• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Street Fighter V

  • Like
Reactions: Fumako and juju_for_president
Not really since both censorships were done with the same mentality in mind "censor it so it can sell" and while people went "lol why are you so upset over buttcheeks?" Turned around and complained about another company doing the same thing so it could be distributed in the UK. It just happened to be something they like. Its not what they took out, its the fact that they took something out to begin with because "well, those people can't handle it"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArgonBern
Well, no. The reason why R. Mika's buttslap isn't equivalent is because it isn't censorship. It's not. It's by definition not censored. Nobody forced Capcom to change it against their wishes. Was Capcom influenced by an outside force? Maybe, but the simple fact is the dev team came to an agreement to change the angle of the shot makes the point mute. It's basically what our game Skullgirls did. We changed panty shots because we wanted to be better. Nobody forced us.

SU was actually censored by people not behind the show out of basic prejudice. Outright ripping the scene out. The artists of the show didn't do that. Ignoring unfortunate implications, mindsets behind the decisions, and actually how each was handled of both completely different instances is a horrible mindset to be in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, juju_for_president and Armageddon11
Actually, the ACTUAL definition of censorship doesn't define who censors what. It can be a creator or an outside force.

The oxford definition is
"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security"

I'm not comparing either subject being censored as the same. That's not my argument. But its still censorship nonetheless, regardless of who does it. And last I checked, the production team of SU gave the censorship the ok, so they agreed to it.

also, the panties thing is a completely different thing entirely. L0 did it out of their own volition, Capcom did to avoid offending people, which is stupid for the latter part.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ArgonBern
If I could add my two cents to the Laura alt-costume pot- it just looks like she doesn't know how to dress herself. It's the loose zipper on her shorts, mostly. I half expect her to have drunkenly stumbled out of a trailer or something! She could be literally nude and it would look more respectable. Hell, make her Greek and alabaster-themed and you can say it's on purpose to look "classical." (Plus, a joke about Greeks being unable to afford clothes.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fumako, juju_for_president and Dr.Sanity
The only offensive thing about Laura's alt costume is that it says 'Bonita' in Comic Sans on her t-shirt.

other than that I think she looks really cool
 
Who cares about Laura or Mika

check out Zangief's totally-not-made-by-square-enix costume
heavenly
 
SanoBaron said:
Actually, the ACTUAL definition of censorship doesn't define who censors what. It can be a creator or an outside force.

The oxford definition is
"The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security"

I'm not comparing either subject being censored as the same. That's not my argument. But its still censorship nonetheless, regardless of who does it. And last I checked, the production team of SU gave the censorship the ok, so they agreed to it.

You're right, but there is a fairly egregious equivocation going on. Censorship in the morally reprehensible way doesn't typically include self-censorship. For example, there's quite the difference between a gov't telling journalists what they can't print (what is implied when we say Capcom's censorship is bad) and my not using "fuck" at work so as to avoid offending my co-worker (which is much more like what Capcom did).

So while you are dictionary correct that Capcom did in fact censor itself, the argument against censorship falls massively on its face... and so when people argue that Capcom wasn't censored, they are ultimately more correct by virtue of the intended meaning of censor in this context (the morally abhorrent form of censoring).
 
Spencer said:
You're right, but there is a fairly egregious equivocation going on. Censorship in the morally reprehensible way doesn't typically include self-censorship. For example, there's quite the difference between a gov't telling journalists what they can't print (what is implied when we say Capcom's censorship is bad) and my not using "fuck" at work so as to avoid offending my co-worker (which is much more like what Capcom did).

So while you are dictionary correct that Capcom did in fact censor itself, the argument against censorship falls massively on its face... and so when people argue that Capcom wasn't censored, they are ultimately more correct by virtue of the intended meaning of censor in this context (the morally abhorrent form of censoring).

I see your point but think you are kind of looking at it in a reductionist kind of way. If you were to make a piece of art, say a painting of a woman in a bikini that you felt was empowering or maybe comedic, and upon hanging it in a gallery your work was called unpleasant or objectifying or puerile and as a result you painted over your initial work with something more conservative, then even if its just a minimal change you've still compromised on your original artistic vision and bowed to censorious behaviour. If you choose to interact with your coworkers in a way that you think will endear them to you, then are you censoring yourself, if your first instinct isn't to swear around them? (I dont know, maybe it is). You might not be being completely true to yourself if you swear like a sailor when you're not at work, but you've chosen to put forward an attitude that will get you the best response.

