Anybody know if there have ever been debates like that over the Nintendo version of Maniac Mansion? Seems to me like arguments of both sided would apply for that too.
Are you talking about Nintendo wanting to have anything nipple-related removed (plus more)?
That has nothing to do with developers just changing the game because they want to.
And I donât really know how you can say cutting out a dialogue is not a big change. Imagine they would cut âwouldchuck chuckâ dialogue from Monkey Island because some people are named Chuck and that could be offensive. Just a dialogue thatâs doesnât mean anything, why not cut it?
But thatâs not what people want from a remaster, at least judging by reactions so far.
(btw. regarding sissypants: they said they want to fix the dialogue inconsistency, so maybe they will even change it back to sissypants⌠or maybe remove even more dialogue
)
I donât think they will remove anything more. Here you have a proof, that talking about this stuff works. This must be a PR disaster for them and theyâre looking for a way out. Iâm sure if they will get to remastering another season they will think twice before taking anything out. Especially something like sissypants.
The woodchuck thing is a well known dialogue but I donât see too many people attached to those dialogue lines we are talking about in Sam & Max.
Most people donât even realised what was changed, they just heard that Boscoâs voice is different and then they read somewhere some dialogues were changed or removed and went apeshit, mentioning censorship or other conspiracy theories.
Well, they have already lost those people who donât want to buy it or have already refunded it. People who donât care or buy it anyway will also the following seasons.
I donât see a reasons to not keep doing this.
1 Like
I think back in the day developers had mostly to listen to some higher ups (as in this case Nintendo of America) who were usually out of touch with reality. They and their audience knew what they could handle or not.
Today it´s more that they listen to their audience more. And make changes based on their feedback or what they think they may say. I think that´s the difference between then and now.
I´m not saying they made those changes not because they wanted to. But their PR texts on this sure made it sound like they were mostly concerned for their perception by the public in this case. (something about âdo we want to release something like that with our name on it?â)
They have also made it clear they had those who never played it before in mind, so they tweaked it more for them hoping those who have some nostalgia for it, would barely notice.
I agree however that this is not censorship. It´s PR though. More than a creative decision I´d say. Less born out of âwe don´t find these things funnyâ than âwe don´t want to offend anyone so they don´t get outraged and return our gameâ.
Doesn´t look like it has worked much in their favour though. So not sure if they miscalculated or not. It´s really hard to tell these days how people react to anything.
I know I may seem cynical about this but it just seems more llikely to me.
But maybe they also actually care about this stuff.
There are some people being vocal about it, some try review-bombing etc.
In the end the developer removed a handful of lines which they thought could offend minorities and for some reasons now there is a bunch of people (which are a minority too) offended by removing possibly offending lines.
So if one minority are transgender people which could be offended by being called disturbed people and the others are those trolls writing negative reviews guess which Iâm going to support.
If I would be in charge Iâd probably remove even more dialogue just for the heck of it and to annoy those people.
And thatâs why you should never let me work in PR 
2 Likes
The most important thing they maybe should have pointed out is the fact they wanna make the original unaltered version available as well(they mentioned this even making a George Lucas joke at it). Which you´d think should give those complaining now less reason to complain, because they´ll be able to choose the original still.
3 Likes
I donât know about Steam but on GOG you had the original version available on release of the remastered version.
So it is in fact out now? Yeah, then I don´t really see what´s the problem. Except maybe that´s not on Steam (where people generally seem to have a greater tendency to ask for refunds it seems to me sometimes)
Was there even anyone complaining about this in the original game at all? I donât remember anything about it. Why would anyone easily offended play a Sam & Max game anyway?
If the developers really feel the need to protect such people, they should just put in an optional profanity filter, but that might cut half the game when switched on.
Funny enough, they even mocked censorship in the second season.
Unlikely. But itâs 2020 now, have you seen what they have written regarding those changes?
They may have changed. Also the original voice actor was pulling funny stunts.
If you want to change something or remove something, why would you do that? Especially since adding and maintaining additional options is a lot of additional work for an option the developer doesnât care about the slightest.
Why is everyone writing about censorship? Does this word have a different meaning in English than in German?
Now come on, you know well enough that also in german people love to overuse that word 
1 Like
I get that we might disagree whether the change was needed or not but I donât see how thatâs not censorship. If youâre afraid to publish something and do changes to make the thing easier to swallow by whoever is judging, thatâs censorship.
No, call it what you want. But that´s not censorship.
Censorship would be if somebody else would look over the game first and have to approve it before it gets released (or rather change it themselves) or tell the devs what they have to change and if they don´t they have to suffer consequences.
3 Likes
Thatâs bowdlerization, not censorship.
2 Likes
Oh no no⌠In communist countries there was an institution that censored all stuff before publishing (sometimes rejecting the work of art completely), but everyone who lived through this can tell you, that the most widespread type of censorship was auto censorship, because the authors decided to not write things that may get them in trouble. Or even things that will get them in trouble when the institution decides to publish it, but has some on the fence stuff (happened very often).
1 Like
Yeah sure, but the consequences are wildly different, aren´t they? In communist countries you could lose your job, get to prison or even killed for something the goverment didn´t like.
You didn´t say or write something out of fear to become unpopular with the public. But because the government would have been after you.
1 Like
I know it doesnât have the same weight but itâs the same mechanism. Youâre changing something having an exterior motive. Youâre afraid of negative consequences it could bring. Of course, itâs a bit blurred line when working on anything, but once itâs published? I think this case is more like a publisher who censors the author, because thatâs not their own game after all. Itâs ânot under my roofâ situation. This game was finished, published already by somebody and these guys took and it made changes to make it ok for the woke people.
Letâs say I got the rights to remaster A Nightmare on Elm Street movie. I do color correction, redub Freddy Krugger with nicer dialogue and cut out all violent scenes because violent movies are frowned upon by the Church in my country. Is that censorship?
If that move is directly ordered from the church then yes. If you do that because you don´t want to get bad reviews by the catholic movie review papers (which unfortunatly are a reality in my country too!) then it´s not.
I´m not saying I like those mechanisms either but I think it really is clearly defined.
George Lucas changed who shot first because he was worried about the morality, not because Fox told him to do that otherwise they won´t re-release his movie.
I think this is a similar case we have here. It´s not that I say that it´s good. But it´s a bit different ballpark, and censorship is a heavy thing.
Ok, so what do you call a version of a movie where it has naughty parts taken out and thereâs no swearing (instead thereâs something like âYippee ki yay Mr Falcoâ in Die Hard, a real example)? These are often for TV and for more conservative markets. Isnât this a censored version by a chance?