Current Events > Skullgirls devs alter old artwork they felt was in 'poor taste'

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

Oh the hilarious irony.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

Notice how the word government is not used in any of the definitions?

It's not. What do you think things like "the institution" refers to. Furthermore

https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship

And beyond that, my original post clearly said the government or executives at your job:

ArtiRock posted...

It's not censorship to change your own stuff because of your own decisions. It's censorship when you have a scene, and the government or your executives in your job push for you to change it.

The only thing you've shown is that you don't know what the fuck or means.

ArtiRock posted...

It's not. What do you think things like "the institution" refers to. Furthermore

https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship

And beyond that, my original post clearly said the government or executives at your job:

The only thing you've shown is that you don't know what the fuck or means.

It says practice which means it applies to just censoring something.

Also using your own example it would be censorship since the original artists did not do it.

Cemith posted...

Gimme a self-insert who's the pariah of their social group or smells like shit on the daily.

This actually happens more than you think.

For example, Bruce Timm wrote himself as an ineffectual villain in BTAS Grey Ghost episode.

CyricZ posted...

This actually happens more than you think.

For example, Bruce Timm wrote himself as an ineffectual villain in BTAS Grey Ghost episode.

That actually makes me feel significantly better. I guess years of only being exposed to the cringiest self insert shit, like Juane Arc or that wack ass goober in PPG reboot I'd just assume it's not a common practice.

There's a discussion on the finer points as to where the line could be drawn between censorship and editing, particularly when it comes to the collaborative effort of a sold product.

But I don't remotely trust people with the maturity level of Rev to have it.

Revelation34 posted...

It says practice which means it applies to just censoring something.

Also using your own example it would be censorship since the original artists did not do it.

Which doesn't make it censorship. You're still not understanding.

No. It's not. They own the characters. It's their IP. That's how it works. Let me make this easier for you to understand. Contra in Germany got censored because in order for the game to be released over in Germany, the humans and humanoid characters had to be turned into robots because the government at the time had a specific thing where you can't have humans killing each other.

Samurai Jack on the other hand, has him fighting robots constantly. It's no mistake that the creator made most of his adversaries robots so he could have jack cut through them as stylistically as he wanted while still keeping the violence toned down enough that it wouldn't get a mature rating. That is no censorship. That is a conscious decision he made as the owner of the franchise. However, when he got to the final season, it IS mature because he had a different direction he wanted to take it. The original was not censored just because it became more adult later on.

Cemith posted...

That actually makes me feel significantly better. I guess years of only being exposed to the cringiest self insert shit, like Juane Arc or that wack ass goober in PPG reboot I'd just assume it's not a common practice.

Wait. I don't watch RWBY but I'm familiar enough that I know Jaune Arc is a character from it. He was a self-insert? lol

Limitations help fuel creativity.
Guess what I'm trying to say is: Just use your ~imagination~.

Avirosb posted...

Limitations help fuel creativity.
Guess what I'm trying to say is: Just use your ~imagination~.

It can, but what blows my mind is people trying to act like they are so concerned for the integrity of the game. As if Skullgirls was some highbrow iconic household game name.

Avirosb posted...

Limitations help fuel creativity.
Guess what I'm trying to say is: Just use your ~imagination~.

Nah, I like deeding to porn waaaaay more than deeding to imagination back when I was a lad >_>

ArtiRock posted...

Which doesn't make it censorship. You're still not understanding.

No. It's not. They own the characters. It's their IP. That's how it works. Let me make this easier for you to understand. Contra in Germany got censored because in order for the game to be released over in Germany, the humans and humanoid characters had to be turned into robots because the government at the time had a specific thing where you can't have humans killing each other.

Samurai Jack on the other hand, has him fighting robots constantly. It's no mistake that the creator made most of his adversaries robots so he could have jack cut through them as stylistically as he wanted while still keeping the violence toned down enough that it wouldn't get a mature rating. That is no censorship. That is a conscious decision he made as the owner of the franchise. However, when he got to the final season, it IS mature because he had a different direction he wanted to take it. The original was not censored just because it became more adult later on.

No it isn't. Just because they bought something doesn't mean the original creators never existed. Just because Disney claimed that the EU wasn't canon doesn't make it so since George Lucas himself approved of it.

Revelation34 posted...

No it isn't. Just because they bought something doesn't mean the original creators never existed. Just because Disney claimed that the EU wasn't canon doesn't make it so since George Lucas himself approved of it.

Yes it does. If the new products refuse to acknowledge the EU and they only go by their own established continuity, the EU is no longer canon to the universe... The hell? If George Lucas actually cared so much, he wouldn't have sold it in the first place.

