GF Siren has been censored

[Marusame]

Ill concede and say ultimecia is mostly fine and I jumped the gun on this, still Ill leave the comparison below just so people know what the remaster version looks like.

Ultimecia
https://i.imgur.com/Y2nuTq2.jpg Original
https://i.imgur.com/NoxIRJ4.png Original better quality(from the fandom wikia)
https://i.imgur.com/QKQBVfV.jpg Remaster
Siren/Rinoa
https://i.imgur.com/GKfYvgN.png FF8 Original
https://i.imgur.com/4yLjgna.png FF8 Remaster

It seems that Shiva is not censored, though I am still unsure about Ultimecia Final Form because in order to do that in hd they pretty much have to draw out blue shaded bare breasts which I dont think they have the balls to do.

[Just Chill]

If someone wants to implement "humans" into a game they should look like humans. Simple as that.
There is no way to argue around that as look up the wiki:
Tifa's race is described as "human".

It was either a reason for me why I never played the original FF7 as the character models looked a bit weird to me.
Like tiny pseudo-kids.
I started with FF8 as there they were modeled like proper teenagers.


It bugs me because they simply look like having implants?
Here again the picture:
http://colourlessopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Untitled-1.png
Speaking especially of the picture in the upper right. ^^

What kind of benefit comes from having breast implants as female warrior?
Except if you want to seduce your enemies to death. XD


I mean maybe it's argueable like tatoos.
Tifa: "Well, I was young and dumb so I thought I have to enhance my cup size."

[Mancunian Prophecy]

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

If you're going to be making factual claims you need to be able to present evidence of the claim. Even if it's not your evidence you should still be able to point people towards it. The evidence for 2+2 being 4 can be found here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-two-plus-two-equal-four-2-+-2-4

Whether or not the claim that you're making is true, you still need to be able to prove it. You're saying this is censorship. I'm telling you to prove that your claim is true. Provide evidence of the claim. In contrast, I am not claiming that this is not censorship. Rather, I am claiming that it doesn't "appear" to be censorship. I provided the evidence that supports my claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. If two people make contrasting claims, and one has evidence while the other does not, who should people support? The one providing evidence.

But once again you do not have solid evidence either, everything you mentionned also rely on assumptions.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

Siren still doesn't have a skirt. It's feathers. They're coming out of her body. If you see a bird you don't say, "Those are some nice clothes on that bird." You might acknowledge pretty feathers. That's literally all that Siren is. It went from a few feathers to an increased amount of feathers. The same sensitive region was covered up.
Again, there are no clothes added. They are feathers coming out of her body. That's not clothing. It's just as natural to her as hair is to humans. She is hairless, and all hair on her is instead feathers.

Right, skirt-shaped feathers, something that is both convenient and unnatural at the same time. And that's ultimately where people will disagree.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I don't need to. Again, you are the one claiming censorship. I am the one saying that the evidence doesn't seem to point to censorship.

The actual end result compared to what she used to be coupled with the current political climate in the west.
Sure, that may be not enough to claim it's censorship, but in the same way there's no solid evidence that it isn't in spite of all you've said.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I never made the claim that he's doing something of his own free will.

So you acknowledge that your argument may be flawed but have no issue using it as "solid proof"?

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I don't have any burden of proof. You're the one saying that he's doing this against his will (otherwise it wouldn't be censorship), so the burden of proof is on you.

So you can get away with making a claim that you do not need to prove but if I make a claim of similar reliability, I suddenly have to prove both of my claim and yours?
How convenient.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

This was your post:

You specifically said, "If people think you're an SJW, then either you're one or you have serious communication issues." I never said that you were name-calling. I said that your response that there are only two reasons people would be name-calling are:

1. You are the thing that people are calling you. Or:
   
2. You have communication issues.

There are other reasons that people name-call. The name-callers could be bullies. The name-callers could be trolling. The name-callers could be the ones who are misunderstanding the communication. What you did was blame him (and me by proxy) for getting called SJWs, devs white knight, etcetera.

Okay?

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I have no clue what you're talking about.

