Support NeoGAF

[Nirolak]

Uh... they never changed anything with nier, there are 2 nier games, GESTALT and REPLICANT. Japan got both, we just got the father one (which i dont see a brother ever going to the lengths that a father would go) If you want to talk about changes with localizations and go with something go to DRAKENGARD... some subtle changes were made... like pedo priest .

No, father Nier exists explicitly for the Western market:

Originally, the young Nier was the only main character. “I made the youthful version (the protagonist of Nier Replicant) first, during development Saito-san (producer) talked about considering overseas markets,” Taro Yokoo, Director at Cavia, explained in an interview with Inside Games. “At Square Enix’s Los Angeles studio we had a discussion, it was said having a fragile young character was not possible. So, I started preparing a macho protagonist for North America.”

Read more at http://www.siliconera.com/2010/05/20/barbarian-nier-was-born-in-los-angeles/#YGgK3gkDa9ZWmSeP.99

If you liked him, you actually liked them editing their game for Western taste and cultural concerns.

 

[LordGorchnik]

A big part of the issue is that people have this wrong-headed idea about "tribal headdresses and face paint" borne of ignorance. The types of headwear people think of as stereotypically Indian have specific cultural roles that are being exploited and misused when people just treat them as generic costumes. Other elements of clothing associated with American Indians (like turquoise jewelry or various types of leather clothing) are much less sensitive.

Thanks for the reply.

It's just a shame that some of the coolest jewelry, headpieces, and dresses that the American Indians wore could have been in this game but instead we are now (if the rumors are true) stuck with leggings/chaps and cowboy hats with a possible name change for the class. To hell with that.

 

[PBalfredo]

Uh... they never changed anything with nier, there are 2 nier games, GESTALT and REPLICANT. Japan got both, we just got the father one (which i dont see a brother ever going to the lengths that a father would go) If you want to talk about changes with localizations and go with something go to DRAKENGARD... some subtle changes were made... like pedo priest .

Father Nier was explicitly designed with western audiences in mind. Yeah Japan got both versions, but considering Gestalt was exclusive to the Japanese 360 (lol), it's fair to say brother Nier was the version for Japan.

edit: beaten

 

[sensui-tomo]

Why is it that the "it's art" defense comes up whenever it's a Japanese game creator making changes to their game to make it more acceptable to the West because it's either -sexist
and/or
racist?
In this case both. As if you would go up to the creator in person and say "Don't change that it's perfect art and no artist ever makes any change ever." Holy shit I hate this "it's art" argument. And calling the group that opposes
-racism
-sexism
extremists, holy shit!

Cant we just call the devs/pubs/whatver ass hats for marketing to a group to sell sex when they change their tune in another region? Unless they patch it out in the region it came out in. I dont like the whole NoJ/NoA/NoE have different stances on their image, they should share the same image across the world .

 

[Eila]

This is so dumb. The tomahawk outfit looked great. I can understand outfits being emitted for being too revealing for children but this!?

I cannot, the first one is a T rated game, and the second is a C rated game in Japan.

 

[BasilZero]

I hope this isn't true, that's one of the coolest looking designs.

This

Also assuming the rumor is true - its gonna be awkward seeing a cowboy using a bow lol.

 

[sensui-tomo]

No, father Nier exists explicitly for the Western market:


If you liked him, you actually liked them editing their game for Western taste and cultural concerns.

ah... thought it was also on the ps3 over there and not just the Idol master 360 machine
I still dont like the changes made to Drakengard though.

 

[Oregano]

Ahh, I'm kind of split about this. I really like the Tomahawk design but I understand that it's a bit insensitive. I don't mind a change as long as it doesn't really affect the context.

 

[TheBlueBomber]

Glad they actually changed it

 

[Crossing Eden]

Cant we just call the devs/pubs/whatver ass hats for marketing to a group to sell sex when they change their tune in another region? Unless they patch it out in the region it came out in. I dont like the whole NoJ/NoA/NoE have different stances on their image, they should share the same image across the world .

Well yes you can, no one's stopping you from doing so.

This

Also assuming the rumor is true - its gonna be awkward seeing a cowboy using a bow lol.

