Jump to content

Localization and Censorship?


Recommended Posts

Personally, the only way I could really be that upset about the localization is if they go the Ace Combat 3 Electrosphere route. As it is... not really worried on that front. So far we barely know what's new to think if it might be changed, anyway. And what's already there... well, yeah, not really worried on that, either.

25 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

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!"

You know, this particular note caught my curiosity. Was there someone that identified with Japanese!Soleil? And if so... what did they may have thought about said localization change.

 

And speaking of things that make me think over stuff. All this talk about representaion,and "tokens", and whathaveyou... first thing that comes to mind is Effi. I could expand on what I mean, but not sure if this is really the thread for it. Though for the record, I don't agree on the notion that we need to include X people just to avoid not incluiding X people. If I were to make a work about the Sengoku Jidai, I wouldn't go adding a Native American, for example. By the way, plausiblity is not 0 (I can explain if needed), but that still wouldn't make me add one. Or feel that I'd be forced to if I don't. I would just want my decision to be simply be seen as a writing choice, not a declaration of racism/sexism/whathaveyou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

I don't agree on the notion that we need to include X people just to avoid not incluiding X people. If I were to make a work about the Sengoku Jidai, I wouldn't go adding Native American, for example.

Japan is pretty much 98% racially homogeneous, so it makes sense that their works would as a whole involve all-Japanese casts (barring works not set in Japan or a Japanese analogue like Hoshido).

Most Japanese works set in Japan (especially during the isolationist period) are justified in having a majorly (if not completely) Japanese cast, considering that was just the reality of it, especially so in the Sengoku Era. America in 2k17 has a huge population of non-white, LGBT, and women, to the point that simply not including them is not only not realistic, but also inexplicable and unacceptable.
 

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

You know, this particular note caught my curiosity. Was there someone that identified with Japanese!Soleil? And if so... what did they may have thought about said localization change.

From the essays and statements I've read on her, the Japanese as a whole know about her trope, so they weren't expecting any LGBT representation out of her at all. They were baffled about the outrage in the localization and people complaining about Treehouse "censoring" her, since to them, she was never homosexual to begin with. But I am definitely not an authority on the matter.

 

1 hour ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Or feel that I'd be forced to if I don't. I would just want my decision to be simply be seen as a writing choice, not a declaration of racism/sexism/whathaveyou.

I'm not saying that every writer who excludes [x] minority characters is overtly racist/sexist/homophobic, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Why don't they include these characters? Do they simply forget or overlook their existence? That's a problem in and of itself. Are they "uncomfortable" with characters like this or writing characters like this? Another huge problem.

Edited by Extrasolar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I might sound like a douche but whatever let's go:

@Extrasolar

(I'm not saying that every writer who excludes [x] minority characters is overtly racist/sexist/homophobic, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Why don't they include these characters? Do they simply forget or overlook their existence? That's a problem in and of itself. Are they "uncomfortable" with characters like this or writing characters like this? Another huge problem. )

Because they are a minority. As such, they are not representative of the majority. Moreover, when you write something you install a context, may it be a realistic one, taken from past history, or a fictional one, that can derive from a realistic one. As such you writing must be respectful of it's context.

Including a minority, or having characters eplicitly showing they're part of it, mustn't be there for the sake of the fact that it exists. No one would dare saying they were homosexual in the middle age. If the writer does include an element such out of place in a such context, that's because either he has a message to communicate, or he wants to develop something about that homosexual character and the consequences of it's sexuality in a such context. So no, excluding x minority, it's either a respect of the context, or simply because it wouldn't have added anything to the story.

Edited by Peanut Brudda
posted by mistake, currently finishing it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Japan is pretty much 98% racially homogeneous, so it makes sense that their works would as a whole involve all-Japanese casts (barring works not set in Japan or a Japanese analogue like Hoshido).

Most Japanese works set in Japan (especially during the isolationist period) are justified in having a majorly (if not completely) Japanese cast, considering that was just the reality of it, especially so in the Sengoku Era. America in 2k17 has a huge population of non-white, LGBT, and women, to the point that simply not excluding them is not only not realistic, but also inexplicable and unacceptable.
 

