Change to People2 sprite

You completely missed the point of my ENTIRE post and decided to focus on this singular line. And that is your rebuttal? Okay. Way to diminish an argument.

But I'll humor you. Respect is something that varies between human to human. Put yourself in the shoes of a lady and see how difficult it is to about daily life with two giant melons drowning you down and making your back hurt. Put yourself in the shoes of a lady who has given birth and see how difficult it is. Men can't even begin to DREAM about the type of things women go through on a daily basis. And for that, I honestly have to respect them. You may not, but that would just be incredibly rude and sexist.

Which coming from this thread, seems like a good majority of people, because they clearly think breasts are the be all and end all of everything.

 

I didn't ignore your whole point I just thought it odd that the specific part I quoted contradicted something you said earlier in the post, and this post kinda seems like a non-sequitr. I didn't even make a rebuttal I asked a question. You said respect is something that varies from person to person which is about the only thing that's related. I respect that everybody has their problems and things to go through, but I don't see how that relates. I mean your post is basically just "you need to repent for being male because women do X", and what majority of people? The majority are against the OPs ideas, and all I've really said is that I'm against art censorship, but don't see that as the case in this instance because I'm willing to take Touchfuzzy's word on it.

 

In this thread, corporatism and it's apologisers vs reactionaries and the beleaguered. Funny how censoring starts with politics and religion and ends with 48pixel sprites. Hilarious actually.

Spoiler: ~~ DO NOT OPEN UNTIL THE NEW ORDER ARRIVES (same as the old order, actually) ~~

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

— George Washington, first U.S. president

“The freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have not been granted to the people in order that they may say the things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, the right to say the things which may convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, the right to say things, even though they do a wrong.”

— Samuel Gompers, U.S. labor leader

Galatians 5:13-14:
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love rserve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Most in this thread should be ashamed of themselves, be won't be. And that is the hilarious part! I, for one am not ashamed nor quieted by those who are cowards.

 

I'm not entirely sure what this post means. I get the feeling you don't like what happened with the sprite from the quotes but other than that I'm a little lost. Though I am interested in this part most of all.

Which one am I? I think once I've understood that the rest would fall into place.

 

Most of all, I'm really confused and saddened by the amount of people here who blindly defend the publisher and actively find excuses to their actions up to the point of inventing stories how an artist supposedly spontaneously decided to change the sprite because it just 'looks better this way'. I can get people who say "I don't care" or "this isn't an issue worth of discussion", but I don't get those people. Is this some sort of misguided corporate/brand loyalty?

I don't think there can be an impartial discussion if people are going to be like that. Not that there's really anything left to discuss really.
Well, 5 pages in I hope this thread will at least be taken into consideration next time they consider changing sprites for whatever reasons. Cheers.

 

Do you have any proof that your opinion is the correct one?
Have you contacted the artist and has he told you that he was ordered to change it?
Or what other proof do you have that your opinion is correct and the other opinions are "invented excuses"?

No one here knows what really happened, and that includes you. You can be of an opinion that this was a forced change, but there is absolutely no way to tell if that is true and the other opinions are as valid as yours is - with the difference that most (admittedly not all) of the other people state their opinions as that - as opinions of what they believe what happened, without claiming that all others are lying - and especially not claiming that the other opinions are intentional lies.

 

This thread is pure gold, the cringe is real.
All of it for a bunch of pixels slightly changed, and not even to the female template in the generator, but to a sprite that is supposed to be a sample that nobody even uses.

 

due to a few comments made on a discord channel about this, have sprite people2,1 with eyes as clothes. so she can roll all 6 of them at this thread with you, Cel.

I call this piece, The censorship of 2,1 aka my eyes are here, buddy

Seriously, though, this is beyond dumb (and it took literally less than a minute to edit this (as you can probably tell)).



Now, as the the question of "Is censorship bad?"
The answer is no. No it is not _all_ bad. There are times when it is called for - times when racial, sexual and cultural additions to a game or image need to be changed so that it doesn't cause offence.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying you should go and throw Huckleberry Finn on the pyre or anything like that, but if a modern game decided to throw in various negative stereotypes just for the hell of it and then got sent to the country where those stereotypes are highly offensive... well, we might need a bit of clean-up in aisle four, if you get my drift.

If something is created with the intention to deliberately hurt or malign a people/race/creed or go out of their way to deliberately inflame hate or purposefully use shock value tactics then I say "fudge you, buddy, and your 'artistic' BS vision. fudge that. fudge you. fudge all you stand for."

Like, seriously, censorship has some good points - hence why it is an accepted practice at times. Sometimes it can go a bit overboard, sure, but it's there to protect. Nobody is saying "Don't go out and make naked posters of Hitler and a rooster" but posting them up all over the Las Vegas strip during prime time might not be the best idea.

The thing a lot of people don't understand when it comes to game development and 'censorship' is that (if you're lucky) you're working for a company, you're being paid to create a product - and that product has specifications that need to be followed. That company has an image it wants to uphold. So slotting in naked barber #6 into Bambi's Fun Time Adventure might not be a good idea - and screaming censorship when the company goes "yeah, no we're not keeping that" is beyond stupid.

If it's your own work, fine, whatever, go wild. It's your reputation that's at stake and if you don't care that people see you as that weird guy who produces rip-off anime gigolo games, that's on you. You're the one dealing with the fallout of that. But if an artist goes "Hey, I think I want this sprite to have proper silk harem pants and top instead", screaming about it being censorship is like, fricking stupid man. Especially when you're making up sheep about why it was done (like you'd fricking know).

 

@Ksi : Why stop there? I call this the eye monster.

 

OMG THE CENSORSHIP IT BURNS

I cry salty tears of rage


my masterpiece ;.;

 

Best. Thread. 2018.

