Topic: Why is NOA going back to their old ways on making Nintendo seem like a baby console?

@Ryu_Niiyama

Thank you for your very elaborate answer.

In general, writing this, I did not have in mind some very hardcore, obscene productions, but rather more normal productions that fall (or until now have fallen) within the rating system. the rules that nintendo now imposes contradict what nintendo itself said earlier:

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/06/nintendo_has_no_pla...

I think it was very fair and reasonable and won the respect of many people by such an approach, unlike Sony which started making all sorts of strange decisions. I think ratings are enough, or possibly additional age verification and parental control tools. Additional blocking of rated content, I think a little, I don't know.... like treating adults in the US and Europe after all as idiots people who are not mature, who themselves do not know what is good for their eyes and what and are not able to recognize whether it will offend their feelings or not.

But again let me remind you, I'm talking more about the normal productions imo. At same time i think that for humanity, however, a some reasonable moderation is needed and when it comes to >really< obscene creations.... I think it would be better for mankind if, in spite of everything, they were not created and just because, you can create something does not mean that you should. However, this is a slightly different topic.

@skywake

Yet I think some of the newer productions are pushing this boundary even further. An example is “Sex Education” from Netflix. It tells the story of teenagers under 18, and no, not in a cringey way, but it also takes itself seriously and even shows nudity. Yet the series was not met with any outrage, but rather was received quite positively by critics and even got a sizable number of fans (arguably, and a large one among adults...). Sooo...?

And here, too, I think you don't quite understand how these games work or you haven't dealt with them. In Visual Novel games we have virtually no control over the main character.... It has a defined charter we do not play ourselves, but another character living in this world) and rather we observe as player events that happen in a linear way and we have little or no influence. And a person in high school I would certainly no longer call children, the age of 16-17 is no longer so innocent let's be honest and there is no need to make it taboo in my opinion. And once again, these are >fictional<, not even realistic-looking characters often in a fantasy world.

When I read a comment the other day about how people were outraged by Persona 5 and the possibility of dating and the appearance of one of the 17-year-old characters, I just... ¯(ツ)/¯... in my opinion this is a definite exaggeration. In the same way that the creators of Hogwarts Legacy explained the lack of a relationship system because they felt that dating for characters of that age would be inappropriate....

There's the Nintendo I recognize. Their experiment with loosened restrictions this gen was fun. Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Good thing almost every game goes to Steam now.

@Kuroyumu
To be clear, this thread is about bathing suit DLC for an anime themed racing game. There's really no reason for that DLC to exist other than to show some skin. It's like DoA, you're probably not there for the fighting game. What I'm talking about broadly is how far in that direction the eShop has gone on the Switch over the years and how it would be in Nintendo's interest to draw the line somewhere. Especially given how far the significantly less restricted Steam store front has gone. I think teenage sexuality is a fairly reasonable place to draw that line

I mean, at the end of the day it's not like you can't access this kind of content elsewhere and I don't mean to come across as judgey. I am no Anti. It just..... it's a bit hard to not have the eyebrows raised when people passionately decry the "censorship" of this stuff. Especially when you explicitly call out teen dating sims. It's..... yeah.... if you can't see why NoA would want to avoid that association I don't know what to say to that

@skywake I believe, suggesting by the title of the topic set up and subsequent posts, this thread is not only about the DLC mentioned in the first post but about the general changes and rules that may be currently being changed now by nintendo. And while I am not interested in the specifically mentioned title I am looking for some justice in this topic. And let's be honest, you're not the target audience for this title, why can't you leave it for people who maybe enjoy this niche genre of games? Your fierce criticism also raises my eyebrows in a way.

I think on this topic you don't know much about the DoA series, because it is indeed a great gameplay fighting game, with a very rich and unique variety of fighters who also have guest appearances in other games, and the fanservice here is the spice that makes the game even more appreciated by fans. But it also targets a certain target here, and not everything has to be for everyone, so it's probably not a game for people who don't like fanservice too much. Is that so hard to understand?

Also again I find it very strange to emphasize how big a problem >fictional< characters are who look like teenagers wearing swimsuits. You write it in a way that makes it weirder than it actually is. I personally think that characters in such outfits can look cute or cool, but if someone makes it a problem and sees it as worse than it actually is.... Then maybe he has a problem after all?