It's just as awkward to see a Native American using a crossbow.

EDIT:Charlequin's posts were on point.

 

[RK128]

The character job in question was about as embarrassing and poorly-thought-out an example of cultural appropriation as you can get these days. It doesn't even have the excuse of being called something like "Warrior" and just using a Native style; it's literally named something intended to convey this idea of a magical Indian warrior to an audience that doesn't know anything about indigenous American people beyond offensive 50s-era movie stereotypes. It is, to be blunt, hot garbage.

Now when Nintendo sits down to bring over this game to the US -- the country where the people being stereotyped here actually live, and a country where awareness of how shit these stereotypes are and how widely misused they are has grown dramatically in the last couple decades -- they're stuck looking at the fact that while the rest of the content in the game might be just fine, this costume is going to be offensive (and just disruptive to the experience) for a big part of their audience. And not for any particular reason -- this isn't a major storyline point that might be offensive to some but nonetheless is central to the narrative, or a callback to some external reference that people are expecting to see, it's just the video game equivalent of the Sexy Indian Squaw costumes shitty people wear to Halloween parties.

Given all that, making this choice is a slam dunk. If you keep it, you give actual, real offense to people who are a part of your audience, just to preserve something minor and unimportant in the game; if you get rid of it, the only people you offend are the ones working themselves up into an artificial froth over how any and every localization change is "censorship." The former is a real concern for an actual; business reliant on long term customer dedication for success; the latter is an audience you're better off actively pissing off early on in the hopes that you don't have to hear about it from them every time you do your job.

Also, these statements from the article quoted in the OP are outlandishly foolish:

The former reads like something someone who doesn't actually understand what people are complaining about in these situations trying to imagine how being offended works, and the second one is a bullshit excuse given disingenuously by people who never wanted to include minority characters in the first place.

I don't really know how to comment on the issue, considering I never played either of the Bravely games....but your thoughts line up with how I feel, so thank you for doing a great job making a great point .

If the old costume was offensive for cultural reasons, then I am completely cool with them making the changes needed to ensure the game doesn't offend anyone and allows more people to play the game.

 

[Ooccoo]

getting sick of it all, why does everything need to be a controversy?

 

[KojiKnight]

Leave in a stereotypical native american outfit done 'sexy' like' and it's clearly an insult to them... Remove it and it's clearly an insult to them and white washing gaming further.

Now I think we can all agree the tomahawk outfit is inappropriate... but who gets to decide what would be? I mean, even if you got a native american tribe on board, there would likely be many other tribes that would disapprove.

 

[sensui-tomo]

Well yes you can, no one's stopping you from doing so.


It's just as awkward to see a Native American using a crossbow.

I see the act as being a hypocrite, to be okay with it in one region and not in another.(when it doesnt change ratings*) Thats why i'd like to see people call nintendo and other devs out on their bullshit (even though i may enjoy the cheesecake (i think thats the term) I dislike hypocrites ) Unless again they patch out the thing that is altered. ( i know SE changed an outfit for jessica in DQ8 (oddly its not any of the risque ones, just the swimsuit one, and its not a bad change either)

 

[TheBlueBomber]

Leave in a stereotypical native american outfit done 'sexy' like' and it's clearly an insult to them... Remove it and it's clearly an insult to them and white washing gaming further.

Now I think we can all agree the tomahawk outfit is inappropriate... but who gets to decide what would be? I mean, even if you got a native american tribe on board, there would likely be many other tribes that would disapprove.

It's not whitewashing when the character is white to begin with, the characters wearing the costume are not Native American, so they shouldn't be wearing it in the first place

 

[Battlechili]

Why is it that the "it's art" defense comes up whenever it's a Japanese game creator making changes to their game to make it more acceptable to the West because it's either -sexist
and/or
racist?
In this case both. As if you would go up to the creator in person and say "Don't change that it's perfect art and no artist ever makes any change ever." Holy shit I hate this "it's art" argument. And calling the group that opposes
-racism
-sexism
extremists, holy shit!