Because you've conveniently cut off the sentence to make it look like so and tried to make little effort to understand me. I was clearly talking about the game, its technical issues and the censorship in that part.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

You need to read and comprehend what people say before you reply.

Trust me I'm trying but when you people conveniently avoid to answer many of my questions, this prove to be difficult.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I never said that the devs are victims. The only "victims" I referred to are the ones getting called names just because they disagree with the people who are calling them names. That's childish behavior, and you basically said, "You deserve it." You literally said that it's the person's own fault for someone else calling them names. See above. I spelled it out pretty clearly for you.

Okay? So in the same way, do you feel justified in calling me mentally inferior to you and a troll? Was that childish behavior from your part?

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

What are you talking about? Where did I ever ask people to believe me unconditionally?

Last time we talked together, something like 20 pages ago, I asked for some clarifications but reacted as if I were a troll and conveniently avoided answering any of my questions.
Well, at least that's the impression you gave off since you refused at that time to acknowledge that your argument may have been flawed and/or not reliable.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

People will believe what they want to believe. I'm one of the few people on this forum trying to provide unbiased information so that people can make unbiased(-ish) opinions.

Well, you did post quotes from interviews and all but do you truly believe that everything said in them are 100% true all the time and that no dev has ever lied in an attempt to do damage control or to sell more?

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

You're the one saying, "This is censorship! It's so obvious! No way it isn't! I have no proof, but you can't 100% disprove me even if you have evidence that makes it seem like it's actually not censorship!

But you do not have solid proof that it's an artistic change either.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

My opinion is tantamount to fact!" Seriously, that's what I get out of your posts.

Strangely enough, I get the same feeling from yours. But at least I don't ask people to shut up and I even wished people who were going to get the game anyway to have fun. Too bad, the game was a mess on several level.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

And I get that because I offered you valid reasons why it doesn't "appear" to be censorship, and you've offered me nothing except "you can't prove it's not censorship".

See above, you can't prove it's an artistic choice and not something forced either.

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

Your only "proof" that it "appears" to be censorship is that the design has changed. A design change doesn't inherently mean censorship, so you need far more evidence than that just to prove that it "appears" to be censorship. And you need a lot more evidence if you want to claim that it is "for sure" censorship.

What proof do you need? A written letter from S-E saying that they indeed censored the game? This never happened and never will because it's bad PR.

Originally posted by Mancunian Prophecy:

It's not what I see, it's what the actual character developer has told us in the past... But if you want to overlook facts then so be it.

Do you think no one in the industry would be able to lie, especially in an interview given in order to promote a game or a brand?

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Well, I am glad you both brought that up even I nowhere spoke about questionable mechanics of some ingame-tech.

I spoke about the traits of the human body.
Tifa is considered to be human.

Not like a feathered fairy like Siren.

Your post was about how Tifa's breast would hinder her, in other words realism, right?

Originally posted by Just Chill:

And having Tifa with big breats and no proper clothing wouldn't be pretty believeable.
Because naturally if she moves around those big bouncing boobies would give her a hard time being as agile as she is.

Here, you're also talking about realism or rather how unrealistic it would be, right?

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Which makes me liking her new appearance more than the older one.
I mean it would be ridiculous in a similar way as all these CBBE mods for Skyrim where the char only has a CHAINMAIL bra for her intensely big breasts and probably also a CHAINMAIL slip.
The rest of the body is uncovered (AND I MEAN UNCOVERED in the way I understand it). Sure, a protection for the breasts and around the hips is fairly enough cover for a sword fight. :awkward:

None of the characters in FFVII wear proper armor, not a single one.
In the entire series, Steiner is the only character that I can think of who wear proper armor.

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Even though it's hardly compareable, I've a big stomach and that's also hindering myself a bit.
So think about it, maybe you will even start to respect women a bit more?

You went from talking about realism to repecting women without any kind of transition.
What?

Why would he lie? Anything to validate your opinion with siren being censored I suppose?

