Bravely Second - Change to Native American outfit confirmed

While this was rumored for awhile, we can now confirm the change thanks to the EU demo. As you can see Aimee’s “Tomahawk” outfit has been changed from a Native American to a Cowboy. She has also been given a “Southern Accent” to accompany the costume.

Categories: Media, Portables


Top Rated Comment
Sun Jan 31 16 09:37pm
Rating: 4