CyricZ posted...

If the answer becomes "give it back to the guy who lost control of it for a damn good reason" then this thought then completes to:

"I care more about the sanctity of my video games than the well-being of the people who make them, to the point I will give control of them back to an abusive person so I'm satisfied."

For the most part, I just believe that IPs should be in the hand of the people who actually worked to create them. Honestly, I just find it absurd how easily the people who actually make things the success that they are, can just be ousted by someone who is both uncaring & unqualified to be in charge. If there's ever any meaningful revision of laws surround copyright, this should absolutely be rectified.

Harsh reality, but creators are people, which means they might do things we might not like. Doesn't mean society should be allowed to just confiscate their creations, just because. I'm not thrilled about Scott Adams coming out as a "right wing shill", for lack of better term, but I'm not going to campaign to have his Dilbert rights stripped away & reassigned to someone who doesn't actually care for Dilbert at all, just so we can say "well at least a bigot doesn't own it, anymore".

Ivynn posted...

Wait. I don't watch RWBY but I'm familiar enough that I know Jaune Arc is a character from it. He was a self-insert? lol

In a way, yeah. The way that the first season (or 2? I forget the specifics, it's been like 5 years) the writers wanted to make a "Sokka"-esque character so they made Juane. He's too proud to accept help at first, because they can't make him misogynistic like early ATLA Sokka but they wanted to use the same mold. The way that Juane's story folds out in the first season is that the Coolest/Most Popular/Strongest girl in the academy instantly takes to him and starts training him and eventually goes to the dance with him, culminating in a kiss before the end of the third season before she goes and dies. He'd be a mostly inoffensive character if the character that wasn't being actively pursued by Pyrrah wasn't voiced by one of the two writers of the show. The other writer, by the way, also voices a character who also has "romantic shenanigans" with members of the core cast.

Now I haven't watched the show since Season 4 or so, so he could be a substantially better character by now, this is just how he read to me in the beginning.

It's just super weird LOL.

ArtiRock posted...

Yes it does. If the new products refuse to acknowledge the EU and they only go by their own established continuity, the EU is no longer canon to the universe... The hell? If George Lucas actually cared so much, he wouldn't have sold it in the first place.

That's not how canon works and never has.

darkbuster posted...

The thing I hate most every time these types of subjects come up, is the blatant double standard around it. Fanservice in games & anime are immature, but movies can have all the pointless sex scenes they want. Loli (emphasis loli, 'cause most people don't even acknowledge shota, by default) is literal CP, yet Lolita the book & any movie based on it, is a sacred work of art. You're weird if aren't on board with Tifa getting a chest reduction, but no one will judge those who complain about Snake's ass nerf. It just says a lot that Hallie Berry being naked in Swordfish is a meme, but some people lose their mind simply because an anime girl's chest is too big.

As for Skullgirls, I'm glad it was brought up that it was a Kickstarter project, because it's been so long, I completely forgot about it. It's pretty questionable that they're retroactively altering content based on crowdfunded goals, but I'm pretty sure the original backers & actual developers have long since moved on. I'd say it sets an ugly precedent, but most people are wary enough of crowdfunding projects nowadays, it probably isn't that big of a deal anymore. Really, the IP should probably just be sold back to Mike Z or something, but it's clearly the profitable thing Autum Games has going for them, so that's out of the question.

a lot of people complain about pointless sex scenes.

i haven't seen lolita or witnessed much conversation about it. if it's as bad as you say, people should have a problem with that too.

there's a difference between halle berry being an autonomous person born with her proportions, agreeing to do a topless scene, and video game characters designed by men to be fap material.

and people like you got upset at tifa (she still has big boobs) and then turned around and used her as an example of good character design when shitting on abby in tlou2 (who's a character modeled off the body and face of actual people).

I don't like the modern industry practice of just putting someone's real face into a video game.
It's creatively bankrupt.

blackrider76 posted...

No, but if youre redoing concept art of all things because muh morals, thats literally just rewriting history.

its their game if they wanna change it because their views have changed why the fuck shouldnt they

pauIie posted...

a lot of people complain about pointless sex scenes.

Movies don't get their entire artistic merit called into question for it though.

i haven't seen lolita or witnessed much conversation about it. if it's as bad as you say, people should have a problem with that too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

there's a difference between halle berry being an autonomous person born with her proportions, agreeing to do a topless scene, and video game characters designed by men to be fap material.

So, what's your opinion of otome games, or an anime like "Free!" where the guys are there, mainly for female fap material?

and people like you got upset at tifa (she still has big boobs) and then turned around and used her as an example of good character design when shitting on abby in tlou2 (who's a character modeled off the body and face of actual people).