[Chaika Trabant]

Originally posted by Just Chill:

It bugs me because they simply look like havig implants?
Here again the picture:
http://colourlessopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Untitled-1.png
What kind of benefit comes from having breast implants as female warrior?
Except if you don't want to seduce your enemies to death. XD

Okay?
But in this case, does it mean you don't like women with large breast or women having implants?
The former are like that because nature work in mysterious ways and I believe the later chose to do it on their own.
Do you think women with large breasts should or should not be allowed to fight?
Do you think this should also extend to fiction?

[Chaika Trabant]

Originally posted by Mancunian Prophecy:

Why would he lie? Anything to validate your opinion with siren being censored I suppose?

To sell the game he's promoting? For good PR?

[Just Chill]

Why the hell are you asking questions I already answered?

Instead of making such enormous quote war responses read my post properly.
You'll find a link to a real-life model which beautiful big, real breasts and my comment to about what I think of.

There is nothing wrong in having big breasts.


Yet I am unsure how you can be so ignorant, that Tifa's initial model was just made like that to resemble a similar famous video game character of that time: Lara Croft. Because it worked for Lara, so why not adding a similar character to FF7?
They reduced Lara's boobs too in the newer ones.
Did you cried about that either?




THIS IS A RHETORIC QUESTION!
Please stop answering as this off-topic is awful.

@TOPIC
I guess we agree that Siren's skirt was an unnecessary addition though.

[Malamasala]

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

1. The original game did not contain nudity. If it had the game would not have been able to maintain a Teen rating. A "bush" would have still counted as nudity.
   
2. The original Siren did not contain clothing, but rather everything was covered up with feathers.
   
3. The change in Siren's design was done by the original artist.
   
4. Shiva was not censored.
   
5. Ultimecia was not censored.

These are all very strong indicators that this is not censorship. Meanwhile, "your" side has no strong indicators that it's censorship other than "it's different and I have an opinion why". If the evidence points towards A, why are you people so staunchly crying B?

I think it is more about gut feelings in these cases.

For example I find Siren original design to portray her with tail feathers branching out from her hips backwards. Because of this the new design look like she has tail feathers on her stomach and I just hate the design as it does no longer conform to a Bird-design but is now just "Woman with a skirt and weird hair".

So why would anyone ever put tail feathers on a stomach? Simple explanation is that it is censorship. A dumber explanation is that the original artist wanted a skirt, but ran out of polygons for PS1 models.

That this redesign just happens to happen at the same time the game is sold on Sony PS4 when Sony is censoring every single female character with crotches, butts or boobs visible, make it even more likely it was a request from outside the office.

Combine this with SquareEnix having a brand new Ethics department focused on finding any nudity that might offend people and remove it, it becomes even more likely. Still confusing that they didn't react to Shiva, but perhaps the lack of actual model made it look more like a safe body suit and got a pass.

For differences you can look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5UcUaUqooA

Considering people also expect a certain degree of nudity and temptation from a Siren, the original just made a lot more sense. Removing the sense of something to make it less understandable, usually make people call it censorship. Why else would you make something worse?

[Chaika Trabant]

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Why the hell are you asking questions I already answered?
Instead of making such enormous quote war responses read my post properly.

I do not feel I asked question that you've already answered to and even then, I'm just making sure I do understand your stance correctly since you went from saying "it's unrealistic" to "I don't like them because they look like implants"

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Yet I am unsure how you can be so ignorant, that Tifa's initial model was just made like that to resemble a similar famous video game character of that time: Lara Croft.

Not really, Japan has a lot more of characters with large breast, especially considering the succes the PC-Engine had in Japan and the kind of games that were made for it.
Women with long black hair and large breast is not really something exclusive to Lara Croft.

Originally posted by Just Chill:

They reduced Lara's boobs too in the newer ones.
Did you cried about that either?

I never played any Tomb Raider so I didn't know but if it was a game that I was concerned about, I would.

EDIT:

Originally posted by Just Chill:

I guess we agree that Siren's skirt was an unnecessary addition though.

Yes, we can agree on that.