Imma be honest, now I'm just visiting for the drama xD

 

@Ksi I disagree, i think that its bad if we're talking art censorship as abhorrent as some things can be i dont think its my or anyone else's job to decide no one can engage with it. Its like you said, its the artists reputation at stake, and people can selectively not engage with it. Thats half the reason it doesnt bother me in this case as people can choose to use the old sprite if they want to, but if aay the people who want taki and ivys costumes changed in Soul Calibur (caliber?) 6 get them changed theres no way to play the game with the costume you actually wanted (or, heven forbid, they give mah boy Mitsurugi pants instead of fundoshi under his armor.)

 

Or maybe the people who changed that were being paid on commission to do what they were paid to do and thus the work does not fall into the category of being completely their work since it's something they agreed to do a certain way. If I commissioned an artist to draw a certain character and they decided to, idk, change the gender or add a leather bikini because they envisioned the character differently/it'd be cooler that way, then I'm going to either ask for a refund or tell them off for it. I'm not paying for them to do interpretive examples of what they want to do, I'm paying for them to create the idea I had of my character. If they then decide to go off after doing what they were commissioned for and draw a picture of a donkey-fied version of some political figure, more fricking power to them, because that's something they're doing on their own time, with their own money, for their own whatever.

If Disney, however, had someone drawing dicks in the windows of their animated children's movie, it's 100% their right to fire that artist, remove the work and say fudge you to people when people complain about censorship. For example.

If Capcom decided that the bikini that shows a bit too much skin is skimpier than they wanted it to be, it is 100% their right to ask the artist to change it, cover up the bits that might be breaking laws in certain areas of distribution and tell their userbase to fudge the fudge off.

If random game artist A decides that they want to change a sprite to cover up that booty because they were inspired by a certain culture and realised they got the costume design wrong, it's 100% their right to give the character a fricking sombrero and poncho if they so fricking desire and tell anyone who complains to go fudge themselves.

Just because you can art doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to account for your actions when it comes to how and where you present your art. Sure, make horrible political satire and add mini bikinis to women in your own sheep, but don't do it when it's someone else's ideas/name/etc on the line and don't fudge with people when they choose to change something - whether to align with their own vision of a piece of art or the ideals of the company paying them/societal laws they need to abide by/etc.

That's not up to you to decide.


That said, if someone was pressuring someone to change their own vision, of which they have created for themselves, by themselves without being paid commission to create and with their own ideas and trademarks in mind, then that can be wrong, depending on the circumstances.

But that is up to them to choose to say no to. And they have that right to say no and draw the butts... as long as they're not splashing them around pre-schoolers and shoving them in the faces of people who don't want to see that shite. Then fine, let them draw butts. Don't stop the butt.

Just don't demand a creator bow to your pressuring of them when they make a change in something just because you think it's censorship. They have a voice, they're capable of saying "oi, this rear end in a top hat is oppressing me and censorshipping my butt-drawing ways. git him lads!"

 

@Ksi i agree, with the exception that i dont think people should be pressuring others to vhange their vision. Id remove "then that can be wrong, depending on the circumstances" and change it too, "they can voice their displeasure but should let their ideas succede or fail on their own."

 

If theres one thing that bothers me more than anything else on RPGMaker Forums, its when these over-priviliaged, lazy, and honestly unintellegent white kids like Little Paw and Trouble Time complain about an art choice made in order to be less sexist because they can't get off to some pixels anymore. Being mad that they decided not to cater to the male gaze just shows what kind of pathetic and terrible person they are. I didn't bother going through every post in his history or Little Paws', but I did see some of Trouble Time's character designs and its all the same kind of nasty stuff that video games need to get rid of. Its even worse because at least one of his characters is dressed sensibly. If anything its a shame they didn't go far enough, its not like any game needs a sexy dancer (or really the RTP in general) anyway. Still its good to see the mods in this community don't tolerate that nonsense, I don't think I'd feel safe if any of them had thought any game should cater to horny little idiots. Anyone who's upset at this should just take the hint they're not wanted here.

 

@Bellflowers We do not permit insults of other Members that might lead to flame wars. It is possible to express strong disagreement while still maintaining a degree of civility.

Please refrain from this type of language.

 

I thought it was okay, i mean Arin said men are disgusting and called out sexism in the thread so I thought it was okay to defend ourselves against disgusting behavior with harsh language. Arin even got a like for it from one of the mods. Ill refrain in the future, but how come trouble time and little paw dont get the blue text?

 

Alright. I've looked at this thread, I debated on staying away from it because it's a hot mess, but I'll weigh my opinion in on this whole censorship ordeal.

As far as that particular sprite goes, who cares? the resolution most of these things are drawn at, it doesn't make that big of a difference. I almost feel like the point of this post was to bait an argument.

Personal opinion on that a side, Censorship is a messy ordeal. If you want a male/female character who by definition is a sultry character, and that gets censored for the fact of making it more friendly, that in a way is compromising the original works of said author and causing him to have to change parts of his story to rewrite the story to make this basically new character fit into the plot.

There is nothing wrong with sexualized characters in my opinion as long as it serves a purpose to the characters origin and story.

Now if the characters are just there to be objects for eye candy and have no depth and are just meant to be there to be sexy, that is a case where I feel censorship is needed.

This is too broad of a topic to jot down all my thoughts.

The post by @Touchfuzzy is actually a great example of senseless censorship.

Well, to cap off what I basically was getting to before getting tangled in the mess of cords that is censorship, Small res, pixels, slightly different shade that looks like it is to imply shadows. It's really not a good argument to have.

And especially when Censorship is based off of cultural sensitivities and looks something like this:

 

@Bellflowers you explicitly calling names to some members here. It's an insult.