try to say that it "isn't actually happening" as a way to downplay it is the absurd thing. And it being from a first-person perspective doesn't mean anything; other scenes in the game, including the ending scenes, as well as Garon kidnapping Corrin, is from a first person perspective, purely because it saves time and code needed to update the game with every possible customization of Corrin appearing in the scenes. A shortcut, in other words.
 

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

So what if Soleil's character trope isn't a thing in the United States? It doesn't have to be for them to handle it in a tasteful manner instead of making a character who was never supposed to be an actual homosexual person into a homosexual person (in fact, I'd say that this is just as offensive as making a homosexual character into a heterosexual one) or parade the fact around. Instead of doing away with the truth of the character and creating a false premise Treehouse could have presented the misleading factors that are part of the trope in a different manner so that they wouldn't be misleading to someone not familiar with the phenomenon.

But they did already did handle it tastefully. Instead of a bait-and-switch LGBT tease that the original would have come across as in the west, they decided, you know, we're going to be both less offensive and more inclusive. I'd say it's a win-win situation there. And there's a big difference in "making a homosexual character into a heterosexual one" as compared to the opposite; heterosexual people are everywhere and well-represented (some would say overrepresented) in media, whereas until recently, LGBT people were nowhere to be seen. They existed before the 90s, and even when they were written about, they were considered mentally ill, dangerous abusers, and the like until the 90s, where they were walking, talking sexuality stereotypes.

Positive portrayals of LGBT people are very much needed, now more than ever. And that's why Soleil's localization was a good thing.

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

And besides, Fire Emblem has already managed to convey Japanese tones and phenomena. The general tone of Owain's chuuniness was carried over just fine even thought it isn't being recognized as such by the average consumer from the United States.

Yes, this has been done before, but tone and cultural tropes are different. Tone can be easily translated with word choice, diction, what have you, but something like Soleil's trope is so alien to western sentiment and/or offensive, that it's much safer and generally better to change it.

I mean, there's a difference between the localization turning up Soren's snark and general asshattery in comparison to the more cold, distant Soren of the original (making him come across just as rude as he is to the west as he does to the Japanese, see this for more details: http://amielleon.dreamwidth.org/173736.html) and turning Kyza from a one-note gay stereotype to an actual character.

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

And yes, I used the term "political correctness" in an ironic manner so as to mock it. Want to know why? Because "representing people that actually exist" isn't what the term "political correctness" means. The definition of "political correctness" is "the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against".

I most often see the term "politically correct" as a pejorative to mock the fact that underrepresented people want to see themselves and their identities in game. X game has a lesbian or gay character, or even a trans character? "What is this politically correct bullshit?!" So forgive me, I can't take people who use it seriously.

And I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Again, my previous post about sensitivity. I'd like my video games not to downright mock or exclude people that are different than me just for who they are, especially if no relevant commentary is being made on the matter. Soleil is a case of this in her original incarnation; in her original, she's a classic trope being played straight for Japanese audience, but yet another "bait and switch" LGBT, badly-written character to a western audience.
 

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

Also, please don't try to compare things like puns to this. This is way beyond "apples and oranges". I'm talking about the sort of "localization" that Treehouse concerned themselves with, not things like getting the point of puns and idioms across or actual strengthening of the script like what you described with the Black Knight.

You realize that Treehouse has done plenty of "strengthening the script" writing in their localizations as well, don't you? There are plenty of non-translatable puns in the original that were made to work, and in Fates in particular, they attempted to insert more moral ambiguity into the conflict where in the original it was played straight black-and-white (now, it's not like they succeeded in making it morally grey, but that's a conversation for another thread).

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

I have to ask, does "good portrayals of (previously) marginalized people" include turning the subject into a media and social network circus? Because, based on what I have seen being said on this subject in regards to the situation as it stands in the United States over the Internet, I get the impression that not only is what I have just described is how it usually goes but that no one notices the absurdity of it either.

From what I've seen, the controversy around Soleil involves people who don't understand why localization is done, or what exactly her character trope in the Japanese was and why it would be offensive in the west if directly ported over. They think that it's "censoring lesbianism" when the fact is, as you said, she was never a lesbian in the original in the first place.
 

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

On a slightly different note, I would also like to use this opportunity to say that using buzzwords like "bare-bones" in regards to Archanea and Valentia is conceited and uncalled for. The important part of storytelling is what sort of concepts are actually being conveyed, not how many words said concepts are being conveyed in.

I never insisted that the plots of Archanea and Valentia were in any way inferior; I simply stated the truth. "Bare-bones" is not a buzzword; you do not understand buzzwords if you think it is. There is very little text in the original games due to the format, nor are their content and stories stories as complex or controversial as Jugdral and Tellius would get. Simple facts.

2 hours ago, RedEyedDrake said:

Alm and Celica are the game's official couple and have been raised together from more or less birth (they are supposed to be the same age) until they were ten years old or so. Meaning that this can be interpreted as the "raised together" sort of incest. And heavens know that Treehouse have demonstrated their inability to treat subjects that are quite a bit lighter than consanguinamory with due respect. Not even as recently as Heroes, in fact. "The inmates are running the asylum" and what not.

There have been plenty of "childhood friends being married" supports localized in the west. Sothe x Micaiah, Haar x Jill, and especially Geoffrey x Elincia, who explicitly grew up from birth together. I see no indication that Alm x Celica is going to be changed because of it.