[Chaos Residue]

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

If you're going to be making factual claims you need to be able to present evidence of the claim. Even if it's not your evidence you should still be able to point people towards it. The evidence for 2+2 being 4 can be found here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-two-plus-two-equal-four-2-+-2-4

Whether or not the claim that you're making is true, you still need to be able to prove it. You're saying this is censorship. I'm telling you to prove that your claim is true. Provide evidence of the claim. In contrast, I am not claiming that this is not censorship. Rather, I am claiming that it doesn't "appear" to be censorship. I provided the evidence that supports my claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. If two people make contrasting claims, and one has evidence while the other does not, who should people support? The one providing evidence.

But once again you do not have solid evidence either, everything you mentionned also rely on assumptions.

Okay, I'm going to say this again, and I want you to REALLY try to comprehend it this time.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP.

My argument/point was never that there is no censorship. My argument is that it doesn't "appear" to be censorship based on the evidence that I supplied. That means that my argument IS an assumption, but it is an educated assumption based on facts (which I provided).

My issue with you is that your argument is that this is censorship. Not that it "appears" to be censorship, but that it is actual censorship. You can't make that claim without providing evidence (which you have not done, and will not be able to do since there is no evidence to prove that claim). Even if you had changed your argument to say "it appears that it's censorship", your only "evidence" is that the design changed. I stated multiple reasons outside of the design change why it doesn't appear to be censorship. You've only said "the design changed", so at this point you've provided no evidence to support that it is censorship, or even that it appears to be censorship.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

Siren still doesn't have a skirt. It's feathers. They're coming out of her body. If you see a bird you don't say, "Those are some nice clothes on that bird." You might acknowledge pretty feathers. That's literally all that Siren is. It went from a few feathers to an increased amount of feathers. The same sensitive region was covered up.
Again, there are no clothes added. They are feathers coming out of her body. That's not clothing. It's just as natural to her as hair is to humans. She is hairless, and all hair on her is instead feathers.

Right, skirt-shaped feathers, something that is both convenient and unnatural at the same time. And that's ultimately where people will disagree.

I'm sure some people will disagree. While you CAN disagree with facts, that doesn't somehow change the facts. People that disagree with facts are lacking in intelligence. Facts are objective, not subjective. My argument was objective. Your argument is subjective, but it's the worst kind of subjective because you're arguing against something that's objective. That's lunacy.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I don't need to. Again, you are the one claiming censorship. I am the one saying that the evidence doesn't seem to point to censorship.

The actual end result compared to what she used to be coupled with the current political climate in the west.
Sure, that may be not enough to claim it's censorship, but in the same way there's no solid evidence that it isn't in spite of all you've said.

I have provided more evidence that it is not censorship than you have provided for it being censorship. That is objectively true. If we were in a judged debate you would be losing (badly, I might add).

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I never made the claim that he's doing something of his own free will.

So you acknowledge that your argument may be flawed but have no issue using it as "solid proof"?

How is my argument flawed? I would have been more understanding of the point you had made with censorship if someone other than the original designer was the one who modified the design. That seems less likely when the original designer is the one who modified the design. That was my entire point, so nothing I've said here creates a flaw in my argument.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I don't have any burden of proof. You're the one saying that he's doing this against his will (otherwise it wouldn't be censorship), so the burden of proof is on you.

So you can get away with making a claim that you do not need to prove but if I make a claim of similar reliability, I suddenly have to prove both of my claim and yours?
How convenient.

This has nothing to do with convenience. It's the rules that we as a society follow when it comes to accusations. You're the one making the accusations. I'm providing a defense against those accusations, and you haven't had a valid counter towards any of my points. In a court of law (pretty much any court of law) your accusation would be rejected as you didn't have any evidence whatsoever to support the accusation.

Let's use an analogy. John Smith has been missing for 5 years. I claim that you murdered him and disposed of the body. Using your logic you would have to prove that you didn't murder John Smith. How could you possibly do that? That would be nearly impossible without a body. If we use my logic (again, the logic our society as a whole follows) I would have to prove that you committed the murder. It wouldn't be your job to prove that you didn't commit murder.