You probably have a big prejudice by the flood of cheap games on eshop having “hentai” in the title generated by AI, reminiscent of anime in their style, but almost certainly not from Japanese developers and have no quality and definitely spoil the image of the medium of real Japanese games and create harmful stereotypes. Unfortunately, this is a big problem that Nintendo has very much overlooked.

And of course I find the school setting, perfect for dating sims. That's what young people do in real life. They make friends and fall in love for the first time. Let's pretend they don't do that? Again, you make it sound weirder than it should. Most people have gone through this in their lives or will go through you are able to identify with it too.

So what should a dating sims setting be like. A work office where adult people are already in steady relationships and have partners and romances with other people from work? IMO, that would be a not so moral concept.

@Kuroyumu That's fair. I apologize for misjudging you. It seems there has been an increase in troll accounts on hookshot sights as of late, which is why I jumped to the unfair conclusion. So yeah, that's my bad . It seems I've lost the plot with this thread, but the initial outrage was the banning of dlc that depicted characters that look like minors in revealing clothing. So while the points you present are interesting, I question their relevance to this specific situation. And I simply do not have the knowledge of NOA's censorship history outside of this instance to argue if I agree with them or not (I do agree with this particular case though).

@Kuroyumu
As I said in my first post in this thread. I'm fundamentally and ideologically for free and open access to content. I'm not suggesting that this content be banned. I'm not intending to tell people what content they can and can't enjoy. There are other people on these forums who push that case much, much harder than I am and I've regularly clashed with them on their views in the past

Personally if I was running a platform such as the eShop? I would lean towards the more open approach Valve has taken. I would make other changes to allow people to more easily filter, rate and find content but I wouldn't be disallowing content. To the extent that the laws would allow at least (wait that said, personally, if I was to run such a platform I'd probably still clamp down on hate speech a bit harder than would be legally required. Full openness in that particular direction just ends up with your platform becoming another 4chan. I would still have some lines to draw. But that's a bit of another discussion).

However allowing or not allowing content on a platform is in and of itself a form of speech. It isn't censorship, it's freedom of expression for the platforms themselves. That should be protected. That's what freedom of expression is. And, frankly, I think it's pretty damn clear why NoA would want to draw this particular line. You have to be pretty willfully ignorant not to see that. I wouldn't take the decisions they do but I understand it

The other point I was making was more that it always seemed a bit strange to me when people write long posts complaining about these kinds of things. Like when a Smash Bros character gets a longer dress in one region or they give some Fire Emblem character less cleavage. Or in this case not allowing bathing suit DLC for a racing game. Seems to me an odd thing to write paragraphs about, especially when this content is easily accessible on other platforms. Is this really a thing to get worked up about? I would've thought not. Maybe that makes me "not the target market" for Princess Peach upskirts and the like but..... you know.... I'm happy to take that label if you feel it's an insult

Not suggesting you're doing this, although I certainly believe you're misreading my intent for one reason or another. But I do feel that when people get outraged about this sort of thing it's not really about the "censorship" itself.....

Sex Education is a series that's spefically about teenage sexuality and relationships. It deals with the subject matter in a respectful manner that isn't sexist and doesn't objectify the teenage characters; titillation is clearly not what they're aiming for in the series. It's quite different from having swimwear DLC and other such objectifying scenes for teen characters, where the whole purpose is quite obviously titillation and the sexualisation of teenage bodies.

So yeah, teenage sexuality and teen bodies are not the issue here, it's the approach the game/series/movie/etc. takes in portraying them. There are games available for the Switch that deal with teen sexuality in a similarly respectful manner as Sex Education does (I Was a Teenage Exocolonist is the most recent example to come to mind), and clearly NOA and NOE have no issues with them.

@skywake
It’s is optional content so why not leave the content available? Why not let the parents be……well…….parents. You can set it up so a child cannot purchase certain content (or any content period) unless they give the a ok. The Neptunia games are very tongue in cheek with their humor and references and are not catered to a younger demographic (seriously it’s rated T and like Ace Attorney only one of its games got rated M but not again in the recent ports). You know what?! The rating system only works when PARENTS and CAREGIVERS use the tools available to them! They have a clear message what games are rated for what age groups. Don’t want your precious poor baby to see violence and sexual content? DONT BUY M RATED CONTENT! Stick to the rare Ec rating for baby games and E games.