From the essays and statements I've read on her, the Japanese as a whole know about her trope, so they weren't expecting any LGBT representation out of her at all. They were baffled about the outrage in the localization and people complaining about Treehouse "censoring" her, since to them, she was never homosexual to begin with. But I am definitely not an authority on the matter.

 

I'm not saying that every writer who excludes [x] minority characters is overtly racist/sexist/homophobic, but it's a symptom of a bigger problem. Why don't they include these characters? Do they simply forget or overlook their existence? That's a problem in and of itself. Are they "uncomfortable" with characters like this or writing characters like this? Another huge problem.

True, 2017 America has variety... but are we talking both in the general and specific senses? Some areas are still gonna be as homogeneous as it could get. Location and time is key, after all.

I meant reactions to her localization from the viewpoint of someone who is of the same "trope", as you put it.

It's never a simple answer. And sometimes, not figuring the complexity behind it can lead to such conclusions. For example, it is easier to think that not including black people was done out of racism (specially if the author is non-black), than to think black people weren't included because the setting doesn't allow for areas with high sunlight concentrations for people to develop the high levels of eumelanin needed to counter high UV light radiation, and the skin darkens due to the high eumelanin. Or the setting is one with high risks for Vitamin D defficiency and the ability to counter that has not yet been developed, since Vitamin D doesn't exactly have that many sources outside exposure to sunlight, which the high eumalin levels actually hinder in a dark-skinned person, for Vitamin D absorption. Just to give an example. If I'm wrong with this line of thought, anyone feel free to correct/expand on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

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.)

Time for an essay, lmao. Remember, this is all my opinion. Like you said, I definitely don't represent every gay person haha.

If I'm being honest, I really don't mind one way or another. As for Kyza, I personally don't mind the localization, but I think I would've preferred his JP personality a bit more. Personally I prefer the original content of games, whatever that may be. (With some exceptions here-or-there. Regardless, I was okay with Kyza) And I mean, I know he was kind of a joke and more-or-less was a stereotype being very feminine and what not, but it never bothered me. I kind of liked him as he was, actually. What would've slightly bothered me was if they made him not only feminine in mannerisms, but also in appearance. Even then, as long as they aren't projecting that kind of trope onto every gay person in the world, I don't really care that much. I feel like when they localized him he lost some of his personality and charm.

Anyways, as for Soleil, I'm fine with either-or. I find both JP and localized Soleil hilarious. I don't feel offended by any means, it really just entertains me. I remember when the big controversy over Soleil/Kamui's supports came out. I again thought they were funny and entertaining, but I guess people thought it was gay conversion and made a huge deal over it. Well, that and the whole "slipping something into someone's drink." I mean, I don't think it was the most well written thing, but again, it was funny and at the end of the day it really didn't mean anything, nor did it hurt anyone. (At least it shouldn't have)

I just feel like big deals are made from these kind of things when they shouldn't be. Maybe I just don't get bothered by much, but I think it often gets blown out of proportion, especially by people who aren't even apart of these "minorities" or by those who are just over-sensitive. I just don't feel like I need to be "represented" just because I'm gay, and I most certainly don't want to either. I rather hetero/homo characters just be what they are - characters. I don't want to be "represented" over one aspect of who I am. I'd understand why someone would be upset if they genuinely do want to be represented, but for me that's unimportant and a trivial matter.

Anywho, that's my two-cents on this whole thing. I just hope I read the situation and your stances correctly. I want to avoid making an ass out of myself by saying something stupid or unrelated, lol.

EDIT: I should mention that I don't have a family that's like, anti-LGBT or anything, so that's probably one reason I don't want/need representation. I feel like if I was perhaps from a family that was anti-LGBT, my stance would be altered (possibly along with various other points). So definitely note that.

58 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

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.

Discrimination is literally being prejudicial towards different groups of people, regardless of what those groups may be. Saying that the majority can't be victims of discrimination is like saying white people can't be victims or racism. By definition it's prejudice or discrimination directed towards someone or a group of people of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. It doesn't have constraints like, "Oh, white people can't be discriminated against." Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't make it impossible. It's also like saying that men can't be victims or sexism, even though it's discrimination based on gender.

Edited by SuperIb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, AmericanBuizel said:

Even then, their localization of Awakening was bad.