This "debate" is the same thing. You've thrown an accusation of "censorship". I don't have to prove that it isn't censorship. I just have to show that I have more evidence than you do that it doesn't appear to be censorship. It's impossible to prove that it's not censorship. It's not impossible to defend against the accusation of censorship (which is what I've been doing).

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

This was your post:

You specifically said, "If people think you're an SJW, then either you're one or you have serious communication issues." I never said that you were name-calling. I said that your response that there are only two reasons people would be name-calling are:

1. You are the thing that people are calling you. Or:
   
2. You have communication issues.

There are other reasons that people name-call. The name-callers could be bullies. The name-callers could be trolling. The name-callers could be the ones who are misunderstanding the communication. What you did was blame him (and me by proxy) for getting called SJWs, devs white knight, etcetera.

Okay?

What do you mean okay? You're the one that quoted what I said and tried to defend against it. I countered. Saying "okay?" provides nothing more to the discussion. It was a waste of space in both quoting what I said as well as replying to it.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I have no clue what you're talking about.

Because you've conveniently cut off the sentence to make it look like so and tried to make little effort to understand me. I was clearly talking about the game, its technical issues and the censorship in that part.

I did no such thing. I posted this:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

People called me the same thing, and it was after I said I hate SquareEnix and that this was a lazy, garbage job of a remaster. It's not a miscommunication issue, and it's not that we're SJWs. It's that people on this forum attack people who disagree with them. I said "no censorship" and suddenly I'm a "devs white knight", an "SJW", and other more colorful terms. A difference of opinion doesn't make name-calling appropriate, especially when there's more evidence for our opinion that it's not censorship than for the people saying it is censorship. And your post is ridiculous. You're blaming the victim without doing any research.

You replied with this:

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

You're blaming the victim without doing any research.

No? the victims here are the (potential) customers, not the poor dev who can't do anything wrong but did anyway, at least on a technical level by your own admission.

That is the full context with nothing cut off. You obviously didn't comprehend my previous post that you quoted since it was regarding people being name-called being the victims, and you responded that the victims "are the (potential) customers" which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

You need to read and comprehend what people say before you reply.

Trust me I'm trying but when you people conveniently avoid to answer many of my questions, this prove to be difficult.

I am a person. I am not multiple people. I am specifically speaking to you, so don't reference me as "you people" as if I'm somehow involved in the issues you're having with others. If I'm somehow involved, please share with me the questions that I have avoided. I believe I've answered to every question you've asked me.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

I never said that the devs are victims. The only "victims" I referred to are the ones getting called names just because they disagree with the people who are calling them names. That's childish behavior, and you basically said, "You deserve it." You literally said that it's the person's own fault for someone else calling them names. See above. I spelled it out pretty clearly for you.

Okay? So in the same way, do you feel justified in calling me mentally inferior to you and a troll? Was that childish behavior from your part?

Again, you're not comprehending something because I never said you were mentally inferior to me and that you're a troll. So no, it wasn't childish behavior from my part because I haven't resorted to name-calling. Find the post where I called you mentially inferior and post it for us. I'll wait.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

What are you talking about? Where did I ever ask people to believe me unconditionally?

Last time we talked together, something like 20 pages ago, I asked for some clarifications but reacted as if I were a troll and conveniently avoided answering any of my questions.
Well, at least that's the impression you gave off since you refused at that time to acknowledge that your argument may have been flawed and/or not reliable.

I vaguely recall circular arguments which is behavior that a troll would engage in. I'm not saying you're a troll, but if you were using circular arguments it wouldn't surprise me if I said you're probably a troll. I can virtually guarantee you I wouldn't have said it out of nowhere, and I would have had a previous post that said something to the effect of, "I'm going to test you to see if you're a troll." If that was you I was talking to, I honestly don't remember it. I've had a lot going on the last few weeks and you can't expect me to remember every ridiculous discussion I've engaged in on the Steam forums.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

People will believe what they want to believe. I'm one of the few people on this forum trying to provide unbiased information so that people can make unbiased(-ish) opinions.

