安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Really now? You're seriously comparing Government pushed censorship for ideals and stuff as the same as self-censorship from publishers for entertainment materials that they own themselves? Really?
I don't really like self-censorship. Even if I don't like horrific and disturbing material and tend to avoid games when anything that will upset me, I tend to be against censorship on principal, good or bad, the original vision of the creators ought to come through in a work, without international or executive meddling.
People will say it isn't censorship, becuase a government isn't doing it. But I feel that easily becomes a semantics argument. What it means ultimately is that people don't want an artist or developer's original work or vision changed by a localization company or publisher.
People will say it is "self-censorship" at most. But in some ways it really isn't even that, depending on how you look at it. A publisher can "censor" the work of an artist/developer. I often see the argument defending censorship a semantic one, that it "isn't actually censorshp" or "self-censorship" at most. Because it wasn't a government stepping in to prevent speech. But I feel that fails to consider the different between developer, the artists who code and do art and music for games, and publishers, who stand to take a share of profits from the game by publishing it.
And this is actually what people mean semantically when they say this sort of thing is "censorship", that they don't want a localization team or publisher getting in the way of the original vision of video game developers. And the difference between developer and publisher/localizer is important here.
The distincting is sometimes made blurry as there is often overlap between publishers and developers. But ultimately it is a difference in looking at video games through the lense of art or profit.
Even if the original content of a piece of art may be disturbing, offensive, or profane, it is what the original artist intended. So altering that to appease an audience doesn't change much other than compromising what that artist did, and shuffling their original concept and vision and work as a secret to be hidden under the rug.
Having a publisher stand as a wall between you and the original work of an artist is frustrating if you want to experience what that artist was communicating. Even if that original thing was questionable or offensive in some way.
+1
So much this. Is really sad to see the inability of certain people to use a proper critical thinking and just jump to conclusions or being over-offended over certain themes.
The issue wasn't them worrying about public outcry against the content or people getting offended or something. The issue was that they submitted the game to a ratings board, and were not able to get rated for the demographic they wanted to sell the game to with that content intact, so were forced to make a compromise. I don't think your post is really relevant to that situation.