A mod that removes the content warning present in the recent Tomb Raider remaster has been banned from Nexus Mods.
In a recent interview with Game Rant, Aspyr's Brand Manager Matthew Ray discussed how Tomb Raider 4-6 Remastered's darker tone was a new challenge.
Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered players are ticked off by the game’s most recent patch, which censors in-game pin-up posters of Lara Croft.
This is why gaming is screwed. When people change things to fit someone’s agenda, it’s a slippery slope downhill.
Even if that agenda is of the developer? Way to remove developer rights.
***One player called it a “huge problem with modern games,” saying they can now be “ruined AFTER people buy them”.***
The level of drama. Yes, I recall sitting there for more hours than I did anything else in the game. These two pinups are the core of the game, after all!
rlow1's cringe catastrophizing aside, I do think developers *ought* to strive to maintain an original work to the best of their ability. The language of a "remaster" tacitly implies that - for good or ill - what's being resold is what fans remember but better.
Games can be ruined after purchasing them yeah we know this not from this but from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal.
This pin up poster is a bit of nonsense but the whole argument of modern games can be ruined post launch is Absol true.
It's not their work to censor. They are incharge of restoration & remastering the work, not overwriting it.
It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score.
Way to support censorship...
It’s not the end of the world for sure, but I understand the hate towards this kind of change. I believe it’s also a matter of principle.
Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people.
Have all original devs signed off on this change? Even if it’s the case, are we saying older gamers are better mentally equipped to process what was there than current gamers, hence the change?
Enough time ago the case was made that games are an art form. We’re supposed to have won that case.
So which is it? Are games art or not?
And what of the rights of the buyer? The ones that purchased this game with hard earned money? They bought a product that is now being changed into a different product. Surely you would stand up for them since you are about "rights"?
***It's not their work to censor. ***
They own the IP. It's theirs too do with as they wish.
***It's not the agenda of the developer though, they're pandering and trying to increase their ESG score. ***
You got proof of this? And even if this were true, isn't it the developer right to want whatever an ESG score is?
***from GTA IV which had half it's radio content patched out due to licensing expirations and to me that was a huge deal. ***
Licensed music is always going to get changed unless they can afford to keep paying those fees sadly.
***Imagine a Picasso painting being restored & the restorer deciding there aren’t enough strokes, or some lines aren’t straight enough or curved enough…not sure it would/should sit well with people. ***
You do know in the original that the artwork is extremely pixelated so you can't even tell what it is, right? Shouldn't we then be arguing that they increased the detail of this artwork at all then? Why the remaster? Picasso got it right already with the original.
Love the sarcasm and in the overall scheme of the game it’s a pin drop. Things like this always start small but to say nothing just lets it happen.
The only “right” you had was to not purchase the license to rent the game in the first place. Once money changed hands and the agreement was made, you were at the whim of the fine print.
Half of these fear mongers are just out for attention. They never cared about the game. They only want to spread their own agenda.
@Christopher
-"They own the IP. It's theirs too do with as they wish."
That is true, but do you think it *is* right, though? Again, even with this not being a megaton alteration, do you think there's something to the principle of firmly adhering to a... 'remaster standard' that I laid out? I'd also argue it speaks volumes to the sensitivity reader era we're in that even sexy posters would get scrubbed from a game in a post-launch patch.
Hasn't this been happened for over a decade since remasters? I can't see that it's any worse now. Maybe if Sweet Baby starts getting their hands on remasters we will definitely have a problem.
What's the issue? They removed "lewd" pictures of lara croft that were on a wall? I've seen worse.
My guess is that it would've gotten a higher rating at a foreign "esrp", so they just removed it. Believe me, Tomb Raider has been and can be worse woth mods.
tbh I dont see something like this as censorship. Does anyone else not find it strange for someone to stick pin ups of themsleves in a locker room?
Now of it was a pin up of some half naked firefighters it might make sense as Lara might like that, and if they removed that I would cry censorship. But removing pin ups of the main character, yeah I get it.
It's a game, and they were placed there for the audience. It's not real life. If it was, she wouldn't have fought a T-Rex now would she?
Yes, it's censorship but it's a bit less in your face. If they were in the original game, then they should have been in the remasters. It's bad enough that they have that ridiculous unnecessary warning at the start, but then they start removing things post launch. I don't care how small the change, they shouldn't be doing it. It's nothing but ESG pandering but in a subtle way.
Look bro, if you have pictures of yourself naked on a bear skin rug up in your house let me tell you, its not normal.
And Lara Croft is also a mass murderer everywhere she goes. Why didn't they patch that out as well? See, anyone can spew pedantic BS.
How is it not censorship? They are removing suggestive content due to not wanting to offend SJWs and woke people. They literally removed something already in the game that nobody even thought twice about just like a movie on cable television is edited for content… y’know, like literally removing scenes because of not wanting to offend a public audience? How is this different?
By the year 2030, this remaster collection will totally be changed and censored. Probably will remove Lara as a playable character. It's ridiculous. Glad that my family didn't buy this.