Well, you did post quotes from interviews and all but do you truly believe that everything said in them are 100% true all the time and that no dev has ever lied in an attempt to do damage control or to sell more?

With that logic we shouldn't trust anything ever, and we should treat every person and corporation as if they're lying about everything. What a ridiculous notion. Also, that interview was from about a decade ago, well before this remaster was even on the horizon. I'm not sure what "damage control" you thought they were doing when nobody was concerned about this then.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

You're the one saying, "This is censorship! It's so obvious! No way it isn't! I have no proof, but you can't 100% disprove me even if you have evidence that makes it seem like it's actually not censorship!

But you do not have solid proof that it's an artistic change either.

And again, I don't need to provide it. But I have provided more evidence that it doesn't appear to be censorship than you have provided for the claim that it is censorship.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

My opinion is tantamount to fact!" Seriously, that's what I get out of your posts.

Strangely enough, I get the same feeling from yours. But at least I don't ask people to shut up and I even wished people who were going to get the game anyway to have fun. Too bad, the game was a mess on several level.

If you feel that I'm saying my opinion is tantamount to fact then you're not comprehending my posts. I've clearly laid out my opinions and stated that they are opinions. Also, I've clearly provided the facts that led to my opinion. This way you can see the logic I used to get to my opinion. The problem that I'm having with you is that you are laying out your opinion as if it were fact (not opinion), and you don't have any evidence that you've presented that led you to the conclusion. So you're spouting "this is censorship!" with nothing to back it up.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

And I get that because I offered you valid reasons why it doesn't "appear" to be censorship, and you've offered me nothing except "you can't prove it's not censorship".

See above, you can't prove it's an artistic choice and not something forced either.

See above. You're stuck on a circular arguement, and your argument is flawed. The accuser has the burden of proof. You're the accuser. It's not convenient - it's how our entire society functions. There's more evidence that it's not censorship than that it's censorship. Unless you're hiding evidence somewhere. I'll happily move to your side of the fence if you can prove to me that the grass is greener there.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

Your only "proof" that it "appears" to be censorship is that the design has changed. A design change doesn't inherently mean censorship, so you need far more evidence than that just to prove that it "appears" to be censorship. And you need a lot more evidence if you want to claim that it is "for sure" censorship.

What proof do you need? A written letter from S-E saying that they indeed censored the game? This never happened and never will because it's bad PR.

Then you can't prove it. At that point your arguement has to change from "it's censorship!" to "it appears to be censorship." And even if you're going to say "it appears to be censorship" you need to provide some sort of evidence other than "the design changed" as proof that it LOOKS like censorship. That's what I did when I said it appears that it isn't censorship. I found things that didn't add up, and I presented that to everyone. You've found nothing except that the design changed, and again... that isn't inherently censorship. If you have futher evidence to support your claim, by all means provide it.

[Vendon]

Originally posted by Chaos Residue:

Originally posted by The sap is rising!:

I did read your posts. My point stands.

Then your point is lacking in logic and reasoning.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

I cannot prove that 2+2=4, does it mean it's objectively and factually false despite being something commonly used in practical application?

If you're going to be making factual claims you need to be able to present evidence of the claim. Even if it's not your evidence you should still be able to point people towards it. The evidence for 2+2 being 4 can be found here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-two-plus-two-equal-four-2-+-2-4

Whether or not the claim that you're making is true, you still need to be able to prove it. You're saying this is censorship. I'm telling you to prove that your claim is true. Provide evidence of the claim. In contrast, I am not claiming that this is not censorship. Rather, I am claiming that it doesn't "appear" to be censorship. I provided the evidence that supports my claim. You've provided no evidence whatsoever. If two people make contrasting claims, and one has evidence while the other does not, who should people support? The one providing evidence.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

The original game already had Siren without a skirt and whether what Siren has between her legs is a bush or a clam is up to anyone's guess. I mean, you have people who legit think Ifrit doesn't have a bush and is wearing clothes instead.