Maybe you could actually help moving the discussion along through explaining to us what exactly it is that makes all these localizations so insufferable? I don't really recall seeing much from you about that topic besides claiming that Nyx had a support with <unspecified person> behaving like a "SJW cuck".

Also, which studio should do the localisations in your opinion? You seem to be satisfied with neither Treehouse nor 8-4, and I'm afraid that those two are the only ones that have been translating FE games unless I'm mistaken right now.

29 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

And speaking of things that make me think over stuff. All this talk about representaion,and "tokens", and whathaveyou... first thing that comes to mind is Effi. I could expand on what I mean, but not sure if this is really the thread for it. Though for the record, I don't agree on the notion that we need to include X people just to avoid not incluiding X people. If I were to make a work about the Sengoku Jidai, I wouldn't go adding a Native American, for example. By the way, plausiblity is not 0 (I can explain if needed), but that still wouldn't make me add one. Or feel that I'd be forced to if I don't. I would just want my decision to be simply be seen as a writing choice, not a declaration of racism/sexism/whathaveyou.

I don't think that anyone is really trying to force tons of minorities into every possible setting, just those where it's kind of realistic? Like, I won't expect women in leading positions in a game about some templar stuff or lots of openly gay relationships during a medieval Japanese setting, but that's an entirely different thing for fantasy worlds like Fates imo.

I still do remember the debates about whether homosexual marriage options should be added for Fates, and even then most arguments against it just boiled down to "not possible because of being unrealistic in a scenario similar to the middle ages". In cases like these, I'm 100% for minority inclusion, as nobody is trying to replicate some sort of accurate historical setting here, but it's simply a fantasy game, even more so when your avatar's relationships should normally represent you, the potentially LGBT player.

7 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

True, 2017 America has variety... but are we talking both in the general and specific senses? Some areas are still gonna be as homogeneous as it could get. Location and time is key, after all.

I meant reactions to her localization from the viewpoint of someone who is of the same "trope", as you put it.

It's never a simple answer. And sometimes, not figuring the complexity behind it can lead to such conclusions. For example, it is easier to think that not including black people was done out of racism (specially if the author is non-black), than to think black people weren't included because the setting doesn't allow for areas with high sunlight concentrations for people to develop the high levels of eumelanin needed to counter high UV light radiation, and the skin darkens due to the high eumelanin. Or the setting is one with high risks for Vitamin D defficiency and the ability to counter that has not yet been developed, since Vitamin D doesn't exactly have that many sources outside exposure to sunlight, which the high eumalin levels actually hinder in a dark-skinned person, for Vitamin D absorption. Just to give an example. If I'm wrong with this line of thought, anyone feel free to correct/expand on it.

Even then, that didn't stop them from putting the obviously black Basilio and the somewhat darker-skinned Flavia into the cold and snowy Ferox, while a good bunch of people from the desert nation Plegia are actually totally pale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

True, 2017 America has variety... but are we talking both in the general and specific senses? Some areas are still gonna be as homogeneous as it could get. Location and time is key, after all.

I've found the the problem is people just accept "oh well there must have been all-white people in [x] place (Europe or America, for example) before the slave trade, right?" No. People have been traveling and moving around since there was a human race, no matter what color. There were black vikings, the Moors in Europe, all of that.

And LGBT people have existed forever as well - I remember how surprised I was that the likes of Hans Christian Andersen was bisexual, and William Shakespeare was likely bisexual as well. It was the days before I really knew about gender identities other than heterosexual and (stereotypical) homosexual.

21 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

It's never a simple answer. And sometimes, not figuring the complexity behind it can lead to such conclusions. For example, it is easier to think that not including black people was done out of racism (specially if the author is non-black), than to think black people weren't included because the setting doesn't allow for areas with high sunlight concentrations for people to develop the high levels of eumelanin needed to counter high UV light radiation, and the skin darkens due to the high eumelanin. Or the setting is one with high risks for Vitamin D defficiency and the ability to counter that has not yet been developed, since Vitamin D doesn't exactly have that many sources outside exposure to sunlight, which the high eumalin levels actually hinder in a dark-skinned person, for Vitamin D absorption. Just to give an example. If I'm wrong with this line of thought, anyone feel free to correct/expand on it.

