Fatal Frame Wii U Costume Changes Prompt Calls of "Censorship"

Nintendo makes some changes to the Western releases of Fatal Frame: Maiden of the Black Water and some fans aren't happy.

Analysis by Mike Williams, .

In a few days, Nintendo will be releasing a localized version of the newest Project Zero title, renamed Fatal Frame: Maiden of the Black Water. The game is the latest in Tecmo Koei's horror series, once again featuring a young woman trapped in a haunted location with only a special camera to protect her. The game comes a year after the Japanese version and North America is only getting a digital eShop release.

The game allows players to dress up the main characters in various costumes. In Japan, those costumes included lingerie and swimsuit options. For the Western releases, Nintendo decided to remove those particular outfits and replace them with costumes inspired by Samus Aran and Princess Zelda. Some fans of the original version have cried foul at the changes, calling them censorship.

For those fans, it's sort of a catch-22 though. The last primary title in the series, Project Zero: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse for the Wii, was never released in the West. This game isn't getting a retail release in North America and it will have a limited physical release in Europe, probably because Nintendo doesn't believe the title's sales will justify the logistics of producing and shipping physical copies. If many Project Zero fans stand against the changes, then the sales of the game could be depressed, thus reinforcing Nintendo's view of the series. (That's not even getting into the idea of Nintendo being absolutely right when it comes to potential sales, even with those fans.)

All the costumes come at the expense of the tone the games themselves are trying to present, so they're meant for fans. You can argue with Zero Suit Samus is just a different kind of fanservice. Of course, certain players are going to do what you'd expect given skimpy outfits and a game where you're given a camera as your primary interaction with the world.

These changes always lead to a number of different questions. Do you count this as censorship? Nintendo co-developed the title, so the changes in the costumes could be seen merely as edits in the content depending on region. When a creator chooses to change or dispense with certain content, many call that self-censorship. When does a creator's right to change their own content become censorship?

There's also the acknowledgement of the fact that Fatal Frame/Project Zero is commercial art. I've written about this time and time again, but creators of commercial art are always making decisions and compromises in their work in order to serve certain markets. This includes changing things before, during, and after development in response to either fan feedback or the realities of specific markets.

Is the bodysuit better or worse?

The decision Nintendo made to remove the costumes is similar to the decision that led to the game getting a digital-only release. Nintendo looked at the market and made changes accordingly. Some changes probably also factored into the Japanese release in the first place, to avoid the dreaded Cero Z rating. Ratings in any entertainment media cause creators to change their product all the time.

The idea that a creator or product owner can't make changes to their content is untenable. The idea that they can't do so based on the market or feedback from consumers is equally flimsy. However, you have every right to be angry or unhappy about the final product.

If that's the case, make your voice heard to Nintendo in a civil manner. Not buying the game because you dislike the changes made isn't making your voice heard. That's a null as far as Nintendo is concerned. Whether you choose to buy or not buy Fatal Frame, if you have issues with something a developer or publisher is doing, you should let them know why you made the decision you did. That's your power as a consumer. That's the strength of your speech.

Likewise, you shouldn't pull out the pitchforks if someone makes their voice heard about things they dislike in stuff you love. If they feel a game system should be changed, a narrative should go in a different direction, or a character design should be tweaked, they have the right to express that. The creator can then decide what to do with that feedback.

I'm personally neutral on the changes. I don't think either version fits the tone of the game and I dislike the Zero Suit Samus, so their inclusion or lack thereof doesn't affect me either way. Do I believe a product owner editing content in this manner is a problem? Not really, since it happens in many tiny ways all the time in our industry. If you do feel strongly about it, rock on. Say something to Nintendo. Be a vocal consumer.

This article may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and buy the product we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.

Comments 95

  • Avatar for riderkicker #1 riderkicker 2 years ago
    What rating was Nintendo aiming for in America? Horror games usually get an M, like Resident Evil usually does. Why even bother switching the costumes, when one could add more, like the Nintendo costumes? This isn't exactly a moepedo game from a small third party publisher.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for jeffcorry #2 jeffcorry 2 years ago
    IF this game had been going for a T rating...then I could see definitely changing the outfits. I am probably not going to play it anyway. But the gesture, to a guy like me, is appreciated. unpopular opinion is that I always appreciate covering male and female characters with more. I am less offended, as a man, by underclothed male characters, but it's kind of my kids I worry about. I game with them and I hate when they come across something I have to explain.
    This whole thing IS a bit ironic to me as they let Cia from Hyrule Warriors float on through to America without a change. It was because of that, and the interest my kids would have in a "Zelda" game that persuaded to pass that one by...
    Prudish...? Maybe, but I always appreciate game developers who go at least to the lengths of giving me an option for covered characters.
    I have plenty of games with characters who have "questionable" clothing choices...but for me is always uncomfortable for me and my kids...and I prefer "modesty".
    So. If Nintendo wants to make a change, please go right ahead! I realize my opinion is strictly mine, but over-sexualizing an otherwise lovable character...kind of makes me wonder what the developers think of the other women in their lives...
    Again. Opinions. I really don't want to offend anyone by what I really think. I just appreciate a covered character. Especially those who play with swords...let's be realistic.Edited 2 times. Last edited October 2015 by jeffcorry
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MHWilliams #3 MHWilliams 2 years ago
    @riderkicker Still M, for violence and blood.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for BlazeHedgehog #4 BlazeHedgehog 2 years ago
    The complaints about censorship are ridiculous and thinly-veiled.

    I can not in any way shape or form imagine getting bent out of shape because a bikini costume of all things was removed. You see arguments about how it’s "optional content" and therefore can be avoided if you don't want to see it can be flipped around in the other direction: It’s optional content, and it has been replaced with different optional content. Nintendo is not removing things so much as they are replacing them. They did not remove all costumes from the game, they just put new ones in where the old ones used to be.

    Is it censorship? Sure, I guess, if you’re splitting hairs. But does it significantly modify how the game is played? Does it change the controls? Rework the story? Add or remove gameplay mechanics? No. Fifteen whole megabytes worth of data has been changed, and they might actually be the least important fifteen megabytes in the whole entire game.

    Which really gets at the heart of why people get angry at these kinds of changes: because they want to drool over some polygonal skin, and in most examples you see out there, it’s usually from a character that skews a little on the young side, either literally or figuratively. There is no horse high enough for this.

    Yes, I know, some will say "adults should be allowed to do whatever they want..." etc.

    But in an era where Playboy is stepping back from the porn business because the internet is overflowing with the stuff, adults already have more than enough options for titillation. Does anyone really need so much constant, never-ending eroticism that Fatal Frame 5 is where they make their stand?

    I can not, and will not, take anyone seriously who believes this is an issue of "censorship," because it seems too much like there are ulterior motives at play. The people stomping their feet about this kind of censorship only seem to come out of the woodwork when their favorite petite flower is forced to cover up a little.

    Talk to me about censorship when it's about content that's a little more tasteful.Edited October 2015 by BlazeHedgehog
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for touchofkiel #5 touchofkiel 2 years ago
    To me, it most definitely is censorship - because it sounds like it's Nintendo's doing, not the devs/Tecmo. Beyond that, I guess we would call it regional censorship - only the NA version is being changed. Mike is right - "commercial art," as he calls it, is (rightly so) subject to changes due to market demands, etc. In other words, it's a product first, and then, by a very long stretch, we can call it art.

