Can devs make something new and stop changing the old. [Merged]

[Sobx.1758]

2 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Not sure I'd call it censoring.  More like making a business decision to adjust something that is expected to positively affect revenue. 

Businesses don't make changes like these in a vacuum. 

If he's talking about steam's rules in regards of allowed content and devs going back to cut/change some content to fit within those rules (which, to be clear, is just one of the possibilities instead of being a definitive fact, but it's clearly one he sees as possible, as he wrote above) then this is indeed censoring your work to fit the potential censorship rules of another platform. 

When movie makers remove curse words or certain scenes they wanted to originally include in an effort to fit the rating they want, in majority of cases it is a business decision to affect the revenue. It doesn't change the fact that it's still censoring. I don't know why you think these are somehow mutually exclusive.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[kharmin.7683]

2 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

If he's talking about steam's rules in regards of allowed content and devs go back to cut/change some content to fit within those rules (which, again, is just one of the possibilities, but clearly one he sees as possible, as he wrote above) then this is indeed self-censoring to fit the potential censorship rules of another platform. 

When a movie removes curse words or certain scenes they wanted to originally include in an effort to fit the rating they want, in majority of cases it is a business decision to affect the excepcted revenue. It doesn't change the fact that it's still censoring. I don't know why you think these are somehow mutually exclusive.

I guess, to me, it all comes down to intent. 

[Sobx.1758]

6 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I guess, to me, it all comes down to intent. 

So if you censor your work to increase profit (by fitting the rules of another platform, no less), it means you're no longer censoring it? Sorry, pretty sure that's not how this works.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Smoky.5348]

The OP gave out silly reasons for outrage, that's where people got these censorship ideas from. The topic title, however, should be the sole focus of our complaints. ANET is changing existing content that had no business being changed. No one asked for a Twisted Marionette model update. No one wanted Mai Trin's lines to be reworded. If they keep doing this to Season 1, what are they gonna do to core Tyria if they revisit that? Will things in personal story suddenly be changed for no benefit? ANET surely has more important things to focus their "limited resources" on, as others have said.

[Shadowmoon.7986]

23 hours ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

What moral panic? This is the exact same team that brought us Snargle. That has implications of sex toys in EoD.

Literally nothing else was changed in this update besides the watchknights mirroring the model change for the Marionette fight, which as far as I know, wasn't decided as being done for "moral reasons" or anything else, but just part of reworking the fight to re-release it.

I'm very curious at the factual evidence people have for this change being for this a moral/political change. Do provide it instead of screaming nonsense.

There is a definite moral panic going on in west coast game development circles. Blizzard famously "de-objectified" women by turning them into fruit (https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/pp3deq/blizzard_want_to_respect_women_so_they_turned/) and lost ark changed starting armors and npcs for the western release (https://forums.playlostark.com/t/a-lot-of-outfits-censored-changed-remodeled-or-replaced/21873).

This is not a classical right wing moral panic, but a left wing, that is why snargle is promoted, because his status is considered virtuous. If you do not think there isnt a culture war on traditional definitions of women, the you truely got had your head in the sand. Unfortunately, going further down this rabbit hole probably goes into politics which is the fastest way for this thread to lock and our concerns to be silenced again.

 

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

So if you censor your work to increase profit (by fitting the rules of another platform, no less), it means you're no longer censoring it? Sorry, pretty sure that's not how this works.

I'm not disagreeing with the literal definition.  To me, "censoring" has a strong, negative connotation.  Modifying something in effort to increase profit doesn't fit my definition of censorship.

[cyberzombie.7348]

Why are people getting so deep over a model change that was barely even used?

[Sobx.1758]

20 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

I'm not disagreeing with the literal definition.  To me, "censoring" has a strong, negative connotation.  Modifying something in effort to increase profit doesn't fit my definition of censorship.