Its not really that; its people who aren't the creators changing the creator's original work. The its art argument is saying that the original artists vision is being changed. Sure, the original artist might have been offensive and they're definitely not immune to criticism, but change isn't the same as criticism, and some people feel as if changing an artists work is unfair to the original artist and dangerous to games as an art form. Many feel that potentially offensive content should be allowed and left unchanged, and instead people should just criticize such a work based on the results of such artwork and how good or bad a depiction such artwork is. Such criticism in turn could have a positive (or negative) effect on the creator's future work, depending on how well an artist takes and learns from criticism and the legitimacy of the criticism.

It's just as awkward to see a Native American using a crossbow.

Does it make much more sense for a cowboy to use a crossbow? The crossbow in general is a really strange weapon. It was most widely used during the late medieval era, to my knowledge.

 

[Dark Ninja]

They should have just left it in all it could do is bring some attention and maybe generate some sells. People who would find out about it and get offended would never even buy the game to begin let alone know about it.

I laughed at that they literally just put pants on the character

 

[DiipuSurotu]

Vanille wore the outfit of an Subsaharian African tribe in FFXIII but strangely there was no outcry.

 

[kuroneko0509]

This

Also assuming the rumor is true - its gonna be awkward seeing a cowboy using a bow lol.

actually, the main weapon for the class is gun not bow (Gun is S, Bow is B)

 

[The Technomancer]

They should have just left it in all it could do is bring some attention and maybe generate some sells. People who would find out about it and get offended would never even buy the game to begin let alone know about it.

I'm happy with this change, I would have reacted negatively to the original (I was revisiting the MegaMan Battle Network games recently and cringed a bit at TomahawkMan) and Bravely Second has been one of my most anticipated games for over a year now

 

[PixyJunket]

Why is it that the "it's art" defense comes up whenever it's a Japanese game creator making changes to their game to make it more acceptable to the West because it's either -sexist
and/or
racist?
In this case both. As if you would go up to the creator in person and say "Don't change that it's perfect art and no artist ever makes any change ever." Holy shit I hate this "it's art" argument. And calling the group that opposes
-racism
-sexism
extremists, holy shit!

The costume isn't racist or sexist, unless your definition for these terms has become so diluted to remove the gravity they should have.

Even if it was (or you just personally think it is), racist and sexist art is still art; and freedom of artistic expression means that words and pictures that might damage somebody's personal sensibilities or beliefs are still allowed to exist.

 

[Ridley327]

They should have just left it in all it could do is bring some attention and maybe generate some sells. People who would find out about it and get offended would never even buy the game to begin let alone know about it.

I don't think it would need this intact to sell. The first game did quite well in the west, and it even soundly trounced Squenix's own LR:FFXIII the month that both came out in.

 

[KojiKnight]

It's not whitewashing when the character is white to begin with, the characters wearing the costume are not Native American, so they shouldn't be wearing it in the first place

If you aren't going to at least address the point I was making, why quote me at all?

 

[Crossing Eden]

I see the act as being a hypocrite, to be okay with it in one region and not in another.(when it doesnt change ratings*) Thats why i'd like to see people call nintendo and other devs out on their bullshit (even though i may enjoy the cheesecake (i think thats the term) I dislike hypocrites ) Unless again they patch out the thing that is altered. ( i know SE changed an outfit for jessica in DQ8 (oddly its not any of the risque ones, just the swimsuit one, and its not a bad change either)

Then by all means call out the devs doing this as hypocrites, but don't use the words "censorship" or even worse "self-censorship" while doing so. Yes Japan still has a major issue with sexism and many issues with the portrayal of minorities and it only reinforces it when they think it's "ok" for the market where it's a huge issue than the other market where it's a lesser but still huge issue when they should be doing it in all regions to make a point that it's not ok and that gaming needs major changes when it comes to this stuff.

Its not really that; its people who aren't the creators changing the creator's original work. The its art argument is saying that the original artists vision is being changed. Sure, the original artist might have been offensive and they're definitely not immune to criticism, but change isn't the same as criticism, and some people feel as if changing an artists work is unfair to the original artist and dangerous to games as an art form. Many feel that potentially offensive content should be allowed and left unchanged, and instead people should just criticize such a work based on the results of such artwork and how good or bad a depiction such artwork is. Such criticism in turn could have a positive (or negative) effect on the creator's future work, depending on how well an artist takes and learns from criticism and the legitimacy of the criticism.Does it make much more sense for a cowboy to use a crossbow? The crossbow in general is a really strange weapon. It was most widely used during the late medieval era, to my knowledge.