Darker-skinned people exist as far north as the Arctic, with the Inuit Native Americans. They definitely don't get much sunlight, but they're definitely darker than the average white person.

And at the end of the day, fantasy stories are fantasy worlds that the author has complete control over.

Just like in stories set in the real world, people like to see themselves represented over any possible "realism." I mean, FE does this: Women in armies weren't traditionally a thing in our real medieval world, but it would suck if all of our female characters in FE were relegated to the sidelines. Sure, it would be realistic, but me and other women wouldn't be being represented as badass and capable warriors just like the men would be. The same for darker-skinned characters. (Granted, we've only gotten, what, 5 of them in FE history? Danved/Devdan, Niles, Basilio, Flavia and Fiona? Come on, improve your track record, IS!)

14 minutes ago, SuperIb said:

I just feel like big deals are made from these kind of things when they shouldn't be. Maybe I just don't get bothered by much, but I think it often gets blown out of proportion, especially by people who aren't even apart of these "minorities" or by those who are just over-sensitive.

Thanks for your thoughts! And...you have a point on this. People who aren't the minority in question often tend to speak over people who fit the minority...unfortunately.

Just as you weren't bothered and even enjoy original Kyza and original Soleil, there are others I've seen that would be hurt by such a portrayal, and neither perspective is wrong or inferior.
 

14 minutes ago, SuperIb said:

Saying that the majority can't be victims of discrimination is like saying white people can't be victims or racism.

For the most part they can't. People have been fired and assauled for being gay, non-white, etc., but that's just not a thing that happens to white or heterosexual people. Can they be judged because they're white and heterosexual? Yes. But bullying and discrimination and violence are leagues apart. People have lost rights for being non-white, female, and LGBT, whereas the people who fit those descriptions have not.

Edited by Extrasolar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

Just as you weren't bothered and even enjoy original Kyza and original Soleil, there are others I've seen that would be hurt by such a portrayal, and neither perspective is wrong or inferior.

I suppose it really is rather subjective and I definitely agree with you.

3 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

For the most part they can't. People have been fired and assauled for being gay, non-white, etc., but that's just not a thing that happens to white or heterosexual people. Can they be judged because they're white and heterosexual? Yes. But bullying and discrimination and violence are leagues apart. People have lost rights for being non-white, female, and LGBT, whereas the people who fit those descriptions have not.

But the point is by definition they still can be. I mean, obviously there are different degrees, ESPECIALLY in other places around the world and I fully acknowledge that and understand. I know that heterosexual white men are very very rarely the case of any kind of discrimination, but refusing them by saying that they can't be discriminated against is still wrong and incorrect, regardless of circumstance. Same goes for any group or people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Extrasolar said:

I've found the the problem is people just accept "oh well there must have been all-white people in [x] place (Europe or America, for example) before the slave trade, right?" No. People have been traveling and moving around since there was a human race, no matter what color. There were black vikings, the Moors in Europe, all of that.

And LGBT people have existed forever as well - I remember how surprised I was that the likes of Hans Christian Andersen was bisexual, and William Shakespeare was likely bisexual as well. It was the days before I really knew about gender identities other than heterosexual and (stereotypical) homosexual.

Darker-skinned people exist as far north as the Arctic, with the Inuit Native Americans. They definitely don't get much sunlight, but they're definitely darker than the average white person.

And at the end of the day, fantasy stories are fantasy worlds that the author has complete control over.

Just like in stories set in the real world, people like to see themselves represented over any possible "realism." I mean, FE does this: Women in armies weren't traditionally a thing in our real medieval world, but it would suck if all of our female characters in FE were relegated to the sidelines. Sure, it would be realistic, but me and other women wouldn't be being represented as badass and capable warriors just like the men would be. The same for darker-skinned characters. (Granted, we've only gotten, what, 5 of them in FE history? Danved/Devdan, Niles, Basilio, Flavia and Fiona? Come on, improve your track record, IS!)

Just like how end of the spectrum is possible, so is the other. Why is it hard to accept that perhaps X place could be homogeneous? If Japan in their isolationist phase were able to mostly do it on the national level... what stops a single town?

