quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
It would be nice to have the market more open but at the cost of censored/edited games?
Absolutely. Given a choice between no release and an edited release, I'll take the editing.
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
Absolutely. Given a choice between no release and an edited release, I'll take the editing.
Even if they continually edit it because they continually find 'objectional parts' to edit out until we basically have a game by one name but so edited it might as well be a totally new game?
I know that might not happen but for me it is always the fact it has happened with other things in the past (books, magazines, movies, music, etc) and that it very well could happen again that puts me fully against any editing or censorship even if it means they are coming across in their true unedited form to a smaller market.
See I don't think it is a matter of if the game will come across unedited so much as it is when and to how large a market.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 01-24-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Even if they continually edit it because they continually find 'objectional parts' to edit out until we basically have a game by one name but so edited it might as well be a totally new game?[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 01-24-2004).]
We're getting versions that were already edited by the Japanese creators for no-adult home console systems, so I understand. I have no problem with this, since the original creators decided to do this editing themselves. This makes slippery-slope arguments sort of ... irrelevant. At least at the present time - I doubt Hirameki will ever open up an adult division to sell the uncensored versions, and they may start picking up titles that haven't been a priori censored and do it themselves. That would be a different matter.
Oh, and for Nocturnal Illusion - the original release quite ineffectively ripped out some CG - the game displayed a black screen. The text was still there, but nothing was displayed - further they introduced some errors in the script when they ripped out the pictures that caused some scenes to repeat.
[This message has been edited by Nandemonai (edited 01-24-2004).]
People are worried about the harmful effects of editing, and I can understand that. There are also potential benefits to consider. If an R-rated release gets a wider distribution and attracts a wider audience than its X-rated counterpart, the overall market grows. Many new customers are introduced to the genre, and a percentage of them will seek out and buy the unedited release. It’s a variation of the any publicity is good publicity theme.
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
People are worried about the harmful effects of editing, and I can understand that. There are also potential benefits to consider. If an R-rated release gets a wider distribution and attracts a wider audience than its X-rated counterpart, the overall market grows. Many new customers are introduced to the genre, and a percentage of them will seek out and buy the unedited release. It's a variation of the any publicity is good publicity theme.
But they are not introduced to the true genre but rather a G or PG version of the genre. There is a study going back many years now studied in Sociology taught my school, of people that tried to get others to love and just randomly read some of that day's classic and some of that day's popular (many of today's classic) books from the library. Well the problem was at that time most of the books had things in them considered lewd, which by today's standards are tame compared to what aired on MTV in the 1980's and 1990's, and at the time these books were not allowed to be sent through the mail in their true form. They had to edit out a lot of the scenes in many books in order to avoid violating the law, which has since been taken off the books.
Anyway they sent out books like Lady Chatterly's Lover , (whose author refused bow to demands to censor it himself when first released) Tom Swayer , Oliver Twist , etc and a large part of that generation reading such books was reading edited copies. Therefore they not truly prepared when they discovered some of the real scenes in those books and thus the plan failed, they people discovering the real books found them to be in many cases more 'direct' which is how it was intended. These real versions came across in some cases as almost pornographic or sending a dangerous message because the people were never introduced to them in their real forms from the start and just were given the nice G-Rated versions. Thus having never had a chance to experience the real thing and continually hearing how such things as the real thing are horrible abominations, which mostly came from one or two sources to remain nameless, they were never ready truly guided to see the wonder and fun of the real deal.
That could happen here, people could love these games in this form and in the process further decrease potential market of the unedited games for when these people either reach the age to buy unedited games or when they are 'daring' enough to buy them where their spouse might find them they are already use to the edited copies and less likely to rebel by buying the unedited copies. There is always a danger in editing for the sake of a market no matter the cause, in this case I do not think the means justify the ends. Would these games still be enjoyable probably, would they still be worth playing most likely yet I am still not sure if it is worth the possible dangers I see from studying effects editing has had many times in the past, at least from a Sociological perspective.
There is also a double standard in this editing, we release games in this country in which you can vividly see someone dying from a gunshot wound, getting horrible beat up, being painfully killed without mercy and so long as the one doing it is a super-hero or wearing a police or army uniform no one seems to have stepped up and say let's offer softer versions; but these games such as the genre we are discussing, which in theory depicts something that is by far more natural then killing another person, is considered harmful to many groups including minors. That is another issue but it along with many others, some of which I have mentioned here, is also why I am against this editing, the double standard that exists in what is edited.
[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 01-24-2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
These real versions came across in some cases as almost pornographic or sending a dangerous message because the people were never introduced to them in their real forms from the start and just were given the nice G-Rated versions. Thus having never had a chance to experience the real thing and continually hearing how such things as the real thing are horrible abominations, which mostly came from one or two sources to remain nameless, they were never ready truly guided to see the wonder and fun of the real deal.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. It sounds like you're talking about readers who are predisposed to reject adult content because of their cultural prejudices. Such people presumably will not expose themselves to explicit material to begin with and will never develop an appreciation for it. On the other hand, some of these individuals may develop a more flexible attitude once they discover the art has redeeming value. Only those who value intellectual freedom will be converted, but even they must be introduced to the subject.
