Recently, controversies like the [6/26/2023] patch for SkullGirl or the content and story modifications in Guilty Gear Strive have divided the community between those who align with the decisions made by the companies and those who claim to feel deceived by a retroactive measure that would have prevented them from acquiring the game had they known that information.
Let’s analyze the main arguments for and against, and I want to make it clear that I am completely against any kind of censorship that modifies original content created in its context.
In favor: “The patch has removed Nazi symbolism, racist behaviors, and sexualization of minors.”
The number one argument used by the gaming press attempts to demonize fans who view these changes unfavorably, insinuating that if they find them incorrect, it’s because they are sympathetic to extremist ideologies, racists, and even pedophiles. It’s a clear strawman fallacy, maliciously employed to argue against these changes.
To what extent are these statements correct or as strong as they sound? Does this lack of detail and fallacious argumentation accurately describe the facts themselves?
First, the Nazis.
It is not correct to say that there is “Nazi symbolism” represented in the game. The Black Egrets characters wear bands on their arms in red, white, and black, parodying the characteristic of Nazi attire. However, neither their history nor their meaning comes close to the levels seen in Wolfenstein, an Indiana Jones adventure, or a historical FPS game. It’s playing with taboo iconography that cannot be dismantled from the outside but can be questioned from within if the team is not the same or if the direction of the audiovisual offering changes.
If they hadn’t had that perverse idea from the beginning, it wouldn’t have been missed. Now that it’s gone, the charisma of the Black Egrets characters has lost a lot of charm. A simple change of color from red to blue in the band would have been enough.
The same applies to “racial sensitivities.”
We can say the exact same thing about the alleged racist behavior towards one of the characters in the roster. He is a black man who, in his story, is brutally beaten by a group of white men and creatures (also light-skinned). At first glance, this may seem like a message reminiscent of situations of racism and injustice, but we must point out that he is a lawful police officer who is attacked by his corrupt colleagues, adding a deeper layer that transcends superficial traits such as skin color.
Instead of censoring a scene that aims to evoke feelings of rejection and empathy, they could have included someone of color among those attacking the fighter… but wait, that would also convey a negative message, right?
Sexualization… of minors.
Some of the game’s protagonists are underage (ranging from 11 to 16 years old). Specifically, the 16-year-old character, Filia, bears the brunt of these modifications. She experiences a clear case of unwanted harassment in her introduction (used to introduce the symbiote that cohabits in her body, “Samsón”) and, due to wearing a skirt, tends to reveal more of her underwear when executing kicks. The cuts are more than evident here, both in the recoloring of the underwear and the alterations to the skirt in the artwork. The intro has also been altered in that aspect, here you can appreciate how the harassment scene looked before the patch.
While it might be slightly more understandable if it were the characters Umbrella (11 years old) or Peacock (13 years old), I believe we are still dealing with a work of fiction, intended for a mature audience capable of comprehending these behaviors and discerning whether they are good or bad, and if the fanservice crosses the line of appropriateness.
That being said, I still support individual choice.
It is the customer who regulates the market by supporting (or not) a video game, and it should not be the pressure groups who decide, as they often have interests not in the games themselves, but in whether the content aligns with their own lines of thinking and morals. It feels like a double betrayal to the fan base. On one hand, it betrays their investment in time and money, immersing themselves in the canon proposed by the developers, delving into their lore and vision. And on the other hand, it is a blackmail and a potential insult to the fans, insinuating that “if they don’t accept this, it’s because they are a bunch of undesirable degenerates.”
It’s a brilliant move.
In favor: “It’s a fighting game. It should be valued for the experience it provides, not for the fanservice.”
No game is solely about the gameplay experience it offers. If that were the case, no one would pay attention to alternatives: everything would be focused on how refined the game is and how much variety of techniques it offers. The example of Mortal Kombat is quite accurate in that regard: when we were young, we would laugh at the users of Super Nintendo, whose bloodless and gore-less version didn’t offer anything attractive and it was better to buy any other fighting game. Simply put, it wasn’t fun, and if it weren’t for the blood, it would have never surpassed being an average game.
On the other hand, I would extend the example to the famous Tecmo’s Dead or Alive series. Playability-wise, it’s nothing more than a “Rock, Paper, Scissors” game dressed up as a fighting game. But the disguise is beautiful, well-crafted, and offers stunning and highly sexualized characters (to the point that special attention is given to the physics of female breasts). Without that sensuality, not even the appeal of playing as Ryu Hayabusa (from the Ninja Gaiden series) could bear the weight of a title that would have ended up in the pile of games like Square’s Ez Ergeiz. Simply put, its gameplay cannot compete with series like Virtua Fighter, Tekken, or Street Fighter, just to mention a few.
