The textbook example of taking elements from the localization out of context. There is so much wrong in this post that I’ll just focus on main points.
The Saizo-Beruka C support is not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Sure, I would have preferred Treehouse to keep their conversation on why both characters are pretty messed up due to their occupations. What you wisely neglected to mention was that the rest of the support conversation remains intact and still goes on normally. Beruka’s problem in the localization extends far away from one support she has with a character that can only be accessed in Revelations.
None of the localized jokes in FE Fates takes away from the overall plot. Are we so quick to forget that Awakening had its own share of stupid jokes? The one liners in Awakening did not detract from the game’s [subpar] plot. For Fates, the rough translated plot from the JPN version was very dull to read through. The characters spoke as if they came straight out of an anime where occasionally one of the characters would crack a funny quip then drone on for more lines.
The images in that Imgur gallery are all cherry picked in favor of blatantly whining over the localization changes. Rather than focus on these one liners, why not focus on elements that were kept in? For example, the Beach Brawl DLC was just released and had the royals in swimsuits. Naturally, many fans thought Camilla’s would get censored yet that piece of artwork remains untouched. Funny how one of the more suggestive CG present in the game is left intact yet people are ******** about minor text changes.
If these small changes take away from your enjoyment of a Fire Emblem game then you honestly weren't playing for the strategy elements that was advertised. Stop trying to blow small changes out of proportion as if it’s the end of the world.
Ha!
You've revived my interest and hopes.
However, the rhetoric you've used is against all objection, yet you neglect to mention the other objections in particular. I cannot accept "just focusing on the main points," and I hope that fellow fans see your lack of rigor and commitment.
I do remember Awakening and its stupid jokes, and its peculiar characterization, however, in my recollection they were not to this degree, and not so immersion breaking or utterly ridiculous as to divest me of the story or characters in such frequency. There are too many anachronisms and references, the degree and apparentness of which weren't in Awakening. They destroy hopes of immersion to those with a modicum of cultural awareness, as it takes directs people to reflect on outer things.
On characters, Izana's characterization is so out of believably for what he originally was and represented that I cannot find his newfound playfulness redeeming.
Next, Hisame focusing around pickles--AN OBJECT--rather than characteristics or inner traits? That is called a flat character due to lack of internal complexity, and undue attention is brought to it. By the appearance of it, his Japanese characterization had said inner traits and characteristics.
And, you cannot pass away the Saizo-Beruka objection so easily, I hope to make that clear in the last paragraph, however I would agree with your point that much of the content is locked behind extra paywalls--that's another criticism, and one infinitely apparent to all consumers so often that it barely needs mention: we always seek more for less.
Lastly, Nintendo of America skirts around certain touchy subjects which would be to its writing merit to discuss.
Nintendo of America does a disservice by all this, of what easily could be.
This is poor story writing, if it is to be believed that the objective of the writing is to present a quality dramatic literary experience. In this regard, Fates fails. I point this out, and yet you object.
Did I object to its gameplay? Must I include with every criticism a praise of good points? Or, even, a criticism of the JPN version's seemingly boring plot and stereotyped anime characters, and how the ENG version may have fixed it? (I admit, I've not seen the rough translation, but being rough I suspect it devoid of nuance.)
And, I believe it's you who's blowing my reaction out of proportion, rather than I blowing the changes out of proportion. It is the duty of the consumer to object when something doesn't meet their taste. It is their duty to flee immediately to a suitable alternative or take matters into their own hands. It is the duty of the consumer to complain about the smallest unpleasantness. This is not baseness, nor is it selfish--indeed, the consumer is an arbiter, whose sole purpose is to arbitrate on whatever basis they please. The law of subjective valuation makes clear that no objective moral quality can be attached to a person preferring to use their money for something else, or attempting to inform their fellow consumer of the crimes, real or perceived, of a producer. What I offer, and I hope people see the rhetoric I used in my initial post and realize it is not as extreme as you seem to think as I make concessions, is criticism, straight from a fellow fan. Take it for what it is, rather than what it is not.