Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I don't even see why this is an issue. This is a game about stylishly slaughtering the legions of hell in all manner of over the top ways. Would the scene not being in the game at all, at any point of its development process caused you to not buy the game? If the very concept of it never existed? Probably not.
There are plenty of T to M rated japanese/korean games that show off more and more often than DMC does without censorship. They also don't tend to have excessive displays of ultraviolence like Nero's busters can contain (Go on, tell me that the Breakage Buster on Malphas is anything less than excessive force). The game can get away with all the blood and guts because everyone understands that's part of the game. Just like how Neptunia can get away with an endless cavalcade of outfits that show off literally everything. If japanese waifu simulator suddenly had DOOM 2016 levels of blood and gore, people would take issue with the game, because it's not what they signed up for.
And DMC wasn't at all marketed as the "Boobs and butt" character action game. Bayonetta was. If I had to deal with full nudity scenes for no reason, I'd just be questioning why this is in my demon murder simulator. I signed up for the demon murder.
What a brilliant and well reasoned argument. However will I challenge it?
My argument isn't simply from my own perspective and that of my friends, which is why I cited multiple examples.
When buying a game or a movie ticket or anything else, you're purchasing it based on what is advertised by the game, either directly through ads, or indirectly through how the game or movie categorizes itself. Devil May Cry is about killing demons, smashing them into things, and over the top cheese. The game has a micheal jackson dance routine. It's got wrestling moves. It's got a swearing Iago from Aladdin. The game sells itself on all of this, and when potential buyers look at the game, this is what the game is presenting.
Compare this to a game like the Neptunia franchise, which advertises itself as anime fanservice waifus. It can have massive breasts, butts, and everything else on display for everyone to see without getting a single complaint from its playerbase, because when buying the game, its audience already knows it has that.
If you were to have said waifubait suddenly involve DOOM 2016 levels of gore with anime waifus exploding into gore when you defeat them in battle, some people would be put off by that. It's not what they signed up for when they bought the game. Sure, some people would like it and find it an interesting twist as well, but the most important part is the game never sold itself on it.
It's okay for this stuff to be in games. Bayonetta exists and has the whole hair-clothing thing and sexy poses and all that. And that's okay. People know it, it's plainly advertised, and you know going into it that's what you're gonna get. And that's okay. I'm not the ass police out to take away everyone's butt gazing.
Devil May Cry never sold itself as that though. It's not what the game's about, it's not at all part of the experience. It's not part of the previous games (We never got Swimsuit Lady or Beach Babe Trish). Prospective buyers coming into the game aren't gonna be buying DMC for that, and it's not on show to entice new buyers. It's there because it's related to a story element. Hiding it from view is fine, because it's not part of what is being sold to players when convincing them to play the game. It's not a problem that it's there (Malphas makes it into the game just fine), but it's not what the game's about. It doesn't need to be there, it isn't important that we know the precise shape and model of any given character's butt, and it can be offputting for people who just want some good old fashioned demon curbstomping action.
The content of what's censored isn't the issue, it's the act of censoring that's the problem(and obvious hypocrisy). This title is a mature rated game and it's only censored in the PS4-EN where there are other titles that has the same without any of that BS.
This is exactly the problem. Something being censored that by all means belongs in the general maturity of the game.
It's not about the net amount of naked asses, there would be no issues if those scenes didn't exist at all IF the devs simply didn't consider them in the first place. Then there would be no issues.
It's not even about naked asses. There wouldn't even be any issues either with "censored" nudity, movies have plenty of artistic tricks that the artist can use if they want INTENTIONALLY censored nudity for whatever reason(which is what many people are claiming, saying the developers put in the lens flares as a chuckle), and given the game's creativity in general, I simply do NOT believe "lens flares" was the best they could come up with. It was clearly a tacked on band-aid for audiences that somehow find it uneccaptable to have any amount of nudity in their art and media.
Here's an ACTUAL, creative, intentional nudity/censorship combo, put in for the sake of reeling up the viewers with expectation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emXugGUMwSM
In DMC5 there's clearly no reason for those random lens flares to be there. Every scene where it was included was clearly a scene that had nudity for one reason or other. In the after-boss scenes, a design decision to not have them being cocooned in their clothes, and in the van, Lady is literally flashing Nico, quite intentionally by the sound of it.
Both of these have a good reason to have the amount of included nudity, and it it really was the artistic intent that those should be covered up, they could've easily found an artistic tool to do it, not an after-effect.
The core issue is, that
a) I, an adult am being told what is acceptable and unacceptable to see in media that is already geared towards an adult level of maturity,
b) this happens due to a country that is very much a global minority, is very much "over the ♥♥♥♥ there" from my perspective(any basically from a LOT of people's perspectives, if we're looking at the number of humans overall), and
c) because that country in my opinion has a clearly sick culture surrounding the relative acceptance of violence and nudity in general, seeing how the people there have a love of guns and an absurd level of violence in their media, but a bare ass or breasts, and suddenly it's the taboo of all taboos, all the while they keep producing some of the most brutal porn there AND get a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of school shootings because of all those guns.
The problem is when minorities like that, who don't have their head straight on what is natural and healthy to see try to dictate what others can and can't include in their art.
If you look across history, nudity has always been a staple in art. It's simply such a close and natural part to the core of art. The latest ever discovered statue was of a friggin naked woman. If any art where the creator wishes to put in nudity is clearly(where the target audience is mature enough overall), clumsily censored, that is an issue, regardless of whether I personally want to see nudity at the moment or not.
The USA doesn't censor nearly as much as the VAST majority of other countries and there is no English speaking country I can think of (MAYBE Canada?) that is its equal. Well the government... I am aware that there is a current "Death to Free Speech" movement in the USA, but while it has infected media, tech media, tech companies, and all that... it still doesn't have power in government.
As for it being "Christian censorship" NOPE! Their power died off during the early 2000s. No one in the USA takes Christian moral panics seriously anymore... Now its [redacted] and [Redacted this isn't supposed to be a political discussion] who are now the current moral arbiters and generator of moral panics.