Seeing these "I know this is not what the word means, but by my alternative made up definition it means something else" (or did I misunderstand what you've said here?) is always so weird to me. From my understanding, at this point you're just knowingly lying to yourself?

See, this is a cat. But I don't like the sound of the word "cat", some of them scratch people and they usually don't sit when I want it to sit. So now it's a dog. Nope, still a cat 😛  And similarly -in the context of posts above- still censoring, even if you dislike the word 😉

Edited July 26, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[The Greyhawk.9107]

2 hours ago, Smoky.5348 said:

The OP gave out silly reasons for outrage, that's where people got these censorship ideas from. The topic title, however, should be the sole focus of our complaints. ANET is changing existing content that had no business being changed. No one asked for a Twisted Marionette model update. No one wanted Mai Trin's lines to be reworded. If they keep doing this to Season 1, what are they gonna do to core Tyria if they revisit that? Will things in personal story suddenly be changed for no benefit? ANET surely has more important things to focus their "limited resources" on, as others have said.

Funnily enough, the Personal Story is likely safe from such meddling due to how stuff tends to break whenever it gets changed, thanks to the old spaghetti code. 

But yeah, your point is largely my own from my first comment on this thread, the one that was promptly misunderstood by other parties.  This issue, for myself at least, isn't primarily or even particularly about "sexy" items being changed or removed, it's about any legacy item (or bit of dialog) being unnecessarily and arbitrarily changed years after the fact. Especially when there are more important things for Anet to work on or fix. And it's important to me that we do make a fuss so that that at minimum Anet thinks twice about doing so.

[kharmin.7683]

36 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Seeing these "I know this is not what the word means, but by my alternative made up definition it means something else" (or did I misunderstand what you've said here?) is always so weird to me. From my understanding, at this point you're just knowingly lying to yourself?

See, this is a cat. But I don't like the sound of the word "cat", some of them scratch people and they usually don't sit when I want it to sit. So now it's a dog. Nope, still a cat 😛  And similarly -in the context of posts above- still censoring, even if you dislike the word 😉

Forget it.  I don't think you will ever understand my point of view.

[Sobx.1758]

46 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Forget it.  I don't think you will ever understand my point of view.

I don't know, for now all I have is what you've said, which seems to be "I'm not disagreeing with the literal definition. To me, "censoring" has a strong, negative connotation. Modifying something in effort to increase profit doesn't fit my definition of censorship."

I'm trying to see where you're comming from and what I wrote is based on what's quoted above.

You are free to dislike the word or w/e, but it is what it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship#Economic

Quote

Self-censorship can also occur in order to conform to the expectations of the market. For example, the editor of a periodical may consciously or unconsciously avoid topics that will anger advertisers, customers, or the owners in order to protect their livelihood either directly (i.e., fear of losing their job) or indirectly (e.g., a belief that a book will be more profitable if it does not contain offensive material).^[11][12][13] This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as soft censorship.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kalavier.1097]

3 hours ago, Shadowmoon.7986 said:

There is a definite moral panic going on in west coast game development circles. Blizzard famously "de-objectified" women by turning them into fruit (https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/pp3deq/blizzard_want_to_respect_women_so_they_turned/) and lost ark changed starting armors and npcs for the western release (https://forums.playlostark.com/t/a-lot-of-outfits-censored-changed-remodeled-or-replaced/21873).

This is not a classical right wing moral panic, but a left wing, that is why snargle is promoted, because his status is considered virtuous. If you do not think there isnt a culture war on traditional definitions of women, the you truely got had your head in the sand. Unfortunately, going further down this rabbit hole probably goes into politics which is the fastest way for this thread to lock and our concerns to be silenced again.

 

Completely ignoring the fact Blizzard was swamped with sexual abuse and other misconduct investigations and accusations, and thus was trying to hardcore change their image by scrubbing a LOT of things from WoW all at once (including the use of the term Consort, which isn't that bad of a term).