Yet in this case it is the creators making changes as was established in this thread. The "potentially offensive content" in this case is almost constantly allowed and left unchanged in the gaming space. People need to stop trying to create the narrative that these things are super important to Japanese game devs and that they're cowering in a room while NoA hires new modelers to go over their work. And yes, it makes more sense for a cowboy to be using a crossbow, than a native, despite both situations being incredibly stupid.

The costume isn't racist or sexist, unless your definition for these terms has become so diluted to remove the gravity they should have.

Even if it was (or you just personally think it is), racist and sexist art is still art; and freedom of artistic expression means that words and pictures that might damage somebody's personal sensibilities or beliefs are still allowed to exist.

It's yet another portrayal of a "mystical native" stereotype on top of being heavily sexualized.

 

[UrbanRats]

They took the lazy way out, but who am i to ask others to do extra work anyway?

 

[Yujin]

It's not whitewashing when the character is white to begin with, the characters wearing the costume are not Native American, so they shouldn't be wearing it in the first place

Why shouldn't they be wearing it?

 

[TheBlueBomber]

If you aren't going to at least address the point I was making, why quote me at all?

The point that just because some people don't find it offensive, they shouldn't have to take it out? they most definitely should still feel the need to remove it, it's offensive and Native American culture isn't a costume for anyone, be it for Holloween or in video games

Why shouldn't they be wearing it?

Because they aren't Native American

 

[sensui-tomo]

Then by all means call out the devs doing this as hypocrites, but don't use the words "censorship" or even worse "self-censorship" while doing so. Yes Japan still has a major issue with sexism and many issues with the portrayal of minorities and it only reinforces it when they think it's "ok" for the market where it's a huge issue than the other market where it's a lesser but still huge issue when they should be doing it in all regions to make a point that it's not ok and that gaming needs major changes when it comes to this stuff.

Oh its not censorship all right, that'd only be the case if we later found out nintendo told them "Change this or you can't release this game" as due to the definition "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts: "

 

[Yujin]

The point that just because some people don't find it offensive, they shouldn't have to take it out? they most definitely should still feel the need to remove it, it's offensive and Native American culture isn't a costume for anyone, be it for Holloween or in video games



Because they aren't Native American

Ah, I see, white people can only wear white people clothes.

 

[RM8]

Nintendo's recent changes are preemptive measures to avoid bullying from extremist groups that want to eliminate art that disagrees with their delicate sensibilities.

Yeah, screw Nintendo and their recent changes.

http://www.jjmccullough.com/Nintendo.php

 

[MagiusNecros]

I hope this isn't true, that's one of the coolest looking designs.

I share the same thoughts.

 

[Battlechili]

Yet in this case it is the creators making changes as was established in this thread. The "potentially offensive content" in this case is almost constantly allowed and left unchanged in the gaming space. People need to stop trying to create the narrative that these things are super important to Japanese game devs and that they're cowering in a room while NoA hires new modelers to go over their work. And yes, it makes more sense for a cowboy to be using a crossbow, than a native, despite both situations being incredibly stupid.

There's a difference between the original creators changing something and it being their decision to change something. I feel as if that's important to note. Also, how do we know this was their decision? And why would that be the case, if its only being changed for the Western market? Does it not at all seem suspicious that this change isn't being made for Japan as well? I mean if the original creator felt that this is a better outfit, wouldn't an update be made on the Japanese release as well?

Yeah, screw Nintendo and their recent changes.

http://www.jjmccullough.com/Nintendo.php

To be fair, all of those are from the 90s, when this sort of thing was much more commonplace. It seems like it started to die out after the 90s ended, and in recent years its started re-appearing as a common practice. Or maybe due to wide internet usage people are just noticing it more.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

How are they going to handle the Asterisk holder the job is associated with?

 

[LordGorchnik]

Because they aren't Native American

This seems silly.