Siren doesn't have a skirt. It's feathers. They're coming out of her body. If you see a bird you don't say, "Those are some nice clothes on that bird." You might acknowledge pretty feathers. They may even be in a pattern that could resemble clothing. That's literally all that Siren has. It went from a few feathers to an increased amount of feathers. The same sensitive region was covered up.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

So in your opinion, adding clothes to a character who wasn't supposed to have clothes is something closer to her original intended design?

Again, there are no clothes added. They are feathers coming out of her body. That's not clothing. It's just as natural to her as hair is to humans. She is hairless, and all the "hair" that you saw on her is instead feathers.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

So what? Can you prove that he wasn't ordered to do and say and was instead something done by his own free will.

I don't need to. Again, you are the one claiming censorship. I am the one saying that the evidence doesn't seem to point to censorship. I never made the claim that he's doing something of his own free will. I don't have any burden of proof. You're the one saying that he's doing this against his will (otherwise it wouldn't be censorship), so the burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

I did not justify the name-calling, feel free to look at my post, I've never called anyone a SJW here.
I just explained why people may act as they do.

This was your post:

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

No one here know each other, we can only judge based on what is posted.
If people think you're an SJW, then either you're one or you have serious communication issues.

You specifically said, "If people think you're an SJW, then either you're one or you have serious communication issues." I never said that you were name-calling. I said that your response that there are only two reasons people would be name-calling are:

1. You are the thing that people are calling you. Or:
   
2. You have communication issues.

There are other reasons that people name-call. The name-callers could be bullies. The name-callers could be trolling. The name-callers could be the ones who are misunderstanding the communication. What you did was blame him (and me by proxy) for getting called SJWs, devs white knight, etcetera.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

No? the victims here are the (potential) customers, not the poor dev who can't do anything wrong but did anyway, at least on a technical level by your own admission.

I have no clue what you're talking about. You need to read and comprehend what people say before you reply. I never said that the devs are victims. The only "victims" I referred to are the ones getting called names just because they disagree with the people who are calling them names. That's childish behavior, and you basically said, "You deserve it." You literally said that it's the person's own fault for someone else calling them names. See above. I spelled it out pretty clearly for you.

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Also I thought you didn't want to talk to me anymore as you suddenly labelled me as a troll out of nowhere because you asked people to believe you unconditionally?

What are you talking about? Where did I ever ask people to believe me unconditionally? People will believe what they want to believe. I'm one of the few people on this forum trying to provide unbiased information so that people can make unbiased(-ish) opinions. You're the one saying, "This is censorship! It's so obvious! No way it isn't! I have no proof, but you can't 100% disprove me even if you have evidence that makes it seem like it's actually not censorship! My opinion is tantamount to fact!" Seriously, that's what I get out of your posts. And I get that because I offered you valid reasons why it doesn't "appear" to be censorship, and you've offered me nothing except "you can't prove it's not censorship". Your only "proof" that it "appears" to be censorship is that the design has changed. A design change doesn't inherently mean censorship, so you need far more evidence than that just to prove that it "appears" to be censorship. And you need a more evidence still if you want to claim that it is "for sure" censorship.

Originally posted by Vendon:

Wow I rlly can not believe that there are people who are seeing a shell and not hair ahem whut? She is blonde, down there is blonde but yeah it is sure a shell... ahem whut? It is clearly not a shell, you can clearly see spiky hair on top of that ahem *shell*. Some people rlly need some glasses. Even if it would be a shell, upgrading the graphics to a clearly looking shell wouldn't kill anyone. With bad graphics there is more immagination about what she actually has there but not with good graphics where you clearly can see what's actually supposed to be. Censorship is just the worst and there is NO other explanation for it. They could have just put a sticker on the game that it's for 16+ years that's all. This disgussion is rlly getting nowhere. It's the same like an apple fan and android fan. You can not change their oppinion no matter what. Even if they know, they're wrong, they'll still keep defending stuff. I mean everyone would do that to defend something she / he likes / wants. Oh and why did they not change Sirens Card? Because it is not a shell and harder to see on the card or they've just forgotten about it. Ifrit is without a censor but yeah he is wearing some fire SHELL down there so it's ok.....