They then came out and went "Oh but we always wanted to make these changes" as an excuse, and got called out on it because "Then why didn't you make these changes piece by piece over the years, instead of doing back and changing kitten that is 8 years out of date, or from the very launch of the game?"

Anet has made no grand claims, and has changed nothing outside of this singular model. It's a bit silly to complain about their views on women because of the watchknight change when T3 cultural human light and norn heavy female still exist, along with all of the other revealing outfits/armors and the body types are unchanged.

1 hour ago, cyberzombie.7348 said:

Why are people getting so deep over a model change that was barely even used?

Hell if I know. It was/is slightly amusing still but it's devolved into conspiracy and  blown up claims. People acting as if their characters have been altered.

Is one thing to go "I don't really get why it was changed, I liked the old one fine, and that's that." but things here went crazy :P.

 

[ShroomOneUp.6913]

10 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Forget it.  I don't think you will ever understand my point of view.

because it makes no sense.

[Zebulous.2934]

The argument that nothing else has been touched, isn't much of an argument.  It hasn't been touched yet.  Anet would never change all of it simultaneously anyway, the outcry would be tremendous.  One skin at a time would produce a series of small upsets rather than a major blowup.

I did mention the change to the Elegant Canthan outfit earlier in the thread.  Though, that was a new item, and the devs made a rather reasonable edit.  It is interesting, to me, that the change was never mentioned officially.

You all are probably right, it was likely an oversite and perhaps it would have been a hassle to preserve the tonics separate from the monster redesign.
Anet still could have taken steps.
Announcing that the Mk 1 watchnights and the Mk 1 tonic would get a redesign would have been really good.
Temporarily removing the Mk 1 tonic from vendor sale tabs would have been a good move.  Removing it as soon as they decided that they were going to change the Mk 1 model, then add it to the sale tab after the change.

For me at least, this really isn't about the tonic itself, I just feel that nothing in my wardrobe is safe.  I keep thinking that the next time I see an outfit or armor skin, I have to ask myself "What if they add a scarf or a wrap to this later?"  "Is this skin worth buying if they are going to cover or remove that _____  next patch?"


  

[Kozumi.5816]

11 hours ago, Tukaram.8256 said:

Female armor in games has always been problematic. 

No it hasn't.  Women like being  able to pick if they want to look cute, sexy, or cool. Men like dressing up their women chars how THEY want. Stop forcing your opinion onto people.

What's problematic is spending half your budget researching what won't offend  anyone.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Kozumi.5816

[Mik.3401]

14 hours ago, Tukaram.8256 said:

Female-female relationships have absolutely nothing to do with showing skin... except perhaps in your lesbian fantasies. 

Female armor in games has always been problematic. 

lmao this is up to women to define what about portraying them is problematic or not. And spoiler alert - each woman like each human is different, so there is not set in stone way to determine it.

One thing which is problematic is the kindness revolution/body positivity/gender construct denial/etc. movements which just strive to censor every kitten thing to their liking. Guess what fantasy games are often based in the past-like medieval world, sometimes what they portray is not exactly functioning in our society. If you have more than 1 brain cell to put together you will get it.

 

[Rogue.8235]

Hey guys

*sees the formulation of conspiracy theories about ArenaNet and "censorship" with a multitude of ridiculous claims*

...ooookay that's enough internet for today.

 

Seriously though, aesthetic cohesion is an important thing to try to maintain.  Legendary weapons and sparkly infusions are bad enough as it is.  To make the watchknights match the aesthetic of the marionette is sensible.    The proclamations of "censorship" are unfounded, empirically evidenced by all the 3d models not changed.    That's the proof.  They changed one thing rather than, at the very least, a measurable fraction of in-game assets.  There is no evidence of censorship, only the wild imaginings of bored forum posters.

 

As for feeling if it was time well spent or wasted, eh.  I'm of the opinion that freshening up assets is always a good thing.  There is no real right or wrong answer here, just what each of us prefer.