So Americans (or any countries population for that matter) couldn't wear traditional foreign wear then such as kimonos (Japan) or sombreros (Spain/Mexico)?

Seems silly to me given the fact that a good majority of the world adapted to wearing the Western/European style of clothing line. Should we call out those people as well since they aren't English/American?

Shit this video calls it like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwoSYWIgV9Y

 

[PixyJunket]

It's yet another portrayal of a "mystical native" stereotype on top of being heavily sexualized.

I am a quarter Native American, I find the costume to be very cool.

My wife (a woman) finds the sexy aspect of the costume to be cute.

And yet here you are speaking for us.

 

[Axelstream]

I have some questions, and I want to stress that I'm asking in the interest of a more thorough understanding, not to argue a point.

Putting the sexualization of this costume aside for a moment (which is indeed a large part of its problematic nature), what separates this from, say, a samurai/ninja costume that often works its way into these types of games? Is it that Native American garb is intrinsically tied to the Native American race in a way that samurai/ninja garb is not to the Japanese? Is it that the unique Native American history -- one of oppression and subsequent cultural appropriation -- makes it particularly inappropriate to invoke in such a shallow way? Is it because the aesthetic elements of Native American culture are sacred in a way that the aesthetic elements of Japanese culture are not? Does the fact that Japanese developers insert samurai/ninja classes into these games detract from the "appropriation" argument in that circumstance -- that is to say, do we assume that the Japanese understand and respect the culture they are invoking, because it is their own?

I suspect it's all of the above and more, but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.

 

[The Technomancer]

This seems silly.

So Americans (or any countries population for that matter) couldn't wear traditional foreign wear then such as kimonos (Japan) or sombreros (Spain/Mexico)?

Seems silly to me given the fact that a good majority of the world adapted to wearing the Western/European style of clothing line. Should we call out those people as well since they aren't English/American?

Shit this video calls it like it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwoSYWIgV9Y

Setting aside those other examples American Indian garb in particular is a different beast because we're literally dealing with a group that was nearly wiped out in violent colonialization and continues to be treated extremely shittily to this day. If America also conquered Japan, killed 90% of the population and gave the remaining people reservations to live on, yeah, using a kimono as a costume piece might be in really goddamn bad taste

 

[charlequin]

So Americans (or any countries population for that matter) couldn't wear traditional foreign wear then such as kimonos (Japan) or sombreros (Spain/Mexico)?

A sombrero, a kimono, and a Plains Indian war bonnet are three completely different types of clothing with three very different purposes and contexts. There isn't a general-purpose rule that people can't ever wear clothing from other cultures; it's specific to the cultures and clothing involved, so it being okay for (say) foreigners to wear kimonos doesn't necessarily imply anything about the other cases.

I suspect it's all of the above and more, but I'd like to hear some thoughts on the matter.

Yes, you covered it pretty well I think. Each of those elements individually make it more problematic, so they add up to something that's more of an issue than other seemingly similar situations might be.

 

[Henkka]

Is "cultural appropriation" really the correct term for this? Been thinking about this today because of the yoga thread in the OT.

Anyway, I thought cultural appropriation meant a dominant culture taking something from an oppressed culture and calling it their own. I'm not sure such a relationship exists between the Japanese and Native American cultures. Besides I'm not sure what changes when no one is actually wearing anything... Instead it's a Japanese character designer drawing a fantasy character inspired by Native American motifs.

 

[TheBlueBomber]

Setting aside those other examples American Indian garb in particular is a different beast because we're literally dealing with a group that was nearly wiped out in violent colonialization and continues to be treated extremely shittily to this day. If America also conquered Japan, killed 90% of the population and gave the remaining people reservations to live on, yeah, using a kimono as a costume piece might be in really goddamn bad taste

This, exactly this, thank you

 

[Aselith]

That's a weird change either way. Like why would a cowboy have a crossbow?
It also still has the midriff removed.

Why would a Native American have a crossbow is the better question.

 

[RM8]

To be fair, all of those are from the 90s, when this sort of thing was much more commonplace. It seems like it started to die out after the 90s ended, and in recent years its started re-appearing as a common practice. Or maybe due to wide internet usage people are just noticing it more.