They shy away from the familial ones like Owain x Lucina in particular, because while first cousin marriage is legal in Japan and generally accepted, as well as being for the most part common in the medieval period, it's illegal in a lot of places in the United States, and tends to skeeve people out a lot more here. I don't necessarily agree with that particular change, but I can understand why they did it.
 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Extrasolar

[SuperIb]

*Casually looks at thread wondering if it harbors anything legit*

7 hours ago, AmericanBuizel said:

...how awful the liberal SJW cucks in Treehouse are...

Mm. Oh boy.

7 hours ago, AmericanBuizel said:

..or do you think that Nintendo of Japan will just let NoA be feminist SJW cucks again with the localization?

Mm. Mhm.

4 hours ago, AmericanBuizel said:

Aaaaannnnnd you're all just showing your butthurt faggotry :^)

Mm. Nice one, there. 

7 hours ago, AmericanBuizel said:

Yeah, I do. I'm not autistic. Besides, you're the one who replied.

Mm. Yup.

7 hours ago, AmericanBuizel said:

Nah, to quote Eminem (even though I'm not a fan): "This looks like a job for me, so everybody just let me be, because we need a little controversy".

No. Nobody "needs" controversy if it can be avoided, especially over a game that hasn't even sparked any in the first place.

You really are just digging a hole for yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, avoid making comments like these. I looked at some of your previous posts and honestly, you seem to be the stereotype Fire Emblem "Elitist" kinda person so... yeah. I'm just going to take it that you think Echoes is going to crash and burn because "Nintendo is a trash company that doesn't listen to it's fans aka FE Puritans" and that you're seeing who else agrees with you.

(On a side-note, did you honestly make a straw poll to see which FE game people hate more? Awakening or Fates? Neither is bad and that question is kind of unfair because, you know, it implies people hate both games to begin with.)

Edited March 7, 2017 by SuperIb

[RedEyedDrake]

@Extrasolar:

It doesn't matter whether Corrin is supposed to be a fixed character in the narrative. Corrin's role as the avatar inherently pingeonholes him/her into the role of a self insert character for the player. The fact that the game tends to forget that is irrelevant, especially in the context of what we are talking about. Why? Because during these segments Corrin is actually used as a medium for self insertion and nothing more. And of course the player isn't a half-dragon with a legendary sword that is at the center of the conflict between two warring kingdoms. The player not being that is exactly the reason as to why Corrin is that. That is the point of a self insert character, no matter how successful or unsuccessful the game is at using the self insert character as such.

And what is your obsession with "unfortunate implications"? I'm not trying to "downplay" or "justify" anything because there is nothing to downplay and no justification is needed for anything. These are virtual characters that we are talking about here, not actual people. They are used a part of this feature for the enjoyment of you, the player, as you see fit. And arguing that some sort of consent is needed here because otherwise using this feature is some horrible crime is like falling back on the "video games make people violent" argument. If one can't separate the video game violence from real life violence or carries their frustration over losing into real life then the problem lies with the person not having the basic discipline to handle such things and not with the game somehow horribly altering the person in question. Same thing here. Additionally, if somebody doesn't like what such a feature has to offer then they'd simply not use it. But the fact of the matter is that it was included this one time. So celebrating its removal is downright disgusting behavior. And so is the act of disabling it for a different region in the first place and then talking about it as if this is some grand act of righteousness. On top of that, what I was saying before is that this isn't even supposed to be actual character interaction in universe and is meant for you, the player. So it is even less than something like video game violence. It isn't meant to actually portray anything beyond being a feature for the enjoyment of the player purely through its interactivity (as limited as it may actually be). There aren't any "unfortunate implications" because there aren't any "implications" of any sort in the first place.

Oh, and if the first person portrayal is actually simply a method for saving time and money then why isn't the vast majority of the game that way? That would save even more time and money, wouldn't it?

No. No, what happened with Soleil isn't a win-win situation because it is the creation of a false premise as well as the creation of "inclusion" where there wasn't any to begin with. And if there wasn't any then no one has any right to create any because this is akin to creating a "token homosexual character" among a given cast of characters. And out of a heterosexual character at that. Surely I don't need to explain why "token minority" characters are bad, right? Also, this is another example of the obsession that is "political correctness" making a mockery of both sides of a divide by essentially "converting" a heterosexual into a homosexual. There is nothing tasteful about such an act. And no, claiming that this is somehow different from turning a homosexual into a heterosexual is the epitome of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter how represented or not represented a given preference is because that is no excuse. You want more homosexual characters in media? Then actually make them as such instead of converting either one into the other. It becoming socially acceptable to harass a heterosexual person for their heterosexuality is not a solution and anyone who advocates things of this sort deserves no better than the sort of person who would harass a homosexual person for their homosexuality. An offensive solution to an offensive situation doesn't make it right. Especially not when they could have worked towards an actual solution instead. Making Soleil into an actual homosexual is no less offensive and is, in fact, offensive towards more groups of people than being a fake homosexual would have been.

By "strengthening the script" I meant "giving more reasonable explanations to certain events and/or plot points". And I didn't see any articles about Treehouse patting themselves on the back over what great people they are because they translated some pun or other in a clever manner. Thus the comment about "concerning themselves". And oh, moral ambiguity. That's great. This isn't going to net them any praise from me after the rest of the garbage that they pulled.

