"Welp" is kind of a fun word. It's got sort of this air of resignation to it.

Welp! Reviewers have confirmed that NOA has taken out the unlockable skimpy bikini costumes in Fatal Frame for the US. They've instead been replaced by a Zelda and Zero Suit Samus outfit.

Personally, I'm not too torn up about the lack of outfits (that visible plumber's crack was just ick to me), but some FF fans are overly livid about this. Hyperbole about selling Wii Us aside, I can sort of see the complaint about arbitrarily cutting things out of an M-rated game. What do you think?

URL to share (right click and copy)

If that's all that was cut out, then I don't really care. Though it's a bit silly when you remove sexual content from an M rated game which probably has violent death scenes (I imagine it does... never played a Fatal Frame game) and obviously content that is already inappropriate for children.

Nintendo gonna Nintendo.

I prefer the Nintendo-themed fan service, personally.

I don't mind this at all. I think the skimpy outfits are ridiculous, and don't particularly care for that kind of 'fan service' in games I want to take seriously, so having some Nintendo centric content replace them is all good as far as I'm concerned. It may seem silly to some, especially considering the game is rated M, but I suppose Nintendo is trying to adapt their content to the other regions a bit.

Don't really care either way. If you want skimpy dressed 3D models, the Internet has you covered. If you want to fight censorship "on principal" then it might be time to do something more productive with your passion than fight video game companies. :)

Sometimes, especially when it involves underage girls, I'm thankful for the edits. I don't know how old the protagonists are in this case, but even so, I agree with r_hjort: the bikinis look dumb.

@anon_mastermind

Likewise. It sounds more fun to hunt ghosts in those Nintendo-themed outfits. I'd be concerned if the game's narrative was censored, but the removal of that outfit isn't a big deal.

In this particular case, it doesn't affect me, since I'm not even buying this game.

In general, I'm a firm believer in the freedom of expression, so I don't agree with decisions like this. That means there are going to exist things I don't like, but that's okay, I also have the freedom to ignore it. Even if I did want to play this game, I wouldn't have to use those outfits. Devs can put whatever they want to in games, especially ones rated M (those outfits hardly seem like the most horrific thing about this game). It's always baffled me how human bodies are considered more heinous than things like violence.

The only time I consider that censorship might be okay is cases where children have easy access to it, like daytime television. There are definitely things children shouldn't see, and it should be up to parents to decide what's appropriate for their children.

Whoa. So they added Nintendo-themed outfits to replace the underwear?
That's actually pretty cool.

@Mop it up
I'd argue that adapting your own work could also fall under freedom of expression. /Devil's advocate

EDIT: I mean, there is a difference between self-censorship as a result of pressure and altering content in order to adapt to a different audience.

@r_hjort It can, if the devs did it under their own free will. Which, in this case, is highly unlikely, since this game was made by a third-party and NoA likely called the shot for it to be changed.

Eh...I don't think Nintendo should censor (unless it's a situation like @Guillaume mentioned specifically), but I actually prefer the change. I like the fan service.

Can't wait to start this one for free...

@Mop it up
It's also possible that that the dev team was aware of the plan all along, didn't object to it, or even suggested it themselves since the alterations could potentially help the game reach a larger audience as the previous game didn't get official distribution in certain places due to raunchy content. Ultimately, we don't know enough about what went down behind the scenes to make any such assumptions.

@Mop it up

To be a dev means to be willing to compromise. Games are a series of compromises based on publisher feedback, consumer feedback, and conversations within the team. So I don't really believe in authorial intent when it comes to games, movies, and most collaborative and commercial art. And therefore the idea that Nintendo went and changed the game "against the artists' intent" rings false to me.

At any rate, they got to put girls in underwear in their game, in Japan. If that aspect of their game was sacred to them, it could have stayed in Japan. But someone somewhere decided to listen to publisher feedback and replace those costumes for the North American release.

I'm sure most are happy with the compromise.

@r_hjort It's possible sure, but given NoA's history, it's again highly unlikely. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and the simplest explanation is oft the correct one.

@Guillaume To be clear, I like the new costumes better too, I just disagree with the principle behind it. They could have added the new costumes and left the old ones, though. I think you're exaggerating what I said though, so it's probably best to end this here.

I'm not worried though. Over the years, censorship has been getting less and less strict, so individual cases like this are no big deal for the big picture.

I don't like censorship in any form even if it is editing out something gauche like skimpy bikinis on young girls. It probably improves the game to take it out but I don't like the imposition of values or morality on artistic works. It's an important principle that needs to be upheld across the board.

I don't really view this sort of thing as censorship to worry about. Government censorship is unacceptable. Businesses avoiding controversies by removing things that sexually repressed Americans are going to complain about is a business and PR thing.

Because nothing says "healthy sexuality" like choosing an out of place sexy character model in a video game.

Yeah, I have no interest in doing so... I probably would have when I was 15 though. This might have even upset me then. Heh.

@Guillaume@Hinph

Yea I don't think being a horny dude means "unhealthy sexuality" either. Putting aside any objectification stuff (although I should know better than thinking that we can put that aside).