I probably won't play FFVIIR until it's on some very generous Steam discount, & will probably never bother with any of TLOU, so don't even have a personal stake in either, but do find it annoying the way people who did care about Tifa were treated. I can almost assure you no one would react that way if MGS fans complained about having the naked Raiden sequence cut from an MGS2 remake.

darkbuster posted...

For the most part, I just believe that IPs should be in the hand of the people who actually worked to create them.

This is such a myopic point of view. Are you going to tell me no Batman stories should have been made apart from the ones by Bob Kane and Bill Finger?

Of course not, because what you're really complaining about is that you don't want people to do things with fictional IPs that you don't approve of.

Honestly, I just find it absurd how easily the people who actually make things the success that they are, can just be ousted by someone who is both uncaring & unqualified to be in charge. If there's ever any meaningful revision of laws surround copyright, this should absolutely be rectified.

If we implement such stringent copyright protections, then parodies, pastiches, fan-content, and even inspirations are all gone.

That's the kind of thing that stifles creativity.

All because you're obsessed with some imagined element of... what... purity?

Harsh reality, but creators are people, which means they might do things we might not like. Doesn't mean society should be allowed to just confiscate their creations, just because.

These people don't "have their rights stripped". They gave them up! Willingly!

It's also funny because Mike Z isn't the original creator of Skullgirls. That was Alex Ahad, and he left LZ Games and gave up the IP holding to the company.

darkbuster posted...

but do find it annoying the way people who did care about Tifa were treated

> Care about TIfa.
> Care about Tifa's breasts.

CyricZ posted...

If we implement such stringent copyright protections, then parodies, pastiches, fan-content, and even inspirations are all gone.

Fun fact: Commissioning art of existing intellectual property from an unaffiliated artist is actually illegal.

CyricZ posted...

> Care about TIfa.
> Care about Tifa's breasts.

Why not both?

https://imgur.com/h4ZHlYt

Those boobs got me through middle school, damnit!

Revelation34 posted...

That's not how canon works and never has.

That is literally how canon works. If old continuity is ignored then it was retconned out of existence.

As I have said in other topics on the subject its funny how the artistic merits only get brought up when things people dont want to be changed gets changed and and other times its thrown out the window when people criticize or shit on things they dislike.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Why not both?

https://imgur.com/h4ZHlYt

Hot damn

Cemith posted...

Hot damn

Btw, if you want to know Tifa's *official* bust size in Final Fantasy 7 Remake, here it is from Square themselves >_>

https://twitter.com/aitaikimochi/status/1321380741507264513?s=19

God bless Japan

And I suppose I should remind the topic that you can "not like" it all you want. The problem comes when you start treating what was before as sacred as if it were some kind of moral or ethical imperative.

Remove thy head from betwixt thine nethers.

I'm glad they made this change. Hate when video games show breasts, ass, bare chests, muscles, biceps...thighs...underboob...

Wait what were we talking about?

CyricZ posted...

This is such a myopic point of view. Are you going to tell me no Batman stories should have been made apart from the ones by Bob Kane and Bill Finger?

Batman has been running for longer than I've been alive, & will almost certainly still be doing so, long after you & I are gone. Though I'm sure some of the OG Batman fans who liked things the way they were, weren't completely onboard with where the series transitioned to.

Of course not, because what you're really complaining about is that you don't want people to do things with fictional IPs that you don't approve of.

I'm not even that invested into Skullgirls, as a whole. Despite actually owning it, my Steam record only clocks 14 hours of it, before it got lost in my backlog.

If we implement such stringent copyright protections, then parodies, pastiches, fan-content, and even inspirations are all gone.

That's the kind of thing that stifles creativity.

All because you're obsessed with some imagined element of... what... purity?

I'm advocating for protections of people who actually work on things, being able to better retain those rights. I have no idea how you think that in itself, is supposed to affect parodies & such.

Also, if you've made something truly creative, it shouldn't be impossible to stand on its own merit. Freedom Planet began life as a Sonic fangame, & I think it's ultimately better that it stands on its own two feet, than relying on the Sonic name.

These people don't "have their rights stripped". They gave them up! Willingly!

"Willingly" is a highly contestable term. Most creators sign over their rights, in exchange for the money & resources to bring their ideas to life, because traditionally, that was the only practical option available. The internet has had a major impact on that; It's why regardless of how you feel about her or her work, I'm glad someone like Vivziepop can retain ownership of something like Helluva Boss.

It's also funny because Mike Z isn't the original creator of Skullgirls. That was Alex Ahad, and he left LZ Games and gave up the IP holding to the company.