I proceeded to explain how "political correctness" is a bad thing right where you stopped that one quote of yours. It is inherently disrespectful because it treats people of minority groups as some sort of "other" or "special case" instead of treating them as equal to others. There is no good, actual reason to treat a "heterosexual white male" as some sort of "default" and, by extension, there is no good, actual reason to treat a "homosexual", "black" and/or "female" as somehow inherently special due to being such. All of these are people like everyone else. And "political correctness" is just another expression of inequality. Just like, say, misandry, misogyny or racism.

On the subject of the settings, I'll say it once again. It doesn't matter how much text there is or how complexly it is all arranged. What matters is what is actually being conveyed. Thus, it doesn't matter how "bare bones" something is or isn't. Hypothetically speaking, even a picture book with no words can tell a more meaningful tale then the likes of a blockbuster film, depending on what each is conveying. Now, I'm not trying to actually equate anything here. My point is that dismissing the aforementioned meaningful picture book simply due to it a picture book is, as I have said before, conceited and uncalled for. Even if it is nothing but a bunch of slashes of color to you. And the same applies here. "Bare bones" isn't a term that means anything meaningful.

Also, I'm well aware of why Treehouse are being the garbage that they are, thank you very much. And Alm and Celica aren't just "childhood friends". They were raised in a single household with a single, shared guardian from their infancy for about a decade or so before Celica was sent to the monastery of Mila on Novis Island.

Edited March 7, 2017 by RedEyedDrake

[Extrasolar]

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

It doesn't matter whether Corrin is supposed to be a fixed character in the narrative. Corrin's role as the avatar inherently pingeonholes him/her into the role of a self insert character for the player. The fact that the game tends to forget that is irrelevant, especially in the context of what we are talking about. Why? Because during these segments Corrin is actually used as a medium for self insertion and nothing more. And of course the player isn't a half-dragon with a legendary sword that is at the center of the conflict between two warring kingdoms. The player not being that is exactly the reason as to why Corrin is that. That is the point of a self insert character, no matter how successful or unsuccessful the game is at using the self insert character as such.

I'm not arguing that Corrin isn't a self-insert character, because that much is obvious. But you seem to be using this as a way to justify the general creepiness of the petting mechanic or trying to downplay it as "not that bad" because it's the player doing it. It doesn't matter if the character, the player, or the game designs are doing it. Still doesn't make it non-creepy or okay. No matter what the purpose of it, no matter if it was self-insertion pandering, it still is creepy and weird.
 

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

And what is your obsession with "unfortunate implications"? I'm not trying to "downplay" or "justify" anything because there is nothing to downplay and no justification is needed for anything. These are virtual characters that we are talking about here, not actual people.

Treating them like this is the problem. Yes, they are fictional characters, drawings, and pixels, but they are meant to be representative of real, living people, and even for a few moments, we see and treat them that way. People want to see themselves reflected in the media they consume (and reflected accurately, at that). When you consume media, the lessons, feelings, and moments in the game feel real, or at least, you suspend your disbelief to allow them to feel that. You don't see "x drawing" doing "x thing," with "y drawing," you see, for example Soren being comforted by Ike. I think that's why a lot of LGBT fans latched onto Ike/Soren in the first place, even if it wasn't confirmed gay and I don't personally believe that it's anything but platonic. They simply aren't used to seeing tender portrayals of homosexual love, so when they see something that's even the slightest bit not stereotypical, they jump on it. Representation matters.

And I'm mentioning unfortunate implications as the reason why things may be changed in localization; it's always better to change something that might be insensitive to a certain group's portrayal in the west.
 

Quote

Additionally, if somebody doesn't like what such a feature has to offer then they'd simply not use it. But the fact of the matter is that it was included this one time. So celebrating its removal is downright disgusting behavior. And so is the act of disabling it for a different region in the first place and then talking about it as if this is some grand act of righteousness.

This sounds an awful lot like the "if you don't like it don't read" argument for people who write horribly out-of-character and potentially offensive fanfiction.

Just because content is optional does not mean it doesn't have a right to be criticized and held responsible for the messages it portrays. Hell, on that note, every piece of media in the world is optional, and thus, any discussion of anything would be moot.
 

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

And arguing that some sort of consent is needed here because otherwise using this feature is some horrible crime is like falling back on the "video games make people violent" argument. If one can't separate the video game violence from real life violence or carries their frustration over losing into real life then the problem lies with the person not having the basic discipline to handle such things and not with the game somehow horribly altering the person in question.

 

The "video games make people violent" argument is indeed false, but there's a big difference when it comes to portrayals of people in the media, as opposed to violence. Media portrayals have shown to have negative effects on people in real life: For example, the blackface shows and stereotypical Asian portrayals meant that for decades, white people, who did not have actual black or Asian people living near to interact with, actually did 100% believe that all black people and/or all Asian people acted that way (clownish and buffoonish), and thus believed they were "justified" in treating them as less than human, or as inherently inferior.

The same thing happened with sexuality during the 90s. With the stereotypical portrayal of gay men being so nebulous, you had people really believing that all gay men were effeminate predators who were out to sexually assault any other man they were attracted to, straight or not. If you were a gay man and didn't subscribe to the stereotype, you were an anomaly in the eyes of society, and as far as they were concerned, lesbians and bisexual women didn't exist, and/or were only pretending to be attracted to women before they'd "confess" their interest in men. A lot of people still hold prejudice against both groups because of these harmful portrayals.

