I protested.
i feel like offing myself with how bad the censorship is. i've got the marks to prove it.
Regarding the censorship of games like Skullgirls and others,
I want to express my frustration with the negative impact censorship has had on me for many years. The decades of censorship have worn me down, especially when sensitivity is used as a false pretext for censoring LGBT books and films like Gone with the Wind. It's disheartening to be labeled as a creep or a fascist simply for voicing my concerns.
There are individuals out there, driven by political motives, who try to impose their sensibilities on others by demanding changes to things they find offensive. This pattern is observed among both progressives and conservatives, with one major figure, whom I won't name, being widely discussed despite her abusive behavior and dubious claims of being a video game enthusiast. She even had the opportunity to speak at the UN about online harassment, despite engaging in similar behavior towards others like Liana Kresner.
For some inexplicable reason, someone within these studios (which aren't even the original creators) decided that the game must be changed under the pretense of harm, inconvenience, or misguided sensibilities. However, it doesn't make sense because these changes are only happening now. There are a few possibilities:
1. They genuinely didn't know what they were doing was "wrong" and allowed it to persist without checking, finally deciding to make changes.
2. They knew it was wrong but continued making the objectionable content until now, disregarding the fact that people purchased and enjoyed the game in its original form.
3. There's another motive that doesn't make any sense, except perhaps to anger your customers and chase more profit on a product you didn't even create.
Somewhere, somehow, someone felt shame in enjoying this video game. They believed that the character designs were too revealing or that certain themes were too controversial. They played the role of self-righteous gatekeepers on behalf of others and demanded changes. They believed that playing the game would corrupt individuals, as if a parody of a totalitarian regime or a character receiving comeuppance is equivalent to supporting those real-life atrocities.
I don't understand the audience you're trying to reach now, but it seems you don't hold them in high regard. Let's take Fillia's intro and removal as an example. Those who argue that it's just the removal of a certain depiction seem to have a history of assaulting people themselves, including Peter Bright, the former head of Ars Technica who was caught soliciting minors. It's worth noting that Lab Zero, the original developers of Skullgirls, had an employee who was allegedly engaged in misconduct.
It's perplexing that you removed harmless fictional depictions of certain elements while engaging in those very elements in real life. EVO and their "core values" stopped a stream featuring two women when they referenced their own breasts, yet they have no problem showcasing explicit violence in games like Mortal Kombat. But apparently, skimpy outfits are a no-go because sponsors won't provide funding. However, I recall Skullgirls being uncensored during its previous appearances at EVO, so that can't be the reason.
Regardless, you're selling a product that has undergone significant changes, and customers aren't receiving what they were promised. While you listed the changes, the reasons behind them seem unclear, except for internalized shame or external pressures from storefronts that were previously fine with the content. We've witnessed game restrictions in countries like Australia and China, as well as book bans on LGBT literature. Now, this dangerous form of censorship, which has been ongoing for decades, is affecting American companies and consumers.
Even if it's legally allowed, it's morally wrong and reflects a significant failure. The game, in its original form, was never obscene and never endorsed real-life hate groups. It satirized and mocked them. The game and
its fiction never caused harm or advocated for harm.
I stand against this censorship because decades of censoring books and games is too much. This type of censorship may be "new" in the sense that it has gained traction in the past decade due to individuals with the initials A.S. or C.V. making dubious claims about media. However, it's no different from the removal of demons and satanic imagery driven by right-wing influences, or the covering up of women.
Simply put, fiction does not cause real-world harm, and sponsors and storefronts should understand this. They certainly allow for "worse" content on their platforms. The question of taste cannot be disputed because, from my perspective, it seems dishonest or driven by greed.
I'm uncertain how this will impact your sales, but we have already seen people attacking others in self-righteousness when they call out censorship. With all this evidence, it's hard to believe that you're not censoring the game. The pretexts provided are suspicious at best and unbelievable at worst.
Some people may not care, seeing it as just a game. If that's the case, then why make these changes? Why not direct your anger towards those who want to use excuses to "correct" art and label anyone who opposes them as sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, or racist bigots?