Alternatively, Japanese games are getting more and more fanservice-ish.

 

[Dark Ninja]

Isn't replacing a "Native American" outfit with a Cowboy one even more offensive

 

[CO_Andy]

I'm not sure such a relationship exists between the Japanese and Native American cultures.

Someone didn't watch The Last Samurai

 

[Warxard]

I am a quarter Native American, I find the costume to be very cool.

My wife (a woman) finds the sexy aspect of the costume to be cute.

And yet here you are speaking for us.

Using anecdotal examples to assert your point is a thrilling way to neuter any sort of discussion and prove that you couldn't give two grand fucks about the discussion at hand.

If you're incapable of putting aside your own personal biases to have a discussion like, you know, a person then I genuinely don't believe you are approaching the discussion honestly. No one cares if your significant other cosigns your opinion because it does nothing to disprove, criticize or agree with the discussion.

 

[sensui-tomo]

Why would a Native American have a crossbow is the better question.

The better question is why does a class called TOMAHAWK have a damn bow? They should be throwing tomahawks .

Or throw pies.

 

[autoduelist]

Uh, wouldn't the Tomahawk outfit itself being the one guilty of cultural appropriation?

Removal of Native American mascots and imagery is not considered censorship.

Yea, my guess is they removed it for -fear- of getting in trouble for 'cultural appropriation' or whatever in the face of the recent current events.

Turning this around and accusing them of various things for making the change is, imo, ridiculous.

 

[charlequin]

Is "cultural appropriation" really the correct term for this?

Yeah, as Nirolak mentioned earlier in the thread, we probably want to say "cultural exploitation" here since it's more accurate to the issue under discussion.

 

[Professor Beef]

I can only speak for myself since I'm half native, but the article is fantastically stupid. Not the content, but how it's written.

The character job in question was about as embarrassing and poorly-thought-out an example of cultural appropriation as you can get these days. It doesn't even have the excuse of being called something like "Warrior" and just using a Native style; it's literally named something intended to convey this idea of a magical Indian warrior to an audience that doesn't know anything about indigenous American people beyond offensive 50s-era movie stereotypes. It is, to be blunt, hot garbage.

Now when Nintendo sits down to bring over this game to the US -- the country where the people being stereotyped here actually live, and a country where awareness of how shit these stereotypes are and how widely misused they are has grown dramatically in the last couple decades -- they're stuck looking at the fact that while the rest of the content in the game might be just fine, this costume is going to be offensive (and just disruptive to the experience) for a big part of their audience. And not for any particular reason -- this isn't a major storyline point that might be offensive to some but nonetheless is central to the narrative, or a callback to some external reference that people are expecting to see, it's just the video game equivalent of the Sexy Indian Squaw costumes shitty people wear to Halloween parties.

Given all that, making this choice is a slam dunk. If you keep it, you give actual, real offense to people who are a part of your audience, just to preserve something minor and unimportant in the game; if you get rid of it, the only people you offend are the ones working themselves up into an artificial froth over how any and every localization change is "censorship." The former is a real concern for an actual; business reliant on long term customer dedication for success; the latter is an audience you're better off actively pissing off early on in the hopes that you don't have to hear about it from them every time you do your job.

Also, these statements from the article quoted in the OP are outlandishly foolish:





The former reads like something someone who doesn't actually understand what people are complaining about in these situations trying to imagine how being offended works, and the second one is a bullshit excuse given disingenuously by people who never wanted to include minority characters in the first place.

This is a fantastic post, btw. I'm not bothered about the outfit one way or the other (I never cared for BD), but I empathize with those who do care, and you pretty much nailed it here.

 

[PixyJunket]

Using anecdotal examples to assert your point is a thrilling way to neuter any sort of discussion and prove that you couldn't give two grand fucks about the discussion at hand.

If you're incapable of putting aside your own personal biases to have a discussion like, you know, a person then I genuinely don't believe you are approaching the discussion honestly. No one cares if your significant other cosigns your opinion because it does nothing to disprove, criticize or agree with the discussion.

You are only upset because I don't share your viewpoint.

If I had said "I am part Native American and this grossly offends me," I suspect that my "anecdotal example" would not have been so summarily disregarded.