Speaking of the petting in general, sexual abuse is rampant, and most cases are unreported due to how the concept of consent is widely misunderstood or ignored. Corrin does not gain the consent of the people they touch before touching them, and in many cases, the characters show discomfort or awkwardness with the touching, but one can continue to do so anyway. If that doesn't read "implied molestation" to you, I don't know what will. Sure, it's not overtly sexual in nature, but considering that the characters do at times say suggestive things, I think you can read between the lines here.
 

Quote

No. No, what happened with Soleil isn't a win-win situation because it is the creation of a false premise as well as the creation of "inclusion" where there wasn't any to begin with. And if there wasn't any then no one has any right to create any because this is akin to creating a "token homosexual character" among a given cast of characters. And out of a heterosexual character at that. Surely I don't need to explain why "token minority" characters are bad, right?

If anything, the localization of Soleil is the removal of a false premise. The Japanese would know that Soleil was never intended to be a lesbian in the first place, and thus, they aren't surprised when she's attracted to men in the end. To a western audience, her early interactions 100% read as lesbianism, and had they translated her over, we'd feel insulted and confused why she's suddenly into men (and queerbaiting in western media is not an uncommon thing). Not to mention, I'm sure many lesbian fans would be hurt that this chance at representation was yet another cruel bait.

Token minority characters are indeed a problem, but only for the case of them being criminally underrepresented, which can only be solved one way. You know how? Creating more minority characters to include. But in the context of this game, they only had so many characters to work with, and making her actually interested in women instead of pretending was the best way they could have handled it.

Quote

Also, this is another example of the obsession that is "political correctness" making a mockery of both sides of a divide by essentially "converting" a heterosexual into a homosexual. There is nothing tasteful about such an act. And no, claiming that this is somehow different from turning a homosexual into a heterosexual is the epitome of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter how represented or not represented a given preference is because that is no excuse.

This is false equivalence. There are hundreds, thousands, even millions of heterosexual characters for heterosexual people to identify with, get attached to, and feel themselves represented in. There is a pitiful fraction of that for LGBT people, and even fewer which are written non-stereotypically and sensitively. You can literally switch on the TV to any channel, grab any game, read any book to find heterosexual characters who identities don't resolve around their sexuality, and who aren't stereotyped as being a certain way because of it. Minorities don't get that option, which is why it's more important than ever to give them representation, and GOOD representation at that, even if it comes at the expense of the poor heterosexual characters, of which there are far more, and are far better written.
 

Quote

By "strengthening the script" I meant "giving more reasonable explanations to certain events and/or plot points". And I didn't see any articles about Treehouse patting themselves on the back over what great people they are because they translated some pun or other in a clever manner.

...Except translating puns and references is strengthening the script for an American audience. I don't know about you, but I'm not fond of my immersion in games suddenly being broken while I sit and puzzle out exactly how "spider" and "cloud" sound the same and can be used for a joke (they're both pronounced "kumo" in Japanese, and thus, translating it straight would not only make no sense, but be inexplicably strange).
 

Quote

Making Soleil into an actual homosexual is no less offensive and is, in fact, offensive towards more groups of people than being a fake homosexual would have been.

No. No it is not. The only people that would be upset about that fact are homophobic people or otherwise intolerant people who can't stand to see any characters that aren't exactly like them in every way.

Now, let's let the underrepresented people have their chance, why don't we? It's not like you or anyone else heterosexual will suddenly turn gay or be hurt with one of an infinitely large pool of heterosexual characters being homosexual. There's plenty of straight characters for you to choose from.

The only ones that aren't are Niles, Rhajat, and possibly Corrin. Take your pick of the others and let the LGBT people have something, please.

Quote

I proceeded to explain how "political correctness" is a bad thing right where you stopped that one quote of yours. It is inherently disrespectful because it treats people of minority groups as some sort of "other" or "special case" instead of treating them as equal to others. There is no good, actual reason to treat a "heterosexual white male" as some sort of "default" and, by extension, there is no good, actual reason to treat a "homosexual", "black" and/or "female" as somehow inherently special due to being such. All of these are people like everyone else. And "political correctness" is just another expression of inequality. Just like, say, misandry, misogyny or racism.

Yeah...I think we have very different definitions here. No, what is disrespectful is stereotypical portrayals of not only LGBT people but people of minority races, queerbaiting, and the like, because it reduces complex, fully-formed people to a few inaccurate and even insulting stereotypes. You're right in that there is no good reason to treat het white male as the norm...but here's the thing. It is treated as the norm. "Female, LGBT, and non-white" are special categories, and when any of them are represented, suddenly it turns into "pc bullshit" and "pandering." See the problem here?
 

Quote

Oh, and if the first person portrayal is meant simply as a means of saving time and money then why isn't the vast majority of the game that way? That would save even more time and money, wouldn't it?

Because all of the cutscenes are pre-rendered. If they wanted to include customizable Corrin in a third-person view for all the scenes, they'd have to either render out one of every possible customization option (obviously not feasible), or go with in-engine renders, which wouldn't look nearly as good as the pre-rendered ones do. There you go.
 