I think alot of people feel that since R. Mika was initially presented in a certain way and in subsequent appearances was changed, then public pressure, or maybe pressure from particular journalists and websites, is to blame for R. Mika's changes, and it counts as artistic suppresion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArgonBern, Fumako, SanoBaron and 2 others
If I choose to compromise my artistic talent to be more accessible to the masses, it still isn't a question of ethics though. This is important because it is how the conversation is typically framed. They may be guilty of selling out for the all mighty dollar, but they weren't victims of immoral censorship.
 
One change was the developers themselves altering their own game of their own will, the other was the network editing the studio's show against their wishes. That's the difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armageddon11
just remember guys
that the true butt
is the butt
in your hearts
 
missingno said:
One change was the developers themselves altering their own game of their own will, the other was the network editing the studio's show against their wishes. That's the difference.

Bet you it were the higher ups at Capcom wanting the change, not devs. And changing it because they were worried about people getting offended and/or cause ESRB told them isn't exactly "of their own will". It's not like they weren't pressured into doing it.

Spencer said:
If I choose to compromise my artistic talent to be more accessible to the masses, it still isn't a question of ethics though. This is important because it is how the conversation is typically framed. They may be guilty of selling out for the all mighty dollar, but they weren't victims of immoral censorship.

Except I highly doubt Capcom did it to access bigger masses, cause what normal gamer even cared about the butt being there? They did it so they wouldn't get shouted down to death.

And everyone knows sex sells.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: chillbean
Spencer said:
If I choose to compromise my artistic talent to be more accessible to the masses, it still isn't a question of ethics though. This is important because it is how the conversation is typically framed. They may be guilty of selling out for the all mighty dollar, but they weren't victims of immoral censorship.
If that's how you see it. I really don't get the impression that they made the change in order to boost sales tho. Sex sells and all that. And while I agree with you that while it wouldn't be ethically wrong of you to change your art after a bad reaction, it would still be a pity, and its a backwards move in any artform.

missingno said:
One change was the developers themselves altering their own game of their own will, the other was the network editing the studio's show against their wishes. That's the difference.
Kawalorn said:
Bet you it were the higher ups at Capcom wanting the change, not devs. And changing it because they were worried about people getting offended and/or cause ESRB told them isn't exactly "of their own will". It's not like they weren't pressured into doing it.
Yeah, I agree that SFVs art director and dev team's first choice would probably have been to keep the characters the same as in their reveal trailers and first appearances etc.
I actually think what happened with SFV and Steven Universe is very similar, harmless well-meaning content was removed based on really dated and puritanical ideas of what isn't appropriate in media by the higher ups.
 
Sex has already sold. I don't imagine there are many new SF players who picked up SFV based on the skimpy outfits or ass slap. That said, they did stand to lose new players with a widening market, a big part of which includes women.

Also, we are speculating pretty heavily on dev intentions to the point that it is meaningless. But knowing people, it is likely that there wasn't one giant consensus as how to handle it. I imagine there are Capcom developers who think it was a mistake, who think it was the right thing to do, who used to think it was right but now think it is wrong, and who now think it is right who used to think it was wrong...

Ultimately this whole thing is silly. It is silly that Capcom changed it while Cammie and Laura still exist. It isn't like they took out the only case of sexuality in the game. It is equally as silly that people really cared to begin with. I would argue that literally nothing was lost by removing the slap (nor was anything gained). Finally, it is silly that people still give a shit about this. This should be a minor blip at best in most people's lives, but there is a fairly loud minority that is still fuming over it which is... silly to say the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: missingno
Spencer said:
That said, they did stand to lose new players with a widening market, a big part of which includes women.
so you're saying "sexy Ryu" should be removed?
 
I didn't say anything should be removed.

And no, under zero circumstances can we remove Ken. Those luscious golden locks.
 