Because depending on who you ask, humans actually developed lighter skin tones after the dark ones. When they moved to latitudes where the dark-skin was a hindrance, their bodies started to develop less eumelanin, hence lighter skin tones. People like the Innuit, however, were able to get their Vitamin D from stuff like fish oil and the like, from the artic fish. HEAVY diets of artic fish. Hence, their bodies had no need to lower the eumelanin levels that much, as there was no need.

True, fantasy means we are free from such binds reality gives us... but why should that mean we have to discard them completely? Or embrace them all at once? Maybe skin tones and clothes and gender ratios aren't the same thing, for example, but people are known to want realism for some, but not for others. In the end... the line is never one. It's all blurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Just like how end of the spectrum is possible, so is the other. Why is it hard to accept that perhaps X place could be homogeneous? If Japan in their isolationist phase were able to mostly do it on the national level... what stops a single town?

If it's explicitly part of the story, like the Emperor closing off Japan to all foreign influence, then it makes sense. But most of the time, it's not. Everyone's just inexplicably white and straight as though everyone else vanished into the aether all of a sudden. That's when it becomes a problem, because logically, they should be there right alongside the majority.
 

19 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

True, fantasy means we are free from such binds reality gives us... but why should that mean we have to discard them completely? Or embrace them all at once? Maybe skin tones and clothes and gender ratios aren't the same thing, for example, but people are known to want realism for some, but not for others. In the end... the line is never one. It's all blurred.

If they're behind-the-times and/or offensive, then yes, by all means discard them, unless that's the effect you're going for. (.i.e., you're intentionally framing them as restrictive and unfair, call them out for being so). That's why stuff like medieval army women in FE is so great, as is gay marriage and openly bisexual Niles. Is it realistic? Hell no. But people who are being represented don't care, and want to see themselves being awesome.
 

Quote

 

Including a minority, or having characters eplicitly showing they're part of it, mustn't be there for the sake of the fact that it exists. No one would dare saying they were homosexual in the middle age. If the writer does include an element such out of place in a such context, that's because either he has a message to communicate, or he wants to develop something about that homosexual character and the consequences of it's sexuality in a such context. So no, excluding x minority, it's either a respect of the context, or simply because it wouldn't have added anything to the story.

 

I disagree. If there were gay people in the middle ages (and there were, since gay people are not a recent invention), then they should be there in your medieval work alongside the straight people. Now, you can definitely add the context of discrimination in more realistic works, but gay people were still gay even when they couldn't explicitly show it.

And that's a problem, in which every minority in a context has to have their story reflected around being their minority. That's tiresome and flat. Let gay people and women exist as gay people and women in fantasy and medieval contexts without defaulting to "she's a women so this story is gonna be about her being a woman" or "he's gay so this story is gonna be able him being gay." Heterosexual men don't get stories focused explicitly around them being heterosexual men.

Edited by Extrasolar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Extrasolar

 

I agree,

Aren't all people the same? we are all humans. It shouldn't matter what colour our skin has or what sexual preferences someone has.

just because there are more people with asshair than those without doesn't mean that everyone should be judged on their amount of asshair and we shouldn't judge if we include people with asshair in our game or not.

This is true for the colour as well.

Why should i care if a character in a Videogame is black or white or what percentage of them is in a game? why should i care if a character has asshair or not?

In the end colour, asshair and sexuality are no more than a label; it is unimportant for the character; i don't identify myself as a hetero white male, i identify myself by my hobbies and my likes, dislikes and with what i do.

And so do you.

 

But two other things:

we shouldn't force a label on an already defined preexisting character.

Treehouse made a wrong decision to make the complexity that was Soleils character into "just another lesbian" for the sake of being lesbian; IS have not created Soleil for the sake of having a lesbian there.

I wouldn't change Alm into a black woman; he was defined as a white dude with green hair from the beginning so he should stay a white dude with green hair.

I wouldn't want frozone from the incredibles to be white either; his image has been burned into my brain.

 

and since sexual preference or colour or asshair don't matter to ones character why should we include that in anything? it doesn't contribute to anything when i say "tesla invented xyz and zzy also btw. he had sexual relations with pidgeons and he was male and white!" Nobody cares except kids and racists what colour, sexuality or gender he has; he probably was an alright guy and invented lots of useful stuff and thats what actually matters.

Its just like the mentioning of someone has asshair or not; its a fact but it doesn't add or reduce ones value.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...