Quote

And Alm and Celica aren't just "childhood friends". They were raised in a single household with a single, shared guardian from their infancy for about a decade or so before Celica was sent to the monastery of Mila on Novis Island.

Okay? This doesn't refute my argument that it's probably not going to be changed, considering we have Micaiah meeting Sothe as a child, acting as a surrogate mother to him, and still marrying him, and considering Geoffrey and Elincia were also raised in the same household, it's not any more severe than what we've already gotten.
 

Quote

On the subject of the settings, I'll say it once again. It doesn't matter how much text there is or how complexly it is all arranged. What matters is what is actually being conveyed. Thus, it doesn't matter how "bare bones" something is or isn't. Hypothetically speaking, even a picture book with no words can tell a more meaningful tale then the likes of a blockbuster film, depending on what each is conveying. Now, I'm not trying to actually equate anything here. My point is that dismissing the aforementioned meaningful picture book simply due to it a picture book is, as I have said before, conceited and uncalled for. Even if it is nothing but a bunch of slashes of color to you.

Okay? I have literally never "dismissed" the stories or characters of either game. It is unarguably true, however, that the plots are less complex in regards to hitting less twists and turns, fewer plot devices, and the like, to some of the newer games. It's 100% true that there is fewer text than in Gaiden than there is in Radiant Dawn. I have literally never said the story of both games are not meaningful.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Lightchao42]

I don't really know what's going on in this thread (and I don't think I want to know), but here's an interesting article from ten years ago about Path of Radiance's localization, which should give some insight into Treehouse's localization process:

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/interview/2266/fire-emblem-path-of-radiance-interview

Edited March 8, 2017 by Lightchao42

[vanguard333]

9 hours ago, The DanMan said:

High-functioning autist here. Does not approve.

9 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

That was offensive. I have Aspergers, and even I can withhold a grudge.

Thank you. I would have said this had I seen this thread sooner (only high-functioning autism in my case, not Aspergers).

Back to what ideally is the point of this thread, I do not think much, if anything, will be censored, since (as far as I know; I have not played Gaiden) there probably isn't much to censor.

 

[The DanMan]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Thank you. I would have said this had I seen this thread sooner (only high-functioning autism in my case, not Aspergers).

Back to what ideally is the point of this thread, I do not think much, if anything, will be censored, since (as far as I know; I have not played Gaiden) there probably isn't much to censor.

 

The latter is no longer an official diagnoses, as it's technically the same thing as high-functioning autism. 

Anyways, I doubt much will be changed at all in the localization. And what is changed I'll either agree with or get over with.

[RedEyedDrake]

@Extrasolar:

First of, what I meant with the first person view is that I tried to convey the fact that if IS really wanted to save time and money then they could have simply made the entire game take place from a first person perspective like a visual novel. And yet they didn't. But some things are in first person none the less. Meaning that the parts that are in first person are in first person for some reason or other. And this is true for the face rubbing segments as well. And the mechanic isn't somehow inherently "creepy" even when you use it, to say nothing of the simple fact of it being available in the game. No more so than seeing blood, gore and over the top violence in a video game can be called "disturbing" in the same genuine context that you seem to be using. Even less so, in fact. Because there is no input from Corrin the character and the only input comes from you, the player. Corrin isn't being "reflected" here in the slightest in any shape or form nor is he/she supposed to be. Nothing is actually being "depicted" as part of the game proper and everything that is presented is being presented for the benefit of you, the player. Or, what, do you take the segments of video games where characters mention pressing the actual control buttons at face value? Once again, this isn't "character x" doing "thing x" to "character y". This is you, the player, specifically being given the chance to break any sense of immersion as Corrin for the sake of interactivity with a character of your choice as "directly as yourself" as possible. This isn't actually "depicting" anyone or anything and it isn't actually  "portraying some sort of message or actual character interaction" at all to begin with, all for the sake of the direct enjoyment and/or amusement via the character's reactions of you, the player. Thus being even less of an "actual something in the context of the game and that was done by your hand" then the likes of the sort of transgressions that can be depicted as being caused by "you" via the likes of video game violence. And like I said, if you can't separate your real life from such "actions" then the fault lies with you and not the game.

And are you seriously talking about "offensive fanfiction"? Because the sentiment of "if you don't like it then you don't read it" is absolutely correct. Try finding some fanfiction with portrayals that you can approve of, instead. Good grief, person. Concepts such as the "troll fic" exist in the medium of "fanfiction" and yet you are seriously using this medium as an actual example of anything other than how a select few unprofessional writers can write more compelling stories than official works? Really? Once again, if you are squeamish about this sort of thing then don't use it. You don't see people who are afraid of heights trying to demonize roller coasters, after all.

Once again, it doesn't matter how you define "strengthening the script". The point is that things like getting the meaning of puns across are a horse of a completely different color when compared to the one that is the subject of the sort of monkey business that Treehouse focused on in regards to Fates and that they advertised, Soleil's case being a well known example. One actually improves the quality of the script and makes it seem more organic while the other is them taking a pile of filth and mud and then flinging it everywhere instead of at least trying to make it into some kind of pottery and then acting as if their flinging is something that they deserve a cookie or something for.