    But again, this is Nintendo's doing, not the devs', and it's region-based. I'm against it in principle.

    That said, I imagine all the dudes who are clamoring for an "uncensored" version and I get the chills (way more than this game would give me!). I imagine most of them are in desperate need for some actual human contact.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for metalangel #6 metalangel 2 years ago
    It's not 1992 any more, Nintendo. You successfully drove my younger self away with this 'we know what's best for you' moralistic posturing in the form of Mortal Kombat's sweat, and I never looked back (from the other side of the room with my Sega systems)

    We have a rating system, the game is already being rated M for mature, so let's give your already dwindling userbase the respect to make their own decisions, hmmm?

    It must be said, the idea of being trapped in a scary dungeon practically naked adds an edge to the proceedings.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Vonlenska #7 Vonlenska 2 years ago
    The original costumes were distasteful, clashed with the tone of the series and personally very off-putting to me. The new costumes are goofy, clash with the tone of the series and are a lot more palatable. Nintendo have been making more of an effort to engage female audiences, and decisions like this can help to make games less alienating/sexualized/weird. The original costumes fall into that latter grouping pretty plainly, and knowing about them sort of disappointed me, since I otherwise really like the series.

    Ditching them is a smart move that drops a ton of baggage for an audience that's been soaking in draining but fruitful discussions of misogyny in games and culture for some time now. Changes like this don't alter anything meaningful about the same, but they do make the game less off-putting to wider audiences. So, yay.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for StevieWhite #8 StevieWhite 2 years ago
    It's sad, on many different levels, that this is even a point of contention at all.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Ralek #9 Ralek 2 years ago
    Personally, I'm neutral on this issue as well, but I would still like to add a couple of remarks.

    1.) "The decision Nintendo made to remove the costumes is similar to the decision that led to the game getting a digital-only release. Nintendo looked at the market and made changes accordingly."

    It might be similar, but I would still argue that little to nothing can be gained by comparing means of content delivery to changes to the very content itself, esp. not if we are talking about any kind of "censorship". After all, no one is going to cry (self-)censorship based on a digital-only distribution - so, best to either change the headline, or leave this part out imho.

    2.) Wasn't there an actual water-based mechanic (more dmg or so) in the game? In a way, bathing suits would have made some sense then, at least more than Zelda or Samus suits - within the logic of the game that is, and if we're talking "tone".

    3.) I think the real question should be, why did they feel the need to do this in the first place?
    Obviously, and this brings me back to my first point, it is an issue that is not as clear cut as 'cost of distribution' versus 'expected sales' (which has probably lead to the decision to digital only), but a more complex and nuanced issue.

    "This includes changing things before, during, and after development in response to either fan feedback or the realities of specific markets."

    True, but that is an abstract concept, and as such, it can be used on the specific case at hand. In the end, it seems to me then that Nintendo might have felt, that this kind of content, unnecessary sexualisation of young women that is, was ill-suited for the NA market. What I would really like to know/ hear from them, and what would make this whole issue 'worthwhile', one way or the other, is their reasoning behind this? (And yeah, I hope it goes beyond: "Y'know ... the Japanese ... *cough*")

    TL;DR: I would've loved for Nintendo to be pro-active with this, 'go public', tell us THAT the content has been cut, and also WHY? Nintendo is 100% within their rights to do so, just as any potential customer is 100% within his rights to demand an explanation.

    They don't have to go all "SJW" on the issue, but they ARE a big company, a global brand, which prides itself on the 'wholesomeness' of their products, and as such, they have a responsibility, to not dodge or simply ignore these question, but to address them head on!Edited 2 times. Last edited October 2015 by Ralek
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for link6616 #10 link6616 2 years ago
    So, what's kind of striking is that even in classic horror media, skimpily dressed women aren't that unusual and in fact, the woman escaping from a killer in her lingerie only to be killed afterwards is a pretty standard scene in a lot of films...

    But the two costumes in question don't even suit that.

    I think all the costumes are frankly silly. If a nintendo crossover thing was to happen here I think forest temple music would have been the best choice but alas.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Daikaiju #11 Daikaiju 2 years ago
    How about an Ashley costume? That'd be a perfect fit.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for cldmstrsn #12 cldmstrsn 2 years ago
    It bothers me mostly because those suits are optional and you can play the whole game without ever seeing it or even if you unlocked it no one is making you use it and that's what I take issue with.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Hojol #13 Hojol 2 years ago
    The character in the swimsuit outfit is 17 so I would think that had something to do with the decision to replace it.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MetManMas #14 MetManMas 2 years ago
    Honestly? This doesn't bother me in the slightest. While I can understand why some people would be upset by revealing outfits being replaced (particularly in an M-rated release), personally I play horror games for the horror, not for titillation.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for SatelliteOfLove #15 SatelliteOfLove 2 years ago
    Looks like an upgrade to me.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for themblan #16 themblan 2 years ago
    I am disappointed, but put in perspective, it's not a big deal. Many people, especially non-Nintendo-fans probably think this game came out this year worldwide. I remembering wanting this game badly last year when it wasn't apparent that it was coming over. I begged Nintendo in every Club Nintendo survey for this game, then I found out about and participated in #WeWantFatalFrame.

    Then during the best Nintendo Direct of all time, April 1st, 2015, they announced it. I was so happy and screaming for joy.

    So a little censorship is fine. Digital-only is fine. People who are 'boycotting' this game are exposing themselves as non-gaming collectors and not really wanting to actually play the game. I was going to buy a Japanese Wii U if it didn't get announced for NA in one year, so I'm thankful that I don't have to do that. I probably won't even use the Nintendo-costumes because they break immersion, nor would I have used the skimpy ones because they would cause the same effect.Edited 3 times. Last edited October 2015 by themblan
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for jihon83 #17 jihon83 2 years ago
    Argh! My wang's rights as a consumer are being violated! Not only that, but how will I make clickbait thumbnails for my YouTube videos now?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #18 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @BlazeHedgehog Well, aren't you mature? I mean it's so admirable how evolved your thinking is. Yup, it really shows good character on your part that you're willing to stand up and shame people for expressions of their sexuality. After all, only a complete degenerate would want to look at an attractive woman in a bikini. And it totally is silly for those disgusting pervs to feel like they're being arbitrarily deprived of content just because it was removed without any particular reason. Yeah, it's wrong for people to find attractive game characters appealing. They should only enjoy appropriate content like shooting people in the face and car-jacking.

    Anyway, sarcastic shtick aside, the removal of these costumes is upsetting to me. I'm not ashamed to say that I sometimes find game characters attractive and I enjoy looking at them. I'm well aware that they're just vector data wrapped in image files, but it's vector data and image files crafted by artists. Artists with whom I share a common humanity. So it's really not that weird to me that a game character can be appealing in that way.

    Now you can feel free to look down your nose at people like me, but I'm not troubled if you do. I just think it's sad that your values are such. I don't accept that a PG-13 expression of human sexuality like this is shameful and I don't accept that there's an inverse relationship between being attracted to women and respecting women. In short, I don't accept that being disappointed about the removal of this content is indicative of a character flaw. The removal of these costumes is simply the result of NoA deferring to the unjust, but deeply ingrained value judgements of American puritanism. That's silly and should be questioned.