Well, I mentioned before, but Skillgirls has changed hands a lot. As far as I can tell, Mike was the most prolific of people actually invested to the project.

darkbuster posted...

Movies don't get their entire artistic merit called into question for it though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita

So, what's your opinion of otome games, or an anime like "Free!" where the guys are there, mainly for female fap material?

I probably won't play FFVIIR until it's on some very generous Steam discount, & will probably never bother with any of TLOU, so don't even have a personal stake in either, but do find it annoying the way people who did care about Tifa were treated. I can almost assure you no one would react that way if MGS fans complained about having the naked Raiden sequence cut from an MGS2 remake.

i agree with your first sentence. film has the same unnecessary stuff. so games as a whole shouldn't be removed from the art category just because of that. but i'm still going to laugh at people getting up in arms over certain things.

i'd have to see the lolita based movies and read the book, but if they don't glorify the subjects of that story, then there's isn't a reason people need to hate it.

i'm not familiar with otome. it seems like they're the romance novel of video games, though? media where pleasure/titillation/gaze is the entire point is different. porn exists, romance novels, hentai, otome, and that's fine. as long as the scenarios within aren't problematic (violent/statutory rape, etc). tifa and her breast size are not in this category of games, though.

i would be upset if they removed the naked raiden section. why would i want it gone? because of a dude butt? i don't care. i thought it was funny and i'd want to see people react to it today. also that would be removing a section of the game, so that's not the same. better comparison would be putting clothes on raiden, which would change the dynamic of the section. so still not the same. smaller tifa boobs does not change ff7, besides how you feel looking at tifa.

darkbuster posted...

I'm advocating for protections of people who actually work on things, being able to better retain those rights.

How? By forbidding the transfer of IP rights at all? By allowing the creators to walk them back whenever they want without question?

Here's a pertinent one in the modern age:

Should the writer of the Witcher novels, having signed away his rights for the video games for a lump sum rather than royalties, be entitled to compensation from CD Projekt Red's success with the Witcher game series?

darkbuster posted...

"Willingly" is a highly contestable term. Most creators sign over their rights, in exchange for the money & resources to bring their ideas to life, because traditionally, that was the only practical option available.

I mean sounds like your problem is capitalism as a whole.

No ethical consumption of fanservice under capitalism

Avirosb posted...

No ethical consumption of fanservice under capitalism

More like no artistic merit to fan service

CyricZ posted...

How? By forbidding the transfer of IP rights at all? By allowing the creators to walk them back whenever they want without question?

I just want something akin to a sort of "creator's mark" that gives original creators some form of response against extreme situations where someone can so easily muscle them out of their rights, or when something is simply just another line on a spreadsheet, in the metaphorical corporate IP vault. If someone willingly gives their rights away, that's one thing, but too many rights transfers aren't near anything that can be considered wholly "willing," especially when they're getting tossed around in acquisitions & mergers.

Here's a few examples of things I'd like to prevent:

-Megas XLR is basically in IP limbo, supposedly with Cartoon Network using for some complicated write off, & the original creators have no way of sorting out the issues to acquire the rights, despite no one using, or likely ever using it again.

-Let's never forget, Mickey Mouse mostly exists as we know him, because Walt lost not only his character, but a significant portion of his staff.

-Natsume effectively clinging to the Harvest Moon name, forcing the actual Harvest Moon to rebrand.

-Basically every streaming service of late, that cancels or removes shows with no intention of ever revisiting them, & their creators have no way of getting those rights, outside corporate benevolence.

-This one is more a trademark registration issue, but when someone tried to snipe Linus Torvalds of his Linux rights, in a plot to effectively extort Linux royalties.

I think most can agree there should ideally be some guards in IP law against these sorts of extremes. In the case of Autumn Games, it seems as if they just cling to an IP they lowkey despise, but won't let go because it still makes them money.

Here's a pertinent one in the modern age:

Should the writer of the Witcher novels, having signed away his rights for the video games for a lump sum rather than royalties, be entitled to compensation from CD Projekt Red's success with the Witcher game series?

He signed away is rights, because he had no confidence in video games; He came back after realizing how profitable video games could be. Above all though, he was an accomplished author & CD Projekt Red was the relative unknown at the time, not like most creators negotiating from a position of disadvantage.

I mean sounds like your problem is capitalism as a whole.

I mean, you're not wrong.

ArtiRock posted...

That is literally how canon works. If old continuity is ignored then it was retconned out of existence.

No that's your opinion. It doesn't change the canon.

Revelation34 posted...

No that's your opinion. It doesn't change the canon.