Also, whatever falsehood is inherent to the notion of a character being a bait and switch homosexual pales in comparison to rewriting dialogue so as to depict a character that is heterosexual as a homosexual one. And "seeing 100% lesbianism" is either the fault of the consumer for trying to read a foreign script without understanding the tropes involved or the fault of Treehouse themselves for their choice of portrayal. Instead of presenting the consumers with an intentionally false interpretation they could have instead altered the dialogue in such a manner as to keep the character as a girl obsessed heterosexual woman, since that is who she is, but make it clear that her obsession with girls is not a form of sexual attraction. But instead the Treehouse people chose to be "politically correct", go with a "pray away the straight" sort of mentality (thus degrading heterosexuals purely for being heterosexuals) and treat homosexuals as some sort of "other" or "special snowflake" instead of proper, equal people. And thus the Treehouse folks deserve all the rage and scorn that they get for it.

And no. "Token minority" characters are bad because of the "token" part. "Yeah, go and do that thing that the rest of group does but be sure to remind that the consumers that you are (minority) while doing it. And make sure to do so at least once per (period of time)". If a character from a minority is included in a cast simply for the sake of representing a minority of choice then the work in question might as well not bother representing any minorities to begin with. You want a work to have a minority character in it? Fine. Just make them an actual character instead of inserting them into a cast just for the sake of "including" them. And the idea of altering a character's sexuality for the sake of inclusion is just as offensive no matter in which direction you change it.

There is nothing "false" about this equivalence. People are people deserve to be respected as such. "At the expense of the majority" is discrimination and deserves to be treated as such. Once again, make your homosexual characters homosexual but leave heterosexual characters as such. Raising a stink over one type of conversion but not over the other type is, once again, the epitome of hypocrisy. Unbalancing the scales in an opposite direction does not suddenly make them balanced. An individual has an individual's worth regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. No person in inherently lesser than another and can only become such through their actions and conduct. "Heterophobia" such as the conversion of heterosexual characters into homosexual ones isn't a solution to homophobia and is just as bad as homophobia because it is the exact same thing with only the identities of the target and the hateful person being different. So try to actually depict minority characters as people that are equal to ones that aren't minority instead of depicting their status as a minority as some sort of peculiar characteristic of theirs. Actually respect them and they'll become actually respected just like "the norm" is. Also, the "can't stand to see characters who aren't like them in every way" comment works both ways. And the sort of homosexual person is fine with a heterosexual character being converted into a homosexual one is falling right into a "it's okay when we do it" mentality. Naturally, such a person would need to get over themselves if they think that this is somehow alright. Or is the argument that "a homosexual character being depicted as heterosexual is fine because it's not like seeing said character as a heterosexual will suddenly turn homosexual consumers straight" suddenly acceptable?

Once again, no. What is disrespectful is acting as if being part of a minority is some "special feature" of a person. These are people we are talking about here, for goodness' sake, not attractions at a freak show of ages past. And it turns into insult slinging in no small part due to how most modern depictions of minorities of any sort are trying to be of the "politically correct" sort instead of being actually respectful depictions. Not to mention how the United States have turned the subject into a media circus of cosmic proportions.

You're assuming that the studio(s) that translated the Tellius duology and Treehouse operate on the same logic. Who knows what will make the apes from the latter studio chimp out.

One more time. What matters is what is actually being conveyed. "Twists, turns and plot devices" are window dressings by comparison.

Edited March 8, 2017 by RedEyedDrake

[Perfect Infinitive Exitus]

"Lets just make Alm into a black genderfluid trans-female lesbian and let the player be reminded in every second sentence just how hard zhe struggles! The LGBT & Black Community would appreciate that surely definetly always, who cares about the cis white males that are just the majority of customers, that are trying to identify themselves with the main character, too much priviledge for being overrepresented!

Every little bit of skin shown by females should be fully covered to protect them from being objectified by the average cis white male!

Also every one of the characters has to be mildly obese and missing at least a leg or an arm to not offend anyone and not to promote ableism and thinism!

No one may double attack or even attack at all! This game should not offend people who don't play games; phoenix mode is too hard for them.

Any reference to any religion that is not christianity or atheism should be removed! They could be offended!

Every support mechanic will be removed at all to not offend asexuals!

Also the game should be black-white so colorblind people won't be offended; screw that, make the screen black so blind people won't be offended!

Also sound shouldn't play either because deaf people could get offended...

Also war is a little too offensive so the setting should be a big soft pillow!"

 

 

Nah i'm just kidding, i personally don't care about censorship or localisation on fire emblem since i don't play it for the story or the characters; the units could be gray squares on gray space for all i care; the story is usually bland and not that deep in the first place.

Since i don't care about any of it i just skip and go straight to the next chapter.

As long as the gameplay is enjoyable it's all right.

But the gameplay will cease if the majority is not satisfied and the game won't sell well as a result.

You cannot physically include every facet of a minority in existence to a game and as such you just have to decide to make the protagonist male or female or whatever the majority that ends up identfying with the MC is; white skin is chosen most often because the majority demographic in western and eastasian countries is white/asian and the game "might" not sell as much otherwise.

I say "might" because i don't know by how much but i know there is a slight racial bias though i don't know how significant it really is for the sales.

Black and LGBT people have enjoyed games with "normal" protagonists before; if they care about the game, they would play it regardless of race or gender of the characters, the same goes for games that have reversed roles(black/gay protagonist) for hetero/white consumers; as long as the game is good and engaging it doesn't matter how "inclusive" and "diverse" it is; racial bias among gamers is miniscule.