    I wouldn't say it constitutes censorship though. I'd say it falls in the category of NoA's right to free expression. So they are and should be allowed to do it. But really the argument of whether it's censorship or not seems of marginal substance to me. More of semantic distraction in my opinion.

    Anyway, I would personally have liked to own physical copy of this game with it's original content intact, but NoA decided not to release it like that. I just have to accept that and I can. But the notion that I'm wrong to be disappointed is just asinine.Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bobservo #19 bobservo 2 years ago
    @BlazeHedgehog I really like this response, for what it's worth.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Thusian #20 Thusian 2 years ago
    @touchofkiel I have to disagree, Nintendo is the publisher and as such they have the right to publish whatever aspects of it they choose. They are under no obligation moral or otherwise to do so without changing the content.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #21 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye You're right, there's nothing wrong with being disappointed about removed/changed content. On some level, I'm a little disappointed too, simply because I like to preserve as much video game content as possible, no matter what the game is. However, I think what he was arguing was not "being mad about this makes you stupid," but more along the lines of "being mad about this specifically because you want more sexual content in a video game is stupid." And let's be honest, that line of thinking is a little stupid. In this day and age, there are more than enough ways for a person to get their sexual itches scratched, and literally all of those methods are better outlets for such a thing than a horror-themed video game.Edited 4 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for kingaelfric #22 kingaelfric 2 years ago
    For what it's worth, I am FAR more troubled by Nintendo's continued censorship of Mother 3.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for orient #23 orient 2 years ago
    This seems to be a constant struggle when it comes to game localisation -- some die-hard fans want the most literal translation possible, even if it means dull writing and retaining extremely specific cultural touchstones that 95% of the intended audience wouldn't understand. If you're worried about playing the game as it was "originally intended", remember that it was originally intended for Japanese people, and cultural context is a big deal. Localisation is about maintaining the original feel and style of something, while tailoring it for a new audience, not simply spitting out the Japanese text into English for the sake of being "authentic". Most creators want their work to play in different regions as well.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #24 docexe 2 years ago
    I'm not so much neutral but ambivalent about this.

    On one hand, yes those costumes are very skimpy and don't really mesh with the tone of the game, but at the same time I think it's incredibly... well, absurd for Nintendo to remove them given the game is M rated, not to mention the pass they already have given in the past to things like Cia on Hyrule Warriors or Bayonetta and Bayonetta 2 for that matter.

    On the other hand I also think that people who are threatening with boycotting the game are also acting... well, ridiculous. I understand being disappointed by the removal of the costumes, I understand the complaints about self-censorship and/or Nintendo's paternalistic attitudes, but ultimately those outfits are a very small and non-crucial element in the game, and let's be honest, their only purpose is to provide fanservice and a quick sexual thrill, nothing else. So refusing to buy the game based on their removal seems really silly.

    Asking Nintendo to include them as an optional DLC or something like that seems like a more constructive course of action.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for BlazeHedgehog #25 BlazeHedgehog 2 years ago
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #26 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 Look, I'm aware that he projected his own judgmental idea of people's motive for being upset onto this, but it doesn't matter. There's nothing actually wrong with this content and there's no rationally valid reason for removing it. People are right to object to this in the same way that Japanese gamers would be right to object to the removal of blood and gore. That sort of suppression is not healthy for a society. And neither is shaming and condescending to people for enjoying things that aren't wrong.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #27 KaiserWarrior 2 years ago
    Why not both?

    Why not add extra content instead of replacing existing content?

    It wouldn't matter what the content was. I'd still be miffed on the principle of the thing. Nintendo did not "co-develop" the game; they simply have joint rights to the IP. Tecmo-Koei developed the game, they made it the way they wanted to make it, and Nintendo went in for the localized version and replaced content.

    Add in some neat Nintendo-themed costumes? Cool, more options are always better. Do so to replace already-existing options that were removed? Not cool. Especially when the replacement is something as asinine as replacing a swimsuit with the Zero Suit, which is not in any meaningful way less offensive, or whatever their justification for the change is.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #28 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye You miss my point. I'm not saying sexual content in a video game is wrong. I'm saying being upset that a video game DOESN'T have sexual content/had sexual content removed is idiotic. There's a difference.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #29 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 If there hadn't been a bikini costume in the Japanese version of the game and people were mad at NoA for failing to add one, that would be idiotic. But being upset about them removing something from the original game for no good reason is entirely valid.

    try this;
    What if the Japanese version of Final Fantasy XV came out and it included alternative Cloud and Squall costumes for Noctis. And then when it got released in America they've been replaced with Just Cause and Deus Ex costumes. Would it be idiotic for people to be upset about that?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for ojinnvoltz #30 ojinnvoltz 2 years ago
    They should've covered the naughty bits by putting adding Dewbacks.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for orient #31 orient 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Nintendo don't need a "rationally valid reason" for doing it, though. It's their game, their system, and if they don't think skimpy outfits are right for the American market then they have every right to change them.

    What I don't understand is why you need skimpy bikini girls in your horror video game? If you simply need to be staring at naked anime girls all the time, even when playing video games, then there are hundreds of fan-servicey JRPGs and visual novels out there for you, where this content is more appropriate. It makes no sense at all in a horror game.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #32 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @KaiserWarrior Yeah, it absolutely is a matter of principle. Why should they be removing content from the game unless there's a very good reason? And if there was a good reason, shouldn't Nintendo of Japan have insisted on removing these costumes as well?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #33 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Maybe idiotic isn't the right word. More like pointless to complain about. In both examples (Fatal Frame and the fictitious FFXV example), it's all just meaningless bonus content that doesn't really amount to much in the long run. It wouldn't change either game in any significant way, so why does it even matter? Yes, it's a shame that we're missing out on content for no real reason, but at the end of the day, it's nothing world-shattering unless you really care about all that "censorship" nonsense.

    Trust me, I know the feeling of longing for bonus content we were cheated out of. It might be sort of an "apples and oranges" comparison, but while we're bringing up Square games, non-Japanese fans had to wait almost 15 years to get the bonus content in games like Kingdom Hearts Final Mix and FFX International. But the difference here is that the bonus content in those games was actually substantial; extra bosses, rebalanced difficulty, etc. Getting upset about stuff like THAT being cut, I can understand. But a few alternate character skins getting swapped out? I just don't see the grounds for such outrage, regardless of whether said outfits were "risque" or not.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for KaiserWarrior #34 KaiserWarrior 2 years ago
    @orient Consider, if you will, the idea that people are not upset that they're missing out on a few "bikini anime girls" -- something they can very easily access in far more numbers than they will ever be able to process in their lifetime -- but are instead upset at the idea of a game being altered from its creators' vision by the publisher.

    Some people are purists. You may not understand it, you may not agree with it, but that's just how some people are. I personally own three different versions of the original Resident Evil for this very reason. Aside from the obvious changes from the Playstation versions to the Gamecube remake, the original version has different camera angles and music than the Director's Cut re-release.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #35 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @orient In my first comment I clearly said that it is their right to do this. My point is not that they should be subject to some authority that prevents them from doing a thing like this. That came from you. You interpreted my meaning incorrectly.