Oh and newsflash people! By making content so obviously bad for them it only makes that content more appealing because nothing is more tempting to a young mind that which is forbidden. Let’s be honest we’ve all been there and done that!

And no you can’t claim freedom of self expression to deny someone else’s freedom of expression. That’s not how that works. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. They should also stop trying to legislate morality because everyone’s moral values are so vastly different that imposing in that also imposes on freedom of speech and expression. Maybe they should tackle real problems instead of worrying about fake pixelated fictional characters.

@GameOtaku I think in this thread if I understood it correctly @skywake said that is generally in favor of openness and does not insist on banning this type of content, however expressed that does not have an interest in this type of content, feels offensive and is not the recipient of this type of content. I think it fair. however, I feel that behind these words there is also criticism and dislike for people who may like such things.

However, I find problematic comments like “I'm glad the're getting rid of it” and others like it, advocating censorship and trying to moralize others. Personally, I find these people selfish, because if anything is offensive to them or not to their taste, they want to ban it from everyone.

Unfortunately, but the trend of tailoring everything to everyone so that no one feels offended I perceive more and more often as damaging. I think that certain individuals should understand that they are not the most important and the world does not revolve around them, and I think it is a good thing that there are contents intended for different groups.

Maybe a good option would be when setting up an account on Steam or eshop, pre-configuration and the ability to deselect tags that non-interested people would not want to see? (NSFW, extreme brutality, gambling, content that could be perceived as stereotypical or offensive).

My only opinion of this is the same one I always have. I don't think they should do this but I'm just jealous of anyone who has such few problems in their life that this is worth much time talking about.

I would be a much happier person if this was a notable concern of mine. If it was even a blip on my radar.

@kkslider5552000 I mean, very fair, but the same statement could be made for any discussion on this site... or about 99.999% of the internet in general. This site in particular is about games so I feel any discussion here shouldn't be treated too seriously; discussing game-related news is just part of the gaming hobby and we're all fortunate here to to have the resources or leisure to have such a hobby.

That said, in any 'freedom of speech' type controversy, I assume the underlying worry is that one small thing is indicative of a trend towards reduced freedom which might eventually lead to something larger which has a more serious effect. Personally I don't think that applies to this particular case since it is a private company making it's own decisions, but I kind of understand the instinctive 'less freedom = bad' reaction even though I feel it is a little misplaced in this conversation. Of course it is also true that 'more freedom= bad' in some cases so small adjustments back and forth shouldn't really be a surprise.

I'm just amazed that every time stuff like this pops up, people get mad over the fact that they can't buy a game that sexualizes teenage girls- or get mad with the removal of content that sexualizes teenage girls. I was around when the Xenoblade Chronicles X controversy happened- where people were upset with the removal of the breast slider and upset with Lin not being in a hyper-sexual swimsuit (despite her canonical age being 13). I remember when people cried "censorship" when NoA removed the ability to marry the children characters in Fire Emblem Engage.

I'm not someone who advocates for censorship across the board. If a game were to change an entire script to make it more "family friendly," and removing the original intent of the author- then I agree that it's a problem. If a company doesn't want a minor to be sexualized due to backlash though and different cultural standards/norms, then I agree that it shouldn't be in the release within that country. It's a circumstantial situation, and I genuinely don't get why people see it in such a black and white way.

If I'm fighting against censorship, it's against actual literal censorship. Messages being changed in their entirety to appease a government. Games being banned from a country as a whole because of the chance that it could spread "harmful messages and ideologies." Not a situation where a company (a private platform) decides that they don't want DLC or a game that sexualizes teenage girls or lets you marry children to be on their console. It isn't being "censored" because people are sensitive. It's being censored because it's pretty disgusting and would be a crime if it were real people and not fictional characters.

I agree, but the fact is that I've seen it taken too seriously too often to want to see discussions on it anymore.

