I was thinking about getting it but I seem to remember hearing that it got censored in some way. What exactly did they change? What all is wrong with it?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
It depends on what you're giving Nintendo the benefit of the doubt on. Nintendo has always had a policy of censorship to play it safe with the North American market. Even in the SNES era, Squaresoft covered up scantily-clad sprites and renamed Holy to Pearl for the US release. This isn't to say the current censorship isn't driven by leftist infiltrators, but it's not out of the ordinary for them either.
Yeah, I don't have any problem with a motivation of "we want to avoid controversy and just sell shit."
I do have a problem with, "we have to cover her up because we're objectifying her to the male gaze!"
NoA used to do the former. Now they are more likely to do the latter.
Motives matter.
Especially because with the latter, most of the people decrying "objectification" in games are big supporters of Twitch thots and music videos being borderline porn. It's literally just pure spite for the audience disguised as ideology.
These are the same thing though.
Not exactly. I grant you that the “controversy” Nintendo was avoiding may have come from the same place, but that doesn’t mean Nintendo bought into it at the time. There’s a definite difference between “whatever, it’s a different culture, I don’t really get why they care but let’s just make a few changes that’ll make them happy so we can sell this” and “I actually believe in this cause!”
Also a huge difference between "let's try not to offend anyone, we want to sell as much as possible" vs. "we must offend bigoted far-right American misogynists and be a force for change in the world, sales be damned" which is NoA today.
The difference being fear of reprisal vs open advocacy. Ok, I guess I can see that being a meaningful distinction.