    Please refer to comment #32, my reply to andrewmayes78 as it best describes me feeling about this.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #36 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 That the costumes are not really that big of a deal in the overall scheme of the game is an argument for why they shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Go to NoA with that one.

    As far as your Square Enix examples go;
    It really comes off like you think that the value that you as an individual place on the content is the metric by which everyone should decide if it's worth getting upset about.

    Maybe consider that while you aren't so bothered by this instance, the people who do voice their objection could convince NoA to reassess it's policies which could prevent them from removing something from a game in the future that does matter to you. Would the complaining by pointless with that outcome?

    It's not that NoA is likely to listen, but not having success guaranteed isn't a reason not to try.Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for orient #37 orient 2 years ago
    @KaiserWarrior@NotCarolKaye The problem with the "purist" mentality, as I said in my first comment, is that it assumes that regional changes undermine the "original intent" when A) there are so many examples of localisation making the original game more interesting, and B) the original creators may have jumped at the chance to includes Samus/Zelda costumes instead of skimpy bikinis. We don't know.

    Wanting something to stay the same just because, or for the sake of "authenticity" aren't arguments I give any merit to.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MHWilliams #38 MHWilliams 2 years ago
    @KaiserWarrior Nintendo seems to disagree with your assessment.

    "Fatal Frame: Maiden of Black Water, co-developed by Koei Tecmo Games"

    Everything I can find points to Nintendo SPD co-developing the project.Edited 2 times. Last edited October 2015 by MHWilliams
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #39 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    Deleted October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #40 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @orient I didn't want it to stay the same "just because." I wanted it to stay the same because I prefer the costumes in the original game. Now would you please explain to me what you think is gained by their removal?

    I'm not a purist about localizations either. I just don't believe for a moment that this was done for valid creative reasons. By far the most logical explanation to me is that they are simply afraid of having content that might raise the ire of media moral police. That proactive concessions get made to people like that is deeply offensive to me.

    But hey, NoA might have another reason. They really should explain it if they do.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MHWilliams #41 MHWilliams 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Theoretically a wider audience than they would've had with the inclusion of the costumes. I doubt this, as Fatal Frame is pretty tied to a niche audience, but the business logic isn't way out there in la-la land.

    If you honestly think Nintendo is worried about "moral police" or whatever, Bayonetta 2 shows otherwise.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for CK20XX #42 CK20XX 2 years ago
    "I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that, I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the constitution, unfortunately."

    - Tom Lehrer, "Smut"
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for orient #43 orient 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Nintendo don't care what the "media moral police", or any other made-up group of people think. They clearly think Metroid and Zelda-related costumes are more appealing to Americans than skimpy outfits. Whether you think that's a good enough reason or not is irrelevant, and they definitely don't owe you an explanation.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #44 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @MHWilliams It's good point about Bayonetta 2, but thinking that removing those costumes would help the game find a wider audience? Maybe that's their rationale, but it seems pretty shaky.

    It's their choice to make though. They may gain, but they also may lose sales for it.

    What really got me to posting here about this is that I didn't care for people saying that it isn't something that anyone should be upset about. That's preposterously egocentric. If it was genuinely immoral content, like maybe some dialog that makes excuses for rape or something, then I wouldn't mind people saying that others shouldn't be upset. But if it was properly awful like that it shouldn't be in any version.Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MHWilliams #45 MHWilliams 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Nah, if you're upset, like I said rock out. Let Nintendo know why. That's how they'll know what you want in the future. They may not care, but at least they'll know.Edited October 2015 by MHWilliams
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #46 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @orient Okay, so why not add those costumes and keep the originals as well. Wouldn't that best serve the most people?

    And sure they don't "owe" people an explanation. They're entitled to let people think they did this for dumb reasons even if they didn't. I don't know why they'd want that though.Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Murbs #47 Murbs 2 years ago
    It's not censorship, it's localisation.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for VotesForCows #48 VotesForCows 2 years ago
    Holy cow, 48 comments!

    Anyway, I don't think its censorship. Its not suppression of speech or information. Its choosing to sell a different product in a different market. Misguided perhaps, but like Mike I think all of the extra costumes (East and West) are pretty inappropriate to the tone of the game. I wouldn't use them, as a long-standing fan of this series.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for CaptainJack73 #49 CaptainJack73 2 years ago
    "Not buying the game because you dislike the changes made isn't making your voice heard. That's a null as far as Nintendo is concerned."

    What proof is there of this? As a consumer, I've been told for years that my wallet is the best tool I have in making my voice heard, that my purchase is like a vote of approval for a product. I've been told to purchase games/movies of companies/directors I want to support, so why does it not work the other way around? Look what happened to Capcom financially after their consumers rejected their business decisions in 2012.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for siamesegiant #50 siamesegiant 2 years ago
    It's kind of amazing that this is being taken out, rather than being put in, but it is Nintendo we're talking about, and they do have a long history of this. If it was artistically damaging the piece then I think there'd be a better argument, but it would be hard to argue that.

    Maybe it would've been better to include men in speedos skins too. let's not be prudes, but let's have a little equality!
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Banandango #51 Banandango 2 years ago
    That character cosplaying as Zero Suit Samus is super adorbs, though.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for DrCorndog #52 DrCorndog 2 years ago
    People complaining about "censorship" need to take the time to figure out what censorship is. Practically speaking, I am fine with this, as I see no need to dress a video game avatar in lingerie.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #53 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    I don't personally care about the costumes, and Nintendo has the right to remove them if they want. Technically it's only censorship if it's done by a government body.

    But, what really bothers me are the anti-sex comments in this thread. It's sickening that we seem to live in a society where people are still publicly shames for having sexual desires. Also, I'd just like to point out that technically, including those costumes would be MORE inclusive, not less! Those costumes are optional. No one would be forced to use them if they don't like them, so having that option only creates more content for more people, not less. So it's MORE inclusive with the costumes.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for MHWilliams #54 MHWilliams 2 years ago
    @CaptainJack73 You miss the point. Regardless of whether you do or do not buy the product, letting a company know why you did what you did is the most important part. If you vote with your wallet and others don't follow suit, how would they know they did wrong in your eyes? If others do follow suit, how do they know the costume removal was the reason you didn't buy, as opposed to the fact that you didn't like the series?

    See my point?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for yuberus #55 yuberus 2 years ago
    People have sexual desires, sure. No one is disputing that. But I would readily argue there are games and characters where sexualization makes sense and is reasonable, like Bayonetta, and characters and games where it is very jarring and exists solely to titillate otaku in Japan, like this one. Meanwhile it sends a very clear message to any women who may be interested in this game who the developers want - or expect - to be playing it, and it ain't them. The developers here made a call that western audiences wouldn't react positively to the skimpy costumes but would be way more interested in the game with Nintendo ones; whether or not they're right, that's what they felt was appropriate.