Kinda touches on the point I was getting at earlier which was maybe lost a bit. Probably easier if we use an example outside of this specific topic so it's easier to illustrate

Imagine you're a hotel and it's a generally accepted norm that you put a Christian Bible in the bedside table. But you, the owner of this specific hotel, are not Christian. You don't really want to promote it. It's against your religion, or lack thereof, to promote it. So you choose NOT to follow this. Your ability to do this is, in and of itself, a form of speech. You're not a government, you have no power over other hotels, you just set the conditions of your hotel. In a free and open market you can choose what kind of product you wish to sell and as a free citizen you can make these kinds of value statements. Not censorship

Then some Politian comes to your hotel, doesn't see the bible, gets worked up about it. Runs a campaign on it, calls for boycotts, pushes for new laws and so on. Again, this is a form of speech at this point. But then the politician gets elected and passes a law that demands a bible be in every hotel room. This isn't censorship however it WOULD be a violation of the hotel provider's freedom of speech

Fuelled by outrage over this some anti-religion politician comes in. They run a campaign on banning religious texts from hotels entirely. Again, at this point this is still just speech and they are fine to do this. But then the politician gets elected and passes a law that bans all religious texts from being placed in Hotels. Now this here, this is the point where it becomes censorship

I think a lot of us on this website live in countries where that more major censorship fortunately doesn't seem to be happening in the gaming sphere so people who want to fight censorship glom onto these small little 'artistic freedom' cases instead. Although ironically if there was a more serious censorship discussion here I could imagine the discussion getting a little too politically heated and being shut down.

To be fair, almost everything which happens in video games would be a crime in real life. Slaughtering turtles in the middle of the street is a crime. Jumping on roofs or walking into random houses and stealing things... Cutting down all the trees in parks and planting random herbs. Or, y'know, shooting people. Given that it is fiction, I think your/various consumers 'it is gross' reaction is what Nintendo actually cares about. As well as staying well on the safe side of any regional regulations.

Don't care about neptunia but we all know where this ends. People will push for more and more in their eternal holy war to save fictional characters from being treated like objects (which they are, they aren't people lmao) and all the way down they will gaslight everyone by calling them gooners or whatever is the latest trendy term is.

@FishyS The issue though is that while games have you committing acts that would be crimes in our reality, minors being sexualized are enabling a group of people who are genuinely bordering on being real life criminals. It's giving them an outlet to content that lets them see under-aged characters in skimpy outfits.

I'm fine with adult characters wearing whatever, but children is where I genuinely draw the line. It's one of the few reasons I can't get into a good amount of anime for example.

@skywake In this situation I see it more as how people see social media. Even if a country like America has freedom of speech within their constitution, that is only going as far as to say that the government themselves cannot persecute you for saying things like: "I don't like this president," or writing books, games, or music that talks bad about a president/the country itself. Even though in America the constitution upholds freedom of speech, private companies don't have to follow through with that. They can set their own rules for how people can act or what people can say (within reason). Nintendo, just like a social media platform is a private platform. It isn't owned by a government agency or body. They can make their own rules, and if a game doesn't follow it- it just isn't going to be brought over.

In this situation, the game in question doesn't fit their guidelines. The reason why is most likely because it sexualizes minors as a core part of the product. In the example you gave, I would say that Nintendo is more akin to the hotel owner that doesn't want to promote the content in question. Sure, they're making a rule that decides that they don't want it on their console- but it's ultimately their choice. The game isn't banned in America and people can still play it elsewhere.

@Rosamira I'm just tired of people complaining about not being able to look at under aged characters in swimsuits. I'd get the argument if the character was a grown adult, but it's a literal child. Yes, I know that characters aren't real, but it still enables actual pedophiles and groomers by giving them art of a child in the first place.

Well, if this was a discussion on the Australian Classification Board either banning or giving unreasonably high age ratings for games? I'd be on the other side of the discussion. Because our classification board seems to have a thing for effectively banning the sale of games. It's a surprisingly long list.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_video_games_in_A...

I very much don't agree with that. Especially coming form the government, even more when you look at the reasons behind some of these and it's clear there was direct political pressure. And notably some of these decisions caused the game to be changed globally to secure an Australian release

.............. but a government doing this is very, very different to a platform doing it

@skywake Ratings boards are generally some of the worst things to happen to video games as an art form imo. I get why on some level it needed to be done, but even still people don't heed the warnings either way. Kids still get M rated games. Countries abuse their own systems in order to stop the sale of games they don't like. At times it even stops creators from delving into more complex subject matter because the corporations making the game want to aim for a specific rating.

@skywake Wow, the ban for drug use in a low-res shmup is super weird. It's rated Mature in NA, but why an actual ban in Australia? Those are some weird rating rules.