Skullgirls got review-bombed on Steam after some art changes

Quoting: kit89Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

This part right here really threw me on a loop. You're basically saying it's only censorship if it appeases an audience lol
But then again, like the purple guy said, that's the narrative that the alt-right has been pushing around.

Quoting: Metallinatus

Quoting: kit89Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

This part right here really threw me on a loop. You're basically saying it's only censorship if it appeases an audience lol
But then again, like the purple guy said, that's the narrative that the alt-right has been pushing around.

It doesn't actually have to appease an actual audience, there is a form of self-censorship where an individual will modify their words on what they think an audience (real or imaginary) will accept.

The question I guess one has to ask did the developers modify Skullgirls because they wanted to make happy an -unspecified- audience happy, at which point it's a form of censorship, or did they modify it cause they didn't like it, at which point it's artistic license same as George Lucas and Star Wars.

If it is the former, then changing it back due to audience uproar could be argued as censorship, as the artist is censoring their views to appease an audience.


Last edited by kit89 on 6 July 2023 at 7:09 pm UTC

Quoting: Metallinatus

Quoting: kit89Interestingly enough the edits to the original Star Wars (4, 5, 6 re-edited editions) aren't censorship, as that wasn't done to appease any audience, quite the opposite in fact.

This part right here really threw me on a loop. You're basically saying it's only censorship if it appeases an audience lol
But then again, like the purple guy said, that's the narrative that the alt-right has been pushing around.

When one imagines the definition of censorship they imagine the state (government), allowing only certain 'truths', and censorship has very negative connotations, the problem is that the actually definition of the word censorship is exceptionally broad and not necessarily negative.

To have any meaningful discussion on censorship one really needs to specify what type of censorship are they referring to.

Purple Guy is -so long as I've interpreted rightly- correct, in the fact that the alt-right is abusing the use of the term censorship (and what most people associate the word with) when they are in fact referring to a very specific sub-type of censorship that is ultimately not that great a deal.

Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

Man I bought skullgirls long ago but I haven't even played it, and after watching that comparison video, what the fuck kind of hentai shit did I buy!? And all the comments in this thread, holy shit. Maybe some of the devs grew up just a fucking tad, a smidge, and went "wow we put out some stupid shit back in the day, let's fucking fix that".

And all the people who complain about woke, wowzers, you guys need to refocus your energy into something that actually matters, like climate, police brutality, inequality or any of a thousand other worthy causes. Holy shit.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

you are defining the artist as an company not the individuals who work at it.
sure i dont expect nintendo to allow an creator to kill mario or anything like that, but i dont expect then to launch an game and change it for different regions, or change it after launch.
they gave their artists some creative constraints, the artists wrote, draw etc in that limitations their design goals and philosopy might be completely different if they had other constraints.

for example, if you know you cant kill an character you might try to find other ways to create an emotional impact on your art, if you writing thinking you can do that, then someone else remove that from the story, then your story might end up without any scenes of emotional impact as an result of that change.
if an company hired me to write an story and i didnt agree with the creative freedoms they gave me i could simply not help then with their project, they would be able to relase it anyway, but not slap my name in the credits with something like "from creator of X,Y,Z book/movie/game" (assuming i was famous), that is completely different from they leting me write what i want, then changing a lot of things without informing me and keeping my name in the credits.
hell the gaming industry was infamous for ghost writing in the past anyway.


and speaking on censorhsip vs freedom of expression:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI

"It's really about ethics in video game journalism."

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: elmapulwhat is next, rockstar will make an patch so you cant kill any one anymore in GTA? and you will say that is not censorship?

yes that would not be censorship. You playing a video game is not you expressing your right to free speech. Rockstar changing their game so that you can't kill any one any more is actually Rockstar expressing their right to free speech.

Now Rockstar being forced to do this by a 3d party like the Government, now that would have been censorship by that 3d party. But this rarely if ever happens in our western democracies, yes the alt-right is crying loud about companies doing this do appease to "a different audience" but that is just them crying about it, as normal zero points of evidence is ever presented (which they see as proof that it is a conspiracy). Nor would it follow any forms of logic since this "other audience" is a very small group of people that would never buy the game anyway (which the companies knows full well) so that is not why they are doing changes like this (and there is also not a lot of cases of companies doing this either, I mean Skull Girls is not an example of a company even doing this and yet it will still be an a list somehwere of a situation where it happened).

you are defining the artist as an company not the individuals who work at it.
sure i dont expect nintendo to allow an creator to kill mario or anything like that, but i dont expect then to launch an game and change it for different regions, or change it after launch.
they gave their artists some creative constraints, the artists wrote, draw etc in that limitations their design goals and philosopy might be completely different if they had other constraints.

for example, if you know you cant kill an character you might try to find other ways to create an emotional impact on your art, if you writing thinking you can do that, then someone else remove that from the story, then your story might end up without any scenes of emotional impact as an result of that change.
if an company hired me to write an story and i didnt agree with the creative freedoms they gave me i could simply not help then with their project, they would be able to relase it anyway, but not slap my name in the credits with something like "from creator of X,Y,Z book/movie/game" (assuming i was famous), that is completely different from they leting me write what i want, then changing a lot of things without informing me and keeping my name in the credits.
hell the gaming industry was infamous for ghost writing in the past anyway.


and speaking on censorhsip vs freedom of expression:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWqvaMEFIdI

Well the way things like this game works is that a bunch of creative people are signing away their creative works to the company so the company is the creator in that sense. Now for SkullGirls it also happens that the "new" company is the original designers that just created a new company due to the problems with their former boss so here there is even less a company decision as such.

Having a creator having complete expressive freedom when working for a games developer is probably something that you will never see. One of the reasons is that it is the company that is legally responsible for what said creator would create so even by that single reason no company would risk doing it.

Not sure what the reason behind bringing in a discussion of the film industry from a former dictatorship?


Last edited by F.Ultra on 7 July 2023 at 6:36 pm UTC

The changes seem pretty minor to me. Still not a children's game, so it's not like the style or mood or rating changed.

In principle, it is a weird thing to do to a game many people purchased a long time ago. Doesn't feel right.

Quoting: 14The changes seem pretty minor to me. Still not a children's game, so it's not like the style or mood or rating changed.

In principle, it is a weird thing to do to a game many people purchased a long time ago. Doesn't feel right.

For me, it is the fact they censored it at all. I am also pissed there have been charging/ censoring of books by long dead writers. Who gave them the right to alter the work of others?