All I'm saying is it's more likely that some people will be willing to give it a try if it's presented in a milder form. Fewer will bother if only a hardcore version is available. Neither scenario creates more censorship. Censorship is a political and cultural phenomenon that flows and ebbs like the tide with changing social mores. It may rise during a period of great social freedom and it may die back after a long repression.
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. It sounds like you're talking about readers who are predisposed to reject adult content because of their cultural prejudices. Such people presumably will not expose themselves to explicit material to begin with and will never develop an appreciation for it. On the other hand, some of these individuals may develop a more flexible attitude once they discover the art has redeeming value. Only those who value intellectual freedom will be converted, but even they must be introduced to the subject.All I'm saying is it's more likely that some people will be willing to give it a try if it's presented in a milder form. Fewer will bother if only a hardcore version is available. Neither scenario creates more censorship. Censorship is a political and cultural phenomenon that flows and ebbs like the tide with changing social mores. It may rise during a period of great social freedom and it may die back after a long repression.
What I am saying is these people were not predisposed to any content but that limited amount, most of them were young I believe early 20's, still young enough to have many world views altered if given a chance. The study believes had they been introduced to the more hardcore, if you will, stuff, they would have been many more of them that would have accepted it and there would have been no further need nor would the editing have been accepted by those members of the group. In fact those members of the group would have demanded the unedited copy.
However, if you get people use to something edited and in the process of getting them use to that something have them learn the reason it is edited is because the unedited copies are 'evil' they will begin to believe it because all they see are the cleaned up copies and all they hear over and over again is they are being protected from the evils of society. In truth the masses are often gulliable and will believe whatever is told to them over and over and over again so long as they are denied the right to see the other side of the issue. If you convince enough people that the edited games are good and unedited are bad it could perhaps hurt the already small market enough that it becomes even more unprofitable to make unedited games.
Oh yes but this I would argue is partly political censorship. To me this is why you can have a U.S. Solider killing someone very viloently and graphically in games but these games cannot even hint at sexual situtations without having someone scream about it, one is pro-government the other they can let go of and give the loudest screams a scrap to show the government 'cares' about the peoples' welfare.
Also both situtations do create censorship, even if it is self-imposed censorship brought on by the fact you are never exposed to the unedited object to see it's true form is censorship. More times then not it is the government, such as in this case, urged by a religious group, such as in this case, that says something is 'evil' and the people (often think of the children), who obviously are not smart enough to protect themselves from it, must have laws that protect them from it. So to 'protect the people' the government will limit the market through the laws and in essence force censorship on those that want to sell to a much larger market.
Then when the law is passed the religious groups in part tell the people why that something is evil, and that is as it has been and they have a right to do, but in doing so they create censorship of products and ideas through their influence. That is part of what could happen here and given this nation's current penchant for blindly believing the government is out for it's best interest and not looking deeper to see if it is true, it could easily happen again and that is why I don't like to give an inch on the issues of editing of an original project which, unless to fix unintentionally mispelled words or other grammar errors not made with intent, is to me always censorship.
We have posted the Hirameki games on the J-List website by the way. For those who want to preorder.
Click to search → http://www.jlist.com/cgi-bin/shop.cgi?ss=HIRA005&function=search&rating=R
Click to search → http://www.jlist.com/cgi-bin/shop.cgi?ss=HIRA004&function=search&rating=R
Just wondering, what are your views on the two upcoming games by Hirameki? I think they look quite good. Remember, you guys are already super advanced fans who have a certain view of things. Since the average anime fans doesn’t know that such a thing as an “interactive romance simulator” exists, anything that trains them about the concepts is a boon to us.
Well, they both look good to me and I look forward to trying them out. I know I did enjoy Phantom of Inferno, although to me it seemed obvious where they cut parts out. (Maybe I’m just delusional.) We’ll just have to see how it goes.
Even given all that I said I am looking forward to trying them whenever they finally come out.
Hmmm…I found a copy of Phantom of the inferno in Yahoo japan auctions. Maybe I’ll see if I can get that then I might get Hirameki’s version just to see what parts were cut from it.
quote:
Originally posted by Jason4:
So for all you people out there angry at Hirameki, don't be. They are porting over games that already have the cuts that were done in Japan.
I'm not angry the cuts are there, I'm, er, actually, I'm not angry at all. I'm commenting on the fact that I can tell there are cuts. It breaks the flow of the story for me. Sort of like watching an edited for television movie for the first time. Sometimes there's a cut and you sit there and go "huh? What happened?"