Lol no It isn't my opinion. Tell that to Disney and other ips that say things aren't canon and then never have a follow up to things that aren't canon.

ArtiRock posted...

Lol no It isn't my opinion. Tell that to Disney and other ips that say things aren't canon and then never have a follow up to things that aren't canon.

They have their own shit. The original can never be taken away since the only thing that can be canon is the original creator's work.

Revelation34 posted...

They have their own shit. The original can never be taken away since the only thing that can be canon is the original creator's work.

The owner decides whats canon or not.

Avirosb posted...

No ethical consumption of fanservice under capitalism

Non contracted Hentai is the only ethical consumption of pr0n under capitalism.

Were the Nazi looking armbands on villains? Or heroes who were about to discover the organization they worked for was villains?

I think stories reminding us the Nazis sucked is valid usage of similar iconography

I'm only cursory aware of the series, but it just seems pointless to bother altering a product that's been out for over a decade. Even if there are changes that can be argued to be worthwhile, the "damage" has already been done, so just fix it with the next product.

darkbuster posted...

I just want something akin to a sort of "creator's mark" that gives original creators some form of response against extreme situations where someone can so easily muscle them out of their rights, or when something is simply just another line on a spreadsheet, in the metaphorical corporate IP vault.

The problem I see is that instead of curtailing corporations from being able to do that in the first place, your suggestion is instead to allow creators to do it back.

Which, I will grant you is generally not within their character (compared to when you can expect it like clockwork from corporations), but that essentially gives the creator leave to shut down any project they don't agree with, even if they don't want to continue on with projects in the IP themselves.

Here's a few examples of things I'd like to prevent:

And most of these I feel the answer is prevention of the issue from happening in the first place, rather than enabling a counter issue.

And some of them, the one's that are on the idea that "digital distribution means locking things away" I'm right there with you on, but I don't think that's what Autumn Games is doing. They've not removed Skullgirls from digital storefronts.

I mean, you're not wrong. I accept it's the lesser evil of the primary alternatives, though.

We need not be fully one nor fully the other. Unfettered capitalism is what leads to this hoarding and desperately seeking control of profitable property. We can make progress towards putting the people in charge of their own work.

Quezovercoatl posted...

Were the Nazi looking armbands on villains? Or heroes who were about to discover the organization they worked for was villains?

They're the uniforms of the Black Egrets, serving under Parasoul, who is largely heroic.

Then that's probably for the best.

The other thing people mentioned I noticed was removing a scene of a black man named Big Band apparently being beaten up by police officers.

Was this to show racism and corrupt police as a negative and us to sympathize with him? I don't have context but if it was that one seems like a bad choice. I think anti racism and anti police violence as a theme is actually progressive.

Quezovercoatl posted...

Then that's probably for the best.

The other thing people mentioned I noticed was removing a scene of a black man named Big Band apparently being beaten up by police officers.

Was this to show racism and corrupt police as a negative and us to sympathize with him? I don't have context but if it was that one seems like a bad choice. I think anti racism and anti police violence as a theme is actually progressive.

The world of Skullgirls is basically run by some all encompassing mafia style crime family. It's the typical "even the cops are on the take" type situation, but Big Band was basically one of the few decent officers, which as per usual led to him paying the price. He brought back as an anti-Skullgirl (the Skullgirl is basically any girl who makes a wish on the Skull Heart, which grants them power, & also corrupts their minds) cyborg, which in the name of comedy, comes in the form of him having weaponized musical instruments, hence the name "Big Band".

Quezovercoatl posted...

Were the Nazi looking armbands on villains? Or heroes who were about to discover the organization they worked for was villains?

I think stories reminding us the Nazis sucked is valid usage of similar iconography

I don't understand the pearl clutching around Nazi shit at all tbh. Unless they're presented as heroes or the good guys, wtf is the problem with invoking Nazi imagery? Would these people be offended by the Nazi-marching hyenas in the Lion King, for instance?

People seem to not want to be reminded that they existed at all. It's very weird

Self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship.
Marty Rubin

coolguyjimmy posted...

Self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship.
Marty Rubin

90% of everything is shit, ergo only 10% of one's own handiwork should be deemed passable.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

I don't understand the pearl clutching around Nazi shit at all tbh. Unless they're presented as heroes or the good guys, wtf is the problem with invoking Nazi imagery? Would these people be offended by the Nazi-marching hyenas in the Lion King, for instance?

People seem to not want to be reminded that they existed at all. It's very weird

It's more about not wanting to make symbols of genocide a game. They're not saying they're opposed to having depictions of symbols just that they feel those things are actually serious business and not material for a video game about big tiddy goth cat fights.