The "problem" with Soleil(i don't know her i don't have any children in any of my files) i think is people have a problem with how the intent from IS (to make her a girl thats just shy around males; not essentially lesbian) was localised to be something "entirely" different to what she used to be; granted this doesn't mean the character might be badly written but it would make a difference if localisation team e.g changed a protagonist with a secluded insulting personality to an outgoing charismatic friendly one (because the localisation team thought it was too heavy and offending for the player and miraculously the plot works for the majority of the game) but then at the end of the game everyone wonders why the protagonist is being killed by his "best friend"; After research the players find out the protagonist is totally different in intention by the original devs and everyone is... well "outraged" just like after Fates' or TMSs' localisation.

If you translate a movie you don't just change the characters attitude and character; the movie would be trash and contradictory.

When translating anime and the characters make a language based pun usually there is a small display on the screen that explains the pun (like in gintama) or if the translators are bold enough they make a culturally equivalent translation... but this usually doesn't please the hardcore "weebish" viewership.

then again its just my stupid opinion.

 

also about the autists; i know it might be hurtful for you to have your condition to be used as an insult but that is just because its overdiagnosed like adhd in childhood and nobody actually knows what it is like to be an autist or what autism is, so don't let it get to you if you are actually autistic(you could be pretending or worse than your diagnosed condition, i know nothing about you i'm sorry); I say this because i was "diagnosed" as an autist twice when i was just shy, with lack of sleep and being good at math; afterwards i was just a shy kid who is good at math; also im being called and mocked for being "autistic" all the time and i've just stopped caring because it holds no meaning; its just a label from people who don't understand you.

[Extrasolar]

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

There is nothing "false" about this equivalence. People are people deserve to be respected as such. "At the expense of the majority" is discrimination and deserves to be treated as such. Once again, make your homosexual characters homosexual but leave heterosexual characters as such. Raising a stink over one type of conversion but not over the other type is, once again, the epitome of hypocrisy. Unbalancing the scales in an opposite direction does not suddenly make them balanced.

No. No it is not. Discrimination is aimed at the minority. Discrimination is "well you're not like me in this aspect, so you don't deserve representation or to have your stories told." Discrimination is "sorry, you lesbians can't have an actual lesbian character because I gotta have another heterosexual character to add to the thousands I already have, too bad." Discrimination is "so what if you're disappointed that this wasn't an actual lesbian when you've seen this bait and switch for the thousandth time?! suck it up, you special snowflake! I see me in every piece of media, but that doesn't mean you should!"

"False equivalence" is trying to compare two situations which are grossly different as being equivalent; it's undeniable that there are vastly more heterosexual characters in every type of media than LGBT characters. You cannot say otherwise, as the proof is staring you in the face. It is also undeniable that there are vastly more accurate and positive portrayals of complex heterosexual people than there are for LGBT people. Again, you can't say otherwise, and cannot compare these, because they aren't nearly in the same league.

It's not "unbalancing the scales in the opposite direction" because the heterosexual side of the scale has thousands of more characters on its side! One more homosexual character is not going anywhere close to breaking the scale. But I know why you and so many people think that.

Here's the problem. People tend to see one LGBT character, one female character, one non-white character as "pandering" because they're used to seeing none. They're used to the minorities being invisible, being an afterthought, or being stereotypically depicted, so when they see one that isn't, they panic and do a double take. What is this "politically correct" nonsense?! And that's absolutely ridiculous.
 

Quote

Also, whatever falsehood is inherent to the notion of a character being a bait and switch homosexual pales in comparison to rewriting dialogue so as to depict a character that is heterosexual as a homosexual one. And "seeing 100% lesbianism" is either the fault of the consumer for trying to read a foreign script without understanding the tropes involved or the fault of Treehouse themselves for their choice of portrayal.

No. The latter gives representation to people who previously had none, and a character they can see themselves in and identifying with, and does so in a far more tasteful manner than the original would.

And it's not just about the foreign trope, but the fact that not all foreign tropes are palatable or things that the west should tolerate. The "bait and switch" lesbianism of Japanese media is one of them. Just because one country more or less accepts something intolerant or offensive doesn't mean that it's right, nor does it mean we should as well. Cultural differences don't automatically mean "anything intolerant or offensive is excused."
 

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

Once again, no. What is disrespectful is acting as if being part of a minority is some "special feature" of a person. These are people we are talking about here, for goodness' sake, not attractions at a freak show of ages past. And it turns into insult slinging in no small part due to how most modern depictions of minorities of any sort are trying to be of the "politically correct" sort instead of being actually respectful depictions. Not to mention how the United States have turned the subject into a media circus of cosmic proportions.

Except flat, stereotypical portrayals are all about acting like these features and treating them as special, defining features of a person, whereas respectful portrayals treat them as what they are: human. Japanese Kyza's personality can be summed up as "gay and effeminate." How about English Kyza? (Bureaucratic and overbearing.) Granted, they're not amazingly deep or complex, but which one of these sounds like even the beginning of an actual personality to you?
 