Why do all of you actively look for problems where there are none? Whatever the excuse, it's simply not good enough.
i feel like offing myself with how bad the censorship is. i've got the marks to prove it.
Regarding the censorship of games like Skullgirls and others,
I want to express my frustration with the negative impact censorship has had on me for many years. The decades of censorship have worn me down, especially when sensitivity is used as a false pretext for censoring LGBT books and films like Gone with the Wind. It's disheartening to be labeled as a creep or a fascist simply for voicing my concerns.
There are individuals out there, driven by political motives, who try to impose their sensibilities on others by demanding changes to things they find offensive. This pattern is observed among both progressives and conservatives, with one major figure, whom I won't name, being widely discussed despite her abusive behavior and dubious claims of being a video game enthusiast. She even had the opportunity to speak at the UN about online harassment, despite engaging in similar behavior towards others like Liana Kresner.
For some inexplicable reason, someone within these studios (which aren't even the original creators) decided that the game must be changed under the pretense of harm, inconvenience, or misguided sensibilities. However, it doesn't make sense because these changes are only happening now. There are a few possibilities:
1. They genuinely didn't know what they were doing was "wrong" and allowed it to persist without checking, finally deciding to make changes.
2. They knew it was wrong but continued making the objectionable content until now, disregarding the fact that people purchased and enjoyed the game in its original form.
3. There's another motive that doesn't make any sense, except perhaps to anger your customers and chase more profit on a product you didn't even create.
Somewhere, somehow, someone felt shame in enjoying this video game. They believed that the character designs were too revealing or that certain themes were too controversial. They played the role of self-righteous gatekeepers on behalf of others and demanded changes. They believed that playing the game would corrupt individuals, as if a parody of a totalitarian regime or a character receiving comeuppance is equivalent to supporting those real-life atrocities.
I don't understand the audience you're trying to reach now, but it seems you don't hold them in high regard. Let's take Fillia's intro and removal as an example. Those who argue that it's just the removal of a certain depiction seem to have a history of assaulting people themselves, including Peter Bright, the former head of Ars Technica who was caught soliciting minors. It's worth noting that Lab Zero, the original developers of Skullgirls, had an employee who was allegedly engaged in misconduct.
It's perplexing that you removed harmless fictional depictions of certain elements while engaging in those very elements in real life. EVO and their "core values" stopped a stream featuring two women when they referenced their own breasts, yet they have no problem showcasing explicit violence in games like Mortal Kombat. But apparently, skimpy outfits are a no-go because sponsors won't provide funding. However, I recall Skullgirls being uncensored during its previous appearances at EVO, so that can't be the reason.
Regardless, you're selling a product that has undergone significant changes, and customers aren't receiving what they were promised. While you listed the changes, the reasons behind them seem unclear, except for internalized shame or external pressures from storefronts that were previously fine with the content. We've witnessed game restrictions in countries like Australia and China, as well as book bans on LGBT literature. Now, this dangerous form of censorship, which has been ongoing for decades, is affecting American companies and consumers.
Even if it's legally allowed, it's morally wrong and reflects a significant failure. The game, in its original form, was never obscene and never endorsed real-life hate groups. It satirized and mocked them. The game and
its fiction never caused harm or advocated for harm.
I stand against this censorship because decades of censoring books and games is too much. This type of censorship may be "new" in the sense that it has gained traction in the past decade due to individuals with the initials A.S. or C.V. making dubious claims about media. However, it's no different from the removal of demons and satanic imagery driven by right-wing influences, or the covering up of women.
Simply put, fiction does not cause real-world harm, and sponsors and storefronts should understand this. They certainly allow for "worse" content on their platforms. The question of taste cannot be disputed because, from my perspective, it seems dishonest or driven by greed.
I'm uncertain how this will impact your sales, but we have already seen people attacking others in self-righteousness when they call out censorship. With all this evidence, it's hard to believe that you're not censoring the game. The pretexts provided are suspicious at best and unbelievable at worst.
Some people may not care, seeing it as just a game. If that's the case, then why make these changes? Why not direct your anger towards those who want to use excuses to "correct" art and label anyone who opposes them as sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, or racist bigots?
Why do all of you actively look for problems where there are none? Whatever the excuse, it's simply not good enough.