 

[Sobx.1758]

5 minutes ago, Rogue.8235 said:

To make the watchknights match the aesthetic of the marionette is sensible.

Watchknights were changed to match the aesthetic of the marionette and marionette was changed to... Match the future aestetic of watchknights? 😄

Edited July 26, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Kalavier.1097]

3 hours ago, Zebulous.2934 said:

For me at least, this really isn't about the tonic itself, I just feel that nothing in my wardrobe is safe.  I keep thinking that the next time I see an outfit or armor skin, I have to ask myself "What if they add a scarf or a wrap to this later?"  "Is this skin worth buying if they are going to cover or remove that _____  next patch?"

How many armor skins have been actively edited after being released thus far?

I think the grand total is... 2 that I know of. In all of GW2? Arah female heavy dungeon armor apparently got a minor tweak, and Elegant Canthan outfit got a tweak.

[SlayerXX.7138]

15 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

I'm trying to see where you're comming from and what I wrote is based on what's quoted above.

1. The kittening forum censor my god kitten language because its a kittening safe space.
2. A Movie will censor exposed breast if it is aimed at kids. 
3. Country xyz censors their news paper to push their propaganda.
4. Country abc censor their media so the people don't see the warcrimes they commited.

 

The Person you responding too means censorship like points 1 and 2, but doesn't like the word because many people who care about politics lean to link the word censor more with stuff like 3 and 4. The majority of people in this post seem to think it is a censorship in the vain of point 3.

So yes while the model may have been changed because censorship. It seems to matter if it is propaganda driven or age rating driven.

[Syvaris Laskaris.5247]

11 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

How many armor skins have been actively edited after being released thus far?

I think the grand total is... 2 that I know of. In all of GW2? Arah female heavy dungeon armor apparently got a minor tweak, and Elegant Canthan outfit got a tweak.

Slippery slope.

"B-but the slippery slope isn't real!" 

[Kalavier.1097]

12 minutes ago, TheSeraphim.7413 said:

Slippery slope.

"B-but the slippery slope isn't real!" 

It's more of "Is there a slope there at all?"

Why would somebody be actively afraid of their wardrobe items being changed when there is little to no precedent to warrant an active fear?

[Smoky.5348]

1 hour ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

Why would somebody be actively afraid of their wardrobe items being changed when there is little to no precedent to warrant an active fear?

Counter-point: Was there any precedent for Twisted Marionette to change? Other point: The Watchknight model was part of a transformation tonic, thus part of a player's wardrobe; this creates precedent that they will change "minor" things if they so desire.

2 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

As for feeling if it was time well spent or wasted, eh.  I'm of the opinion that freshening up assets is always a good thing.  There is no real right or wrong answer here, just what each of us prefer.

There's no reason to freshen up old models that were just fine when the art team could be doing more important things, like fixing the dozens upon dozens of clipping issues in EoD maps. ANET currently needs to fix things and also bring back Season 1 story, not give models a facelift because they feel like it.

[Ashen.2907]

2 hours ago, Rogue.8235 said:

I'm of the opinion that freshening up assets is always a good thing.  There is no real right or wrong answer here, just what each of us prefer.

Except that some people's preference was removed. Had ANet decided to just add an option, for the tonic for example, I would agree that more options are often better and that allowing people to choose which suits their taste is usually a good idea. But instead players' existing rewards, something they put in the effort to earn in past years, was taken away.

[Rogue.8235]

5 hours ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Watchknights were changed to match the aesthetic of the marionette and marionette was changed to... Match the future aestetic of watchknights? 😄

 

It's a vicious circle that continues to this day.  This thread is only about the most obvious change, but doesn't mention the four hundred kabillatrillion changes that occurred.  The watchknights try to match the marionette, who tries to match the watchknights, ad infinitum.  They say that the last black hole of the universe will die out before the cycle ends.

 

 

 

Yes, this is a /jk

tongue-in-cheek and all