I still have Tomb Raider 2 PS1 as a memory.
oh, like the delusional slippery slope of a couple of harmless jpegs bringing society to a crumble? These games have been around for 30 years and society is still thriving last i checked. Unless you can provide an example of a gamer who lost it after playing tomb raider and saw those oh so provocative pixels of a practically stick figure woman (90's 3D modeling). That's right, you can't because this is all just a pedantic waste of time.
@aphrodia: In case you didn't catch it, and I'm not surprised you didn't, the one on the slippery slope is SimpleDad.
***I think downvotes speak of who is fallen of here. ***
HIVE Mind! That's how all good things happen!
It’s mentioned in the article, and it’s a point i 100% agree with, it’s the fact that they can censor a game after you buy it. That’s total bullshit.
You're out here defending the censorship of art. Might wanna re-evaluate your life.
If every game has that right then every GAMER should have the right to a full refund for a bait and switch dirty tatic. Rights work both ways, my friend.
***You're out here defending the censorship of art. Might wanna re-evaluate your life. ***
The people who own the art can do whatever they want with it. That's what I'm defending.
You want the people who make the art to just bow to your demands. You want to control what the artist can do. That's dumb.
***If every game has that right then every GAMER should have the right to a full refund for a bait and switch dirty tatic. Rights work both ways, my friend. ***
You aren't paying for pinup graphics in one scene. If you are, you're a dumb consumer.
It’s not about rights. It’s about the legal fine print that you inadvertently (or perhaps knowingly) agreed to when you purchased your license to “rent” the game.
"The people who own the art can do whatever they want with it. That's what I'm defending."
Ah yes, the old 'gamers don't actually own their games' argument. You'd fit right in at Ubisoft!
Let’s say you bought a painting where a woman is showing a boob. You’re saying it’s ok for the artist to go into your house without your consent, paint over the boob cuz it’s the artists work, and you will be happy with it?
Lets say you bought a movie. After you bought it they removed a gun from a scene. You’re just gonna let that be ok?
What happens is, that painting is no longer the painting you paid for. The movie is no longer the movie you paid for. This isn’t quality of life changes like in videogames.
If someone thinks this is really just about pin up graphics in one scene, then maybe that person is the dumb consumer.
*** Ah yes, the old 'gamers don't actually own their games' argument. You'd fit right in at Ubisoft! ***
Oh, the old "I don't know how patches work" argument. If they patch something you like, it's okay! If they patch something you don't like, "Muh Rights!"
Let alone we're talking about an element that has absolutely zero to do with gameplay, story, or characters. It's a minor environmental element that changes the game in no way other than some pixel watchers can't stand near it and get off on knowing that the full 3D character they're playing in the same skimpy clothing looks just as good in a 2D plane.
***Let’s say you bought a painting where a woman is showing a boob. You’re saying it’s ok for the artist to go into your house without your consent, paint over the boob cuz it’s the artists work, and you will be happy with it? ***
Hey, you, the one who doesn't understand how things work: you're not buying a painting. The art medium is digital and is, per your agreement when you install the game, allowed to be modified by future updates. Now, if you signed a similar agreement with the portrait painting, then, yeah, you gave them that right. But, in this case, you only gave that right to the owners of the video game.
Hope that helps you to figure out the difference.
"Oh, the old "I don't know how patches work" argument. If they patch something you like, it's okay! If they patch something you don't like, "Muh Rights!""
Do you actually not understand the difference between patches that add / fix stuff and patches that remove things? No one said patches are bad and I've got a feeling I understand software development a bit better than you do, having been in software development for 25 years. But sure, strawman it up.
Whilst it's an overreaction to say this has "ruined" the game, it's still problematic that this has happened post launch and for many, post-purchase.
I don't want someone to change a product for the worse after I've bought it. The same goes for implementing micro transactions after reviews.
I wonder why they did this? Nobody was kicking up a fuss as far as I'm aware.
You know what? That is a total possibility and a valid reason to patch it out. Good point. If so, that still doesn't invalidate anything being said here. In fact, it validates it more because it shows that we can no longer trust developers and publishers to hit us with the truth. If everything is sexist, racist, etc. then those ideas have lost all meaning because they can be thrown out any time for any stupid excuse.
Anything that a developer or publisher does is now questioned by the community if it's a manipulative action. And that is a problem created by the hate peddlers.
Explore the legendary world of "Tomb Raider Remastered". Dive deeper into Lara's iconic journeys — check out our review to find out more!
Just as much of a nothing burger as people claimed the message was attempting to address. Which is it, do people have rights to create and moderate the content of their game/site or are we not about freedom of expression/speech?
Damn..Nexus Mods needs to get a competition. Their political correct stance ..sucks.
Ok that's dumb, literally have nude mods, sex mods, and mods to enable child murder in games like fallout and Skyrim, but to take away a little warning screen and that's too much? 🙄😒
People cry about censorship. Developer decides to censor as little as possible from an old release, and they justify it via a note expressing their opinions and views. People decide to censor the note.
Legit.
Is it a content warning every time you boot up the collection? Cause then I can kind of understand if you don't wanna see it cause it's not really a message specifically for you. Nexus is just ran by some butthurt people though so this does not surprise me.