Quote

And no. "Token minority" characters are bad because of the "token" part. "Yeah, go and do that thing that the rest of group does but be sure to remind that the consumers that you are (minority) while doing it. And make sure to do so at least once per (period of time)". If a character from a minority is included in a cast simply for the sake of representing a minority of choice then the work in question might as well not bother representing any minorities to begin with.

1. Yes, they are bad because they are tokens, and there should be far more included in media.
2. The reason that that portrayal of them (where their character revolves around the aspect of them that is a minority) is because the vast majority of writers are straight, white men who are so out of touch with minorities that they forget that minorities are people beyond "oh yeah, she's a woman," and "oh yeah, he's gay."
3. No. People have a right and a need to see themselves represented. In America 2017, there is absolutely no reason why a work should not include LGBT, women, and non-white characters, because, you know, all of those people exist and consume media. I don't care how often it's still being done today, it doesn't make it right. People need to see themselves in media, and people other than what society considers the norm. And there's the thing: Not every portrayal of a minority is a good one. Not all portrayals of minorities are created equal.

If you were a woman, for instance, how would you feel if women were often shoved into the background, relegated to shallow love interests, or were represented as sex objects lacking depth? (Because you're typing to someone who has experience with both.) How about if you were a gay man (assuming you're heterosexual here) and had original Kyza shoved into your face as an absolute joke? Do you understand my point here?

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

"Heterophobia" such as the conversion of heterosexual characters into homosexual ones isn't a solution to homophobia and is just as bad as homophobia because it is the exact same thing with only the identities of the target and the hateful person being different.

Sorry, but there's no such thing as "heterophobia." Nobody in society is persecuted, attacked, insulted or thought any less than if they happen to be heterosexual. It's the same way that there's no persecution against Christians or white people. They're the top dog, the majority, the "norm" in society. They have all the power, and thus cannot be victims of it. And no, it's not just as bad.

Homophobia has gotten people fired, beaten, raped, or killed simply for being attracted to the same gender as themselves. There is no equivalent violence or hate crimes toward heterosexual people. "This guy called me a mean name one time and said my opinion as a non-LGBT person on LGBT matters doesn't count and hurt my feelings" doesn't count as violence or harassment.
 

Quote

And the sort of homosexual person is fine with a heterosexual character being converted into a homosexual one is falling right into a "it's okay when we do it" mentality. Naturally, such a person would need to get over themselves if they think that this is somehow alright. Or is the argument that "a homosexual character being depicted as heterosexual is fine because it's not like seeing said character as a heterosexual will suddenly turn homosexual consumers straight" suddenly acceptable?

I wouldn't go judging minorities that want representation like that. I'm not LGBT myself, but as a minority in other ways I feel for them and have my own struggles with representation. You know what I think that LGBT person is feeling when they see Soleil as an actual lesbian? "Hey, cool, she's just like me! A non-stereotypical portrayal, and a non bait and switch for once?! Awesome!"

When you see yourself everywhere, you have no right to tell people how they should react or that they shouldn't want to see themselves too. As I said, you have plenty of heterosexual characters to choose from and get invested in. That's like complaining that the guy across the table has a saltine cracker and you don't while you're wolfing down your lobster dinner. Not the same thing, sorry.
 

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

You're assuming that the studio(s) that translated the Tellius duology and Treehouse operate on the same logic.

....Treehouse has done every single localization barring Awakening. Yes, that's right. The very same company.
 

1 hour ago, RedEyedDrake said:

What matters is what is actually being conveyed. "Twists, turns and plot devices" are window dressings by comparison.

And Gaiden has less story. Again, fact. The Tellius games had enough plot to fill two entire games (one of which happens to be the longest game in the series, in a 4-part story). Gaiden was a Famicom game. The proof is staring you right in the face.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Extrasolar

[Jave]

3 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

...Treehouse has done every single localization barring Awakening. Yes, that's right. The very same company.

For the record, 8-4 Studios, who localized Awakening, also localized Shadow Dragon.

[SuperIb]

+Extrasolar +RedEyedDrake

ohmygod if you want any input or an opinion from someone who is *actually* gay, just ask me.

Also, discrimination doesn't have to be directed at the minority, it could be either. It's not something that's based on numbers. (Dunno if I have full context of what you guys are talking about, but just want to clarify this)

[Extrasolar]

6 minutes ago, SuperIb said:

ohmygod if you want any input or an opinion from someone who is *actually* gay, just ask me.

I'd definitely be interested in your opinion on this. Could you give us your opinion on Kyza and Soleil's localization? (Not asking you to speak as the spokesperson for all gay people, because that's just ridiculous.)

6 minutes ago, SuperIb said:

Also, discrimination doesn't have to be directed at the minority, it could be either. It's not something that's based on numbers. (Dunno if I have full context of what you guys are talking about, but just want to clarify this)

I think you're confusing discrimination with prejudice. People in the majority can certainly be victims of prejudice (simply meaning that someone could assume that they're a certain way because they're a majority), but they most certainly do not fall victim to the societal discrimination that minorities fall victim to. That's not comparable.

28 minutes ago, Jave said:

For the record, 8-4 Studios, who localized Awakening, also localized Shadow Dragon.

Ah. Well, in any event, POR and RD were localized by Treehouse just as Fates was.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Extrasolar

[AmericanBuizel]

31 minutes ago, Jave said:

For the record, 8-4 Studios, who localized Awakening, also localized Shadow Dragon.

Even then, their localization of Awakening was bad.