ScarletGungnir said:
remove all the character and put only sean and Q?
HAH~! Lol... only if they get buffs. still surprised that so few classic SF3 characters are going to be joining SFV. Come on where is Necro? or Remmy? or FREAKING ORO?
 
Well, i have Chun li yet. And Ibuki will come out this year.

And neither blanka or seth are in the game yet, which is good.
 
I'll mourn his laugh
A N D T H E G L O R Y T H A T I S T H E T A N D E N E N G I N E
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shockdingo
Yeah the only people that even half enjoyed Seth were Seth players... and I'm guessing they had a bad case of self-loathing too.
 
why have Seth when Sega did it infinitely better with Dural?
1416533-dural.jpg
 
I can safely say that I still don't like the idea of forcefully making trades for certain normals win based on strength instead of just having trading.

yeah I know it's probably/is a 3s thing but both parties should be rewarded for doing the right things. let both players take the dmg.

also noticing the camera jump behavior and tilt behavior is still very SFIVesque.

I wonder how people will touch on F.A.N.G. when he gets playable.
 
I think it is at least in part a reaction to mash lights. I can see its importance to the way the game currently plays. I find people are using mediums as their "go-to", lights as their "get off me", and heavies when fishing for crush counters.

I guess I agree that it is an odd "under the hood" thing compared to what I'm used to, but I like how it plays (for now anyway).
 
you beat mash lights by beating them, why do they magically need special treatment-- the frame data and hitstuns handle that for you?

a light wont ever have more hitstun than a medium so then why have the change; same for any other higher order normal. idk

it's goofs.
 
I don't think the frame data and hitstun do handle that for you in many cases. Lights are already strong by their sheer stuffing power. There's a reason "mash light" is a viable defensive move and "mash heavy" never is.

Lights could arguably have been said to have already been handled the way the damage you get off of them now is miniscule, and so priority might be overkill, but I think I see what they were trying to accomplish.

It skews the relative strength upward some as in it is a small buff to heavies and mediums and a small nerf to lights. I think they had the clear goal in mind to make SFV about the stronger buttons and not the weaker ones (the first thing every pro said is that you have to avail yourself of the notion that you should mash lights for everything). So I guess this is just an attempt to make stronger buttons a tiny bit more satisfying to use than the weaker buttons in the vent of a tie.

Like I said, it is pretty bizarre for me too, but I really like the direction footsie is going (my favorite is the extended hurtbox during recovery), and so I don't really have any problem with it outside of how unfamiliar the concept is to me.
 
All it really does is give you one additional frame to counterhit something so its not a huge deal.
 
Madcatz tourney results are in, and the character spread was pretty solid. That obviously doesn't say much right now, but hopefully it speaks to balance.
 
Spencer said:
I don't think the frame data and hitstun do handle that for you in many cases. Lights are already strong by their sheer stuffing power. There's a reason "mash light" is a viable defensive move and "mash heavy" never is.
This mostly sounds like not using them in the right places? With most jabs/shorts being special cancellable in V and also not getting you much, does it it really matter? Anyone can repeatedly mash like but like why would you try to do fierce in response unless you hve the spacing or positioning for it?
Spencer said:
Lights could arguably have been said to have already been handled the way the damage you get off of them now is miniscule, and so priority might be overkill, but I think I see what they were trying to accomplish

It skews the relative strength upward some as in it is a small buff to heavies and mediums and a small nerf to lights. I think they had the clear goal in mind to make SFV about the stronger buttons and not the weaker ones (the first thing every pro said is that you have to avail yourself of the notion that you should mash lights for everything). So I guess this is just an attempt to make stronger buttons a tiny bit more satisfying to use than the weaker buttons in the vent of a tie.
I like the direction they're heading, too, but not with minute edge cases. Feels haphazard and it makes me wonder what else they're going to eventually shove in there that may or may not be shown in example in the game (as in, tutorials or FAQ or help or how to play sections)

games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spencer
So apparently the story will be a free update released in summer, instead of being available in base game. Oh well, I can live with that. It does look rather nice so far. And that Cammy costume.
 
So uh, Linux for that final beta? Pls? They said to stay tuned for further info on the port, but the fact that they still haven't said anything by now has me worried it's getting delayed. Feeling some major deja vu here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back