    It's the same general reason people complained about every woman superhero being dressed sexy even though that didn't particularly fit with their personality and values. Sure, Emma Frost may be down to walk around in lingerie, but a swimsuit and BDSM boots for Carol Danvers is an odd choice for stubborn military woman.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bobservo #56 bobservo 2 years ago
    @yuberus Yeah, it's all about context. Disliking skimpy costumes in a single horror game doesn't necessarily make you part of some Orwellian Anti-Sex League. Nuance!
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Vonlenska #57 Vonlenska 2 years ago
    Woo. I know I'll regret climbing back into the peanut gallery here, but the conversation took some strange turns and there are a lot of points being left unsaid. So. First, there are a lot of totally valid criticisms to make of the costumes as they are. Personally, I think they're actually pretty well-designed; at least, they could be a lot skeevier than they are. As lingerie designs, they're sort of okay. What makes them so distasteful is that they're wholly inappropriate to the context of the game. They don't fit the tone, and their inclusion is an obvious marketing tactic aimed at an overserved demographic, and can risk alienating a lot of people outside that little pie slice. Sure, they're optional post-game things no one has to use, but this is an aspect of the game that's getting a lot of attention, and that does risk damaging the reputation of the series. It'll be a lot harder for me to evangelize Fatal Frame II if this is remembered as the, "haunted lingerie simulator."

    Next, there are a lot of problems in rewarding players with salacious content; it's a commonish trend in games, and it's not very cool. The issue is not whether it's awesome or creepy to find attractive women attractive--it's that slapping on these kinds of lazy applications of "sexy paint" ends up reducing female characters to sexualized scenery. It is rather creepy to argue that male gaze eyecandy is a more important aspect than characterization in female characters. Samus Aran has a really cool design and it's great that she gets to star in her own series, but rewarding players who complete the games under the time limit by showing her in her underwear takes a lot of that away. It reduces her, as a character. It also makes a ton of assumptions about who is playing the game and why. Given the state of "gamer culture," we could do with a lot less of that.

    To be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining a game in which lingerie like this would be appropriate. Perhaps something like The Secret World where the huge amount of clothing options means that wearing lingerie into battle is a personal choice, but beyond that, it's just not something that's appropriate to games not explicitly aiming to be erotica or porn.

    That's not to say that games can't explore things like sexuality, but it's disingenuous to pretend that these outfits are a sincere attempt to do so. They're pretty clearly titillation aimed at a teenage heterosexual male demographic, and as a (sort of) grown up estrogenically-inclined fan of interactive television software, I really don't need to be feeling a little gross and weird about my spooky ethnographic ghost photography. One could point to Silent Hill 2 as a horror game with rather more graphic imagery that seriously tackles sexuality; or The Cat Lady, which has a fair bit of full on nudity. There are a boatload of issues with Catherine's handling of them, but even that is something that was genuinely trying to explore sexuality in the context of a game. This? This is just the dreaded "pandering" we hear so much about when other games bother to remember that over half of humanity exists. It's perfectly fine for it to get dropped like a hot potato.

    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #58 docexe 2 years ago
    @lonecow I read about them censoring a sequence in the actual main story of the game, I suppose it is the one you are referring here. I’m not sure though if the right correlation is that they censored that scene because they removed the costumes and not merely that they just decided to censure all the sexual content.

    But honestly, the presence of that scene kind of adds a certain uncomfortable vibe to the idea of unlocking that bikini as a bonus after completing the game, as well as having the character parade around on it. Given the nature of the game as horror, I don’t know if it actually makes the outfit more tacky or more fitting (especially considering horror pieces that already deal with psychosexual elements, like Silent Hill 2, Catherine, movies like Perfect Blue, the Shining, etc.).Edited October 2015 by docexe
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bobservo #59 bobservo 2 years ago
  • Avatar for chiptoon #60 chiptoon 2 years ago
    Maybe the Western release costumes were always the intention, but were replaced with underwear because market research showed that the product would sell better that way.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #61 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @Vonlenska So what if they don't fit the tone of the game and their inclusion is a marketing tactic? The exact same thing is also true with the Nintendo-themed costumes! And as you said, these are bonus costumes you don't have to use, so there's no reason why they should alienate anyone! Is it really "alienating" for a game to have an option that doesn't appeal to your personal sensibilities?

    What's sad about the state of gamer culture right now is the rise of sex shame as an accepted norm. That's what we should be fighting against!
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #62 docexe 2 years ago
    @lonecow Good point about the developer. Now, from what I understand, fanservice laden unlockable costumes are actually a common thing in the franchise. Given that, I’m more inclined to think this was a bit of fanservice that they added without thinking it through. The resulting implications are interesting though.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for UnskippableCutscene #63 UnskippableCutscene 2 years ago
    Since at least when the original Godzilla was changed into a movie told through the perspective of Raymond Burr as a journalist who only existed in the western version of the film, and probably even before that, licensors have been adjusting localizations of commercial art to better fit specific regions for a long time now.

    I'm not sure how it's any more "censorship" than UK and US versions of the same album having a different bonus track. If you want what's in the other region, import. Opposition to censorship was generally based around government acts of curtailing speech, but Nintendo isn't obligated to "respect the creator's vision" unless contractually required to.

    Is this a generational thing? A lot of newer gamers are accustomed to seeing local releases for small niche games that have next to no market, whereas gamers who remember when retro was new... Well, we had an Earthbound where all references to alcohol were changed to coffee and yet a lot of people loved it, and then we had the original MOTHER where Nintendo couldn't have bothered getting rid of the booze and tobacco and religion and so it didn't show up on these shores for 25 years. Most fans would rather have an edit than no product at all.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for saturn500 #64 saturn500 2 years ago
    It amazes me that people are this worked up over a lack of underage T&A.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for orient #65 orient 2 years ago
    Wow, just watch those up-votes turn into down-votes. The panty cavalry has arrived.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for TernBird #66 TernBird 2 years ago
    I've no love for the Zero Suit or anything it stands for, but I don't care that the bikinis were removed from this game. I mean, it's not like James Sunderland needed a bikini in Silent Hill 2, right?

    Nintendo made the decision to remove the bikinis of their own accord. It's no different from that one Final Fantasy dude whose armor was changed to be less revealing.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bertford36 #67 bertford36 2 years ago
    @orient Maybe they're worked up because the judgment brigade showed up to make everyone who dares to like looking at girls feel like shit. Way to be "inclusive."
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #68 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @bertford36@theresacatalano27 There's a difference between "enjoying looking at women/having sexual desires" and "objectifying women as items of sexual gratification." And you have to admit, these alternate outfits were definitely towing that line between the two.Edited 3 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for ItsSupercar #69 ItsSupercar 2 years ago
    Anyone who truly believes this is about "sex-shaming" and "puritanism" is way, way behind on the conversation. Sex positivity is much more nuanced than simply acting like everything erotic is beyond critique.

    It's perfectly possible to be a fully sex positive person while still thinking critically about such questions as:
    -When/where is the right time/place for sexual expression?
    -When I indulge myself sexually, am I involving others without their consent?
    -Who is the assumed audience when media features sexual content, and does that have broader implications re: exclusion/inclusion?
    -Can poorly-executed sexual content damage the coherency of a narrative work? (ie, having characters dress and pose in ways that don't suit their personality and/or situation)
    -Are certain types of sexual images beyond defense? (ie, those involving children or teens)

    If you believe that it's always inherently "sex-shaming" to critique the presence and/or execution of fanservice, you've got a lot more to learn about what sex positivity does and doesn't entail.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #70 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 No, that's absolutely wrong! The term "objectifying" in the context you're using it is just a word to demonize sexual desire. People enjoying looking at the women in lingerie in this particular game (or any game) are simply enjoying women and their own sexual desires. When you call that "objectification," all you're doing is demonizing their desires. It's absurd in the first place to even suggest that fictional character can be "objectified."