I once had a debate with a Japanese friend. I argued that “the true self” is revealed when under the influence of alcohol, as it allows one to act from the heart, with their self-control numbed. She strongly disagreed, stating that “self-control is part of a person, and without it, they are incomplete.” This left me pensive… This example comes to mind because a game is everything it offers, not just what remains when you modify characters with more clothing or remove references that may touch on sensitivities. “The true game” will never be a separate part of it.
In favor: “Why don’t you just watch porn? It’s free.”
I believe that reducing “fanservice” to a desire to watch pornography is an overly simplistic perspective and largely demonstrates a lack of sensitivity and understanding on the part of these individuals. Fanservice is suggestive and generally does not cross certain lines that delve into explicit sexual content, complementing the image of the product. And fans also do not want those lines to be crossed. A pinch of salt can enhance a recipe, but the solution for people who don’t consume salt to taste your product is not to remove the salt and tell you that “if you notice the bland taste, put a salt shaker in your mouth, as you already have one at home and it’s extremely cheap.”
Changing a recipe is risky and can result in the loss of customers. Changing it without taking into account the preferences of those customers is unforgivable.
Against: “The game’s main marketing strategy has always emphasized its sensuality.”
This has been an argument I’ve come across in some videos: not only did the game have a touch of sensuality, but in the way it was marketed to the public, it emphasized that cheeky boldness. The fanservice of the game was one of its main features, its value proposition, and its offering. That’s why there is a shift from confusion to indignation: “Now it turns out it was false advertising.”
Modifying or removing those spicy details, and to avoid offending sensitivities, takes away a significant part of its “edgy” nature and shows that the new development team doesn’t quite understand that they are tampering with the core of what the product means to the fans. Yes, it’s a fighting game, and a very good one, but it’s also a sexy title with a lot of its own personality.
We know that all of this has been done to please the EVO, but at what cost? A frustrated fan base will always seek alternatives. It’s personal now, and if you further belittle and try to shame them, you’ll only anger them more.
Against: “I paid for a product and suddenly, it has changed.”
Let’s imagine that we buy a garment that accentuates our figure in a suggestive way. One fine day, the textile company we purchased the garment from changes hands, and the new management wants to create a new line that is not associated with “indecent clothing”. So, an employee shows up at our house to alter what we have bought… and for free! I believe no one would allow such an action, but in the digital, interconnected, and synchronized world, there is no door that prevents access to our purchase.
All digital content with DRM or associated with a platform is updatable, modifiable, and dependent on the supporting environment. Nobody complains when there is an update that fixes a bug or adds new content. But the opposite happens with censorship, the removal of gameplay options, or the deletion of content. Nobody likes it when something they have paid for and enjoyed is tampered with. The case of the artbook borders on the obscene: it would be unthinkable if the purchase were a physical book of illustrations. But thanks to the magic of the internet, within seconds, “the banana we bought yesterday has turned into a lemon.”
We are facing a clear example of “the thing they want”, but in the form of a Trojan horse: the public has already paid for it, the decision comes too late, is retroactive, and leaves no room for retraction. It is a betrayal to the player, whether they like the change or not.
Conclusion: “It’s not that much censorship, but it still angers me.”
If we summarize these arguments, the censors and those who support them (even if they’re not interested in the game) have done what should have been done from the beginning, and those who complain are potential degenerates. On the other hand, the community in uproar has raised their voices because they loved the product, had paid for it, and feel that the changes have taken away what initially attracted them to it.
To better understand these changes, I’ll leave a couple of videos from Lalito TV comparing the pre-patch and post-patch versions. Are they so grave and unforgivable? Are they really that significant, considering that the game had already undergone censorship and a progressive refinement of the original idea? Judge for yourselves.
Personally, I believe that the news and everything it has provoked are more impactful than the changes themselves, but this does not minimize the seriousness of censoring content that has already been acquired by the game’s followers, and it will leave a mark that only a new and growing fanbase could heal. For better or worse, it will set a precedent and send an important message to those who want to adapt their products to new sensibilities.
I can only say that all of this could have been avoided by employing a default option to tone down the suggestive and potentially controversial aspects of the title. Offering the default option of content more suitable for new audiences or in line with global sensibilities, while including the option to unlock the original game (even through a secret code, like the blood in Mortal Kombat), would have been a perfect decision. It would have added more content to the game, complied with regulations for public consumption, and not angered the fandom that has supported the product for over 10 years.
Bonus: Allow me to enhance this article by including the outstanding video crafted by LuckyStrike1917, “Censoring Video Games Is NEVER Okay” which highlights the majority of these arguments and presents them with a well-reasoned approach that resonates with our shared sentiments.
Leave a Reply