You calling it a shell doesn't make it a shell. It's feathers. The shell would be considered clothing (since she is not naturally shelled), and the designer of the game confirmed she does not wear clothing (because she's not a human). Also, she is hairless, so it's not possible for it to be pubic hair. It's feathers. Much like a bird. Just like the rest of her body that is covered in feathers.

You should learn to read. I did not call it a shell, I have rewritten that, people are calling it a shell. I've never even close thought about shell. I have read people thinking that it is a shell. To me as a kid it looked like it loooks and I loved Shiva + Siren because of it the most and still do. The summon animation of Shiva is just epic and the best Shiva of all FF games. Also it doesn't matter if SE said that these supposed to be feathers because she is not human. Ifrit is also not a human and has ahem rocks down there? Yeah Nasa would call that rock or stone. Who says that only human has hair on their body parts?. She has hair on her head same as we human have and that means she might also have some hair on other human parts too. SE is just trying to avoid that conversation that's all. Even if these are feathers, it would have been much easier to graphic these than use a skirt.

[Mancunian Prophecy]

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Mancunian Prophecy:

Why would he lie? Anything to validate your opinion with siren being censored I suppose?

To sell the game he's promoting? For good PR?

Seriously grasping now.... Why would he lie 20 years ago about his design process, did he foresee the future of 2019?

[Just Chill]

@Chaika

Stop putting words into my mouth I never said they look unrealistic.
You just implied that I meant that.

[Mancunian Prophecy]

Originally posted by Just Chill:

@Chaika

Stop putting words into my mouth I never said they look unrealistic.
You just implied that I meant that.

In my opinion I think he/she is a troll tbh, I've noticed that he/she does this a lot with everyone on here.

[Dwarvenhobble]

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Originally posted by Dwarvenhobble:

What's to stop her just using one form of magic or another to alleviate some of the issue?

Yeah, they definitely should implement an extra nerf for this problem. XD

"Tifa's MP are low."
"Tifa now experience -10 SPD and -10 EVA, as her boobs are no longer magically covered."


That would make totally sense and would be highly retarded for being a game mechanic. ^^



I mean, it would be appropriate for an unserious fun-game in the sense of Goat Simulator. lol
I own Goat Simulator, so I am NOT mocking it here, just that everyone knows! :P

Or just claim she's is basically a mage but her magic is focused on allowing her to fight thus she can't cast powerful mage spells.

[Just Chill]

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

I never played any Tomb Raider so I didn't know but if it was a game that I was concerned about, I would.

Which perfectly raises the conclusion that you've a boob fetish.
You should like women not just because they have boobs.
Neither in games nor in real-life.

Your concern against someone who doesn't like having big weird looking boobs on modern video games at least makes you looking like someone who is weirdly interested into boobs.

I can think about a few people with the same habits.
A cave man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Or this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbr-F7WsChI

Feel free to relate to these. ^^

I don't judge your for linking boobs, as I guess everyone likes them.
When being a baby it might be the first thing we have in mind when being hungry.

And surley they also play a sexual role, especially if you like BFRs.

But you shouldn't hang yourself up on that topic like this. That appears a bit weird. XD

Originally posted by Chaika Trabant:

Originally posted by Just Chill:

I guess we agree that Siren's skirt was an unnecessary addition though.

Yes, we can agree on that.

Well at least some common ground.
In my opinion, the older model wasn't faulty, so why was that redesign necessary?
I am not sure what your concerns about is, but I rather would focus onto that, as THAT is actually the topic here.

Originally posted by Dwarvenhobble:

Or just claim she's is basically a mage but her magic is focused on allowing her to fight thus she can't cast powerful mage spells.

It would be definitely reasonable to rewrite Tifa's role just because of her boobs. ^^
Oh, it's sarcasm. I heard it doesn't get understood that well when written.

[Tia1230]

I still don’t get how a design change for a remastered version of a game is censorship. I consider censorship to be Final Fantasy 7 and them bleeping all of Barrett’s text instead of leaving the words he actually said in the PS1 version when they brought it to PC’s and the PS4. But that’s just my opinion.