    Did I personally like the alternate outfits? No, not really. Doesn't fit my tastes. But I wouldn't pass judgment on the people for whom it fits their tastes. And you shouldn't either!
    @ItsSupercar I agree, this particular issue isn't about sex shaming or puritanism per se. It's pretty much a non-issue to me. Some people seem bothered by their removal, and that's fine. What I find objectionable and a little sickening is people passing judgment on those people for daring to have sexual desires. And yes, that IS about sex shaming, and puritanism. That's EXACTLY what's it about, and it's very wrong.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #71 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 The thing about fiction is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The way fiction is structured -- and indeed reacted to -- has a very real effect on the world we live in. Why do you think parents are always so concerned about what their children watch on TV? Because people learn by example. And showing people that it's okay to ogle fictional women will only encourage such behavior in their day-to-day lives. Which, unless consensual on both parties, is not okay. There's nothing wrong with having sexual desire, but I don't think it's demonizing to ask that people maybe try to reign it in a bit in situations where it may not be entirely appropriate and/or desired.

    To me, this conversation isn't even about the game anymore. I am not upset about these changes to the character's outfit, but that does not mean I agree with the choice to cut the content, either. I just can't bring myself to feel strongly any one way about it, since in the long run, it's really not a big deal.

    I love how anyone here who's tried to merely suggest that sexual content may not always be appropriate in every situation is instantly accused of being a sex-shaming hate-monger. That's not the case at all! It is completely okay to be openly in touch with your sexuality. Believe it or not, I find women sexually attractive! And am not ashamed of it! Gasp!

    Yes, this is only a fictional female character, but one that was likely made mostly by men to appeal specifically to men, which is not only the exact opposite of "inclusive," but also isn't fair to all the female gamers who are asking for some more sincere representation of women in the medium -- you know, representation where a character's worth isn't equated to how sexually appealing they are.

    So yes, finding sexual gratification via a sexy video game lady isn't really hurting anybody, but it's only encouraging the objectification of women outside of the game.Edited 4 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #72 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 Ah. The "sexual objectification in games encourages sexism in real life argument." Then do you also believe that violence in the media causes real violence, and are you in favor of censoring it for that reason?

    No one said that all forms of sexuality in the media were okay, and there are certainly valid reasons to criticize it. But not in this case. This is just women in lingerie, in a horror game. And it's tucked away and optional to boot. If you find something immoral about that, then I find your puritanical, overly conservative view of sexuality to be problematic.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #73 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 You make a very valid point. Of course not everybody who plays violent video games is going to go on killing sprees; that's crazy talk. Still, I never meant to imply there was anything immoral about the outfits themselves, I simply am not broken up about their absence from the US release. But still, I don't think creating an aspect of a character specifically to appeal to men isn't being very "inclusive," and those claiming the original outfits were somehow so are really grasping at straws.

    Again, do I agree with Nintendo's choice to replace the outfits? No. Am I upset about it? Still no. Even if the outfits in question weren't skimpy, I still wouldn't be upset about them being changed. It has nothing to do with me being "puritanical" or "conservative" -- because I can assure you, I am not either of those things. I don't hate the original outfits; I'd be lying if I didn't say they appeal very much to my tastes. But this just seems like such a small and quite frankly silly thing to be all up in arms about.

    #FatalFrame2015 #WeWillRecover #NotTryingtToBeObnoxiousIPromise #IJustReallyLikeIronicHashtagsEdited 5 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for misanthrobob #74 misanthrobob 2 years ago
    @ItsSupercar This is an excellent response.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for JohnnyBarnstorm #75 JohnnyBarnstorm 2 years ago
    I think the new outfits are A: ones I'd actually use and B: less creepy.

    As a fan of the series I'm psyched and think it's a good call by Nintendo.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #76 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 I would go a step further and say that no one who goes out on violent killing sprees does so because of a video game. And for the exact same reason, that no one who mistreats women is doing it because of a video game. I don't agree with blaming societies problems on art. And even smut is art.

    I happen to feel the exact same way that you do about the outfits: I am not broken up about their absence, and to me it seems like a non issue. It is not something I would get up in arms about. However, some of the responses *against* the people who want them are bothersome, and that's worth replying to.

    I would disagree that outfits to appeal to men aren't inclusive. Honestly, I don't understand how you'e defining "inclusive." If "inclusive" means to exclude anything that might offend someone, then that is the OPPOSITE of inclusive. Truly being inclusive means providing options for everyone, including men. Adding options without taking away. The fact that they are optional is perfect: no one who doesn't want to use them would be forced to use them. It's the most inclusive way to have outfits like that in a game.

    I would like to kindly ask you to re-think how you're using that word "inclusive," because the way you're using it sounds more like exclusion to me.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Toelkki #77 Toelkki 2 years ago
    I don't see the replacement content being of lower quality than the originals, except maybe including in the sense of fitting into the game's world. As such, I don't see this being reduced content.

    To me, this is not state censorship but customizing a product for an audience. At most Nintendo has misjudged their audience and/or the effect the image either decision would have on the company's public image.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #78 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 Hey there, quick question about the whole "these costumes encourage objectification" thing.

    Would the costumes that were removed from this game represent the most sexually graphic thing you've ever viewed?

    I'll assume your answer to be no because I doubt that you would want to lower the collective dignity of all of humanity by pretending you've never watched porn. Anyway, has the sexual content that you've viewed caused you to objectify or in any other way mistreat women?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #79 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 "I happen to feel the exact same way that you do about the outfits: I am not broken up about their absence, and to me it seems like a non issue. It is not something I would get up in arms about. However, some of the responses *against* the people who want them are bothersome, and that's worth replying to."

    See, that I understand and can get behind. And I want to make it clear that it was never my intent to insult anyone. What baffles me is the number of downvotes perfectly rational posts like ItsSupercar's is getting; people who even suggest "Hey, guys, it's cool to like this kind of stuff, but maybe having sexual content everywhere might not always be okay" are suddenly ganged up on, and I don't feel they particularly deserve it.

    @NotCarolKaye To answer your question; yes, in the past, in my less intelligent, younger days, I learned through media example when it came to how to treat women. Without even realizing it. Thank god I've learned better since then. I'm not saying it happens to everyone, and I'm not saying that society just copy-pastes the things they see in the media onto their actions. People always tend to look at the extremes when it comes to this argument (i.e., do video games cause flat-out murder/rape, which of course is not true), but I don't think it's completely ridiculous to suggest that media can still influence people in very subtle ways.Edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #80 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 The Beatles White Album was part of the basis for Charles Manson's motive to send his "family" out to kill. Catcher in the Rye? Should those thing not have been released because of how some sick people responded to them? What kind of culture can exist if everything needs to be passed through the filter of how somebody might respond to it?

    And frankly, with your history, how dare you even make the argument? I've never treated women disrespectfully because of their gender in my life. If I saw it happen in media, I wasn't so weak minded as to think that that made it okay. So I hope you can appreciate that you saying that it's not so bad for Nintendo to withhold game content from me because of how someone like you could respond to it, is pretty despicable to me. It's not my fault that people like you can't grasp basic appropriate social boundaries on your own any more than it's a Beatle's fan's fault that Charles Manson thought the song Blackbird was telling him to star a race war.

    What on Earth are you possibly thinking?Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #81 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 Also, this isn't about having sexual content everywhere. How did anyone warp it into that? This is about not being okay with video game content being removed arbitrarily. There is a chasm of difference between the two.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #82 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @lonecow I never said all my personal flaws were the cause of media. But thanks for putting such insulting words in my mouth, I really appreciate it.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #83 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye Woah, woah, now. Perhaps I should elaborate. I have never, in my life, openly insulted or -- god forbid -- physically harmed women. What I meant by what I said was that I have, in the past, ogled women in public without their permission or consent, as well as demonstrated the infamous "nice guy syndrome," which I have long since realized is a completely dishonest and unacceptable way to interact with women. My point was not that the media made me this way -- it was very clearly a flaw in my own character and my own thinking, and it was a very stern reality check from some close friends that finally got through to me. Yes, it's wrong of me to blame the media for my actions, but comparing me to Charles Manson? Seriously, what the hell?

    As for your second comment; you're right, it's not about there being sexual content everywhere; to me, it just seems a bit baffling to me that anybody who tries to say -- even a little -- that the costumes were even a LITTLE bit distasteful is being instantly disrespected and accused of being a sex-hating puritanical. If I may quote ItsSupercar's comment above, "Sex positivity is much more nuanced than simply acting like everything erotic is beyond critique. ... If you believe that it's always inherently 'sex-shaming' to critique the presence and/or execution of fanservice, you've got a lot more to learn about what sex positivity does and doesn't entail."

    Do I like the original outfits? Yes. Do I still believe they are a bit out-of-place and excessive? Yes. Can I see why Nintendo might feel inclined to replace them? Yes. But do I agree with their decision? No, not really. But at the same time, it really doesn't matter to me.Edited 3 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #84 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 I was comparing the dynamics of the two examples, not you to Charles Manson. I also wasn't comparing The White Album directly to the cut content from this game. Get it?

    And whatever your behavior was, I'd still like you to tell me if you think that The White Album and Catcher in the Rhye should've been kept from the public based on how a few people responded to them. If not, then how is the content that's being removed from this game meaningfully different? Because to me they are all examples of creative expression.

    And remember, what you see as the relative value of each is meaningless to the rest of the world.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #85 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 You say it was never your intent to insult anyone, but you were literally calling people idiotic before for complaining about their absence. Forgive me, but it's a bit hard to believe that your intent was never to insult. Granted, you've backpedaled now, which is good.

    As for the downvotes@ItsSupercar is getting, (which I'm not seeing) perhaps it's because his idea of "critical thinking" about sexuality really misses the mark. There's no critical thinking about sexuality going on in this thread. The ones who have called people who like this stuff creepy aren't offering "valid crititque" of sexuality. They are sex-shaming... calling someone creepy for liking to look at women in lingerie is EXACTLY what sex shaming is!

    Also, I've seen several people try to make the argument that removing the lingerie costumes makes the game more inclusive, which is just backwards thinking. It's the opposite! Removing them is excluding people who like that kind of thing. Removing things from a game that might offend someone is NEVER more inclusive, that's a terrible usage for that word. The fact that so many people don't seem to get this shows that@ItsSupercar is right, but in the opposite way... it's him and yourself that need to do more criticial thinking about sexuality.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #86 docexe 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78@andrewmayes78 I agree with your points there, although I also see where@theresacatalano27 is coming from.

    Honestly, part of the problem with having this kind of discussions is that some people always go to the extremes: Becoming over defensive of their stated position and trying to get on the high horse while lambasting the “opposition”, all without bothering to pay attention to the nuances of the topic at hand or listen if the other side is making a reasonable point. And it happens of both sides, unfortunately: If for example, you express disappointment or anger about the removal of outfits like the ones discussed in this piece, then you are a pervert and called names regardless of your actual reasons for said disappointment, if on the other hand you express disdain or disapproval about the inclusion of said outfits, then you are a prude and also called names once again regardless of your actual reasons. Too many people just lose sight of the middle ground or are unwilling to look at it.

    It’s for example what you mention about media. Of course, playing certain kind of videogames or watching certain kind of movies is not going to turn us into killers or rapists, but they can indeed influence us.

    I used to think otherwise just a few years ago, but as I have read and think further about the matter, I have realized it’s true, because at the end of the day, the primary purpose of media is to transmit and communicate information. If they couldn’t influence us in that respect, even on a minimal level, then governments and corporations wouldn’t bother with propaganda and marketing, because they would be completely ineffective. The thing is that they tend to influence us in very subtle ways, and most of the time we don’t even realize it, and if we just consume them passively without being willing to examine them further, we might end up with a lot of faulty information.

    just for instance, how many people still believe in certain myths because they appear recurrently in certain narratives, tropes, archetypes and stereotypes (from trivial examples like the belief that lemmings perform suicide, to some more serious things like the notion that a gunshot is non-lethal provided it doesn’t hit any vital area), or might think certain kinds of behavior are positive or acceptable (like the “nice guy” syndrome you mention).

    Of course that being said, I don’t believe that media that portrays or contains certain kind of content should be banned, forbidden or censored. Rather I think we as individuals need to engage in more critical thinking regarding the media we consume and being willing to analyze them and criticize their content. It’s part of the reason why I’m in favor of critical pieces that examine videogames in terms of the racism, sexism or violence they might contain, even if admittedly, too often some critics (and commenters for that matter) just go too far and end losing sight of the middle ground I mentioned above.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for andrewmayes78 #87 andrewmayes78 2 years ago
    @NotCarolKaye I never said anything about these outfits NEEDING to be kept from the public. In fact, I've said the exact opposite multiple times; I'm fine with them. Really, though, the value of the content is completely relative, because said content was optional to begin with. It only meant something to the people who planned to use it. It's okay for people to be upset about this, to a certain extent, yes. I just don't personally see any reason to, because the change doesn't mean much to me.

    You want to be upset about the change? Go ahead. Rock out, it's your right to. But telling me that I NEED to be as upset about it as you (which I'm not saying you've done) is just as bad as if I were to say you SHOULDN'T be upset about it (which I never intended to do, and I apologize if it came across that way). I simply came here to give my personal opinion, and I'm sorry if you don't agree with them.Edited 2 times. Last edited October 2015 by andrewmayes78
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #88 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 I never said people shouldn't find those costumes distasteful. Of course there are some people who would. But like your "some people may objectify" thing, how is being approved of by everybody a standard for what should allowed?

    And you keep saying that this cut content doesn't really matter to you. That isn't relevant to anybody else in the world. It doesn't mean that it shouldn't matter to people who aren't you. Do you understand that? What you think of as an excessive reaction isn't important. The people who see this as something worth objecting to think of it as the appropriate reaction. Are you honestly going to tell me that they're wrong for that? That your opinion is what they should be basing their actions on instead of theirs? Because that's really what it seems to boil down to with you.

    You should really consider that having a willingness to stand up on behalf of something that matters to a person is something that shows merit. You should also consider that telling them they shouldn't be standing up for it because it shouldn't matter to them shows egocentrism.Edited October 2015 by NotCarolKaye
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #89 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @docexe I don't think I've ever gone to an extreme in my arguments. I said that people who pass judgment on others for liking this kind of stuff are sex shaming, and that's true. When someone wants to look at girls in lingerie in a video game, and they are being called creepy for it, that is sex shaming. That is by definition what it is.

    And, in my opinion, sex shaming is something that we as a progressive culture really need to be concerned with, because it's growing alarmingly common.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for NotCarolKaye #90 NotCarolKaye 2 years ago
    @andrewmayes78 You said people are "IDIOTIC" for objecting. Clear? That's the word you used to describe a category of people I'm part of. That's NOT the same as "Go ahead, rock out." You are shamelessly backpedaling. You said I'm idiotic for caring about this. Would you like to say that to me again? Or would you like to admit you were wrong? Because I won't let you pretend that you've been just stating your opinion, without any judgemnt of others.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for ItsSupercar #91 ItsSupercar 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 This is rather rich to hear. I make a post encouraging people to be more thoughtful about matters such as context and consent when they discuss Sex Positivity, bringing up several sub-topics that can help differentiate between sexual content that works and sexual content that fails, and your response is to claim that I'm the one who's not exercising critical thinking. Bravo.

    You seem convinced that there's no non-puritanical reason to criticize these costumes. You cannot conceive of any reason a person might look at this content and decide this game isn't the right place for it, other than "sex-shaming". That is your failure to listen and your failure to consider nuance. Not mine.

    Sex Positivity is not about the unconditional celebration of any old thing that might get somebody off, and I'm pretty tired of seeing the concept interpreted in this way. Rather, it's about foregrounding agency, consent, and courtesy in expressions of sex. As counter-intuitive as you may find it, it is not inherently Sex Negative to critique a particular case of eroticism in media.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #92 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @ItsSupercar That's exactly right. YOU are the one that's not exercising critical thinking. Your post was badly misplaced.

    "You seem convinced that there's no non-puritanical reason to criticize these costumes."

    No. What I'm convinced of is that no such reasons have been expressed, anywhere in these comments. Anywhere. Doesn't fit the tone of the game? Debatable but also irrelevant, they are tucked away and optional, no one would be forced to use them. Make the game less inclusive? No, wrong, if anything it's the oppposite. Again, we are talking about girls in lingerie, in a horror game. That's it. There's nothing remotely shocking or immoral about those costumes.

    "You cannot conceive of any reason a person might look at this content and decide this game isn't the right place for it, other than "sex-shaming". That is your failure to listen and your failure to consider nuance. Not mine."

    You're the one who's not listening or thinking here. If someone doesn't like the costumes because they don't suit their personal tastes, that's fine. No one's arguing that that's a problem. But when people start passing judgment on others for daring to want to look at girls in lingerie... THAT is problematic! That is sex shaming! Open your eyes, there's been tons of it in these comments.

    Sex Positivity is about us as a society learning to accept out sexuality and to not feel shame over it. As long as sex is between consenting adults there is nothing immoral about it. Passing judgment on others because of their personal tastes is ABSOLUTELY sex negative, and it is a big problem in our society today. It's something we badly need to work on. And it sounds like you need to work on it too.Edited October 2015 by theresacatalano27
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #93 docexe 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 Ok, first of all, I wasn’t talking about you there, I was making some generalizations about how this kind of discussions tend to play out, as I have seen several online for a few years already.

    That being said, there are indeed some commenters here who are losing sight of the middle ground and jumping to extremes, although I’m hesitant to mention them by name because I’m sure my point will be misinterpreted and they will take offense.

    Now, on another matter, I think you make fair points but that you also make some overgeneralizations. I do agree with you that people shouldn’t be lambasted and immediately passed moral judgment for liking sexual content (or any kind of content for that matter) and that doing such can be considered sex shaming, but I don’t think that means the sexual content itself is beyond reproach or can’t be analyzed, criticized or even decried with such a thing constituting sex shaming (especially considering that not all expressions of sexuality are actually healthy).

    More importantly, I think it’s perfectly possible to criticize or even lambast a piece of art or fiction for whatever content it might include, without by association lambasting whoever happens to like said piece of art or fiction or demanding it to be “purged from the face of the earth”. And by the same token, I think it’s perfectly possible to like or enjoy a piece of art or fiction while at the same time being aware of whatever troubling content it might contain and why it is troubling, and/or without agreeing or supporting whatever message, values or intent the author might exhibit or try to transmit through said piece of art or fiction. It’s tied to what I mentioned about approaching media with a critical eye and an analytical perspective.

    Just to give an example, I for instance love the works of H.P. Lovecraft and think they are seminal classics of horror literature, but at the same time I’m perfectly aware they contain a lot of elements that can’t really be called anything else but extremely racist, classist and xenophobic. I still enjoy them as horror pieces, and I don’t think liking them in spite of those troubling elements means I’m somehow in favor of racism, classism or xenophobia. By the same token, while I wouldn’t mind someone lambasting them for including said elements, I would certainly take issue with someone trying to ban them or decrying me for reading them. I also don’t particularly agree with the author’s particular cosmovision, even if I tend to joke at times about the universe being a cold and uncaring place.

    Edit: Just to clarify, I wrote this post before reading your reply to@ItsSupercar, you explain your position better there.Edited 3 times. Last edited October 2015 by docexe
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for theresacatalano27 #94 theresacatalano27 2 years ago
    @docexe That's fair, I mostly agree with all that. I'm sure I do overgeneralize at times, it can be difficult to avoid that when trying to make a point.

    In general I agree that sexual content isn't beyond reproach, and I have no problem with analyzing it or criticizing it. But in this particular case, we're talking about something very tame: girls in lingerie. There's very little here to analyze. It's merely a little optional bonus for people who want some titillation, and that's all it is. Now, for people who criticize the very IDEA of titillation in media, that I can't agree with. That's viewing sexual desire in a negative light, and is certainly anti-sex. That kind of viewpoint harkens back to the anti-pornography movements in the 70s, and it's something I'd hope that we as a society would have evolved past by now.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for docexe #95 docexe 2 years ago
    @theresacatalano27 Those are fair points, really.

    Just to clarify again, I was talking in general terms (because yes, I also over generalize at times) rather than referring to the current discussion at hand of the appropriateness of the Fatal Frame costumes. I don’t think indeed there is any particular logical reason to remove them and I think Nintendo is being over-paternalistic there.

    The closest thing I would think approaching a valid reason for removal would be what I was discussing above with another commenter that, if the storyline calls attention to one character feeling uncomfortable or objectified while being photographed in that outfit, then there are some troubling (or contradictory) implications in allowing the player to have her parade in it. But as you say, the fact that is optional bonus content that most people would probably never unlock means removing both outfits on those grounds is exaggerated.Edited 2 times. Last edited October 2015 by docexe
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for BuddyLuv324 #96 BuddyLuv324 2 years ago
    To be honest, im more annoyed with the fact that Fatal frame 5 is only digital download in the States and the lack of any soft of ads from Nintendo. This is just another strike added against NoA having to censor a title thats clearly for adults.

    The censoring doesnt really help their case much when one of the costumes in place can be considered that of a skin tight fetish wear for these-called "male gaze." If people are going to get offended over optional costumes or the more immediate violence contained in the game, then these titles are simply not for them. Doesnt matter how you slice it, if they're cutting out content that they feel is offensive, objectifying, violent, etc its a form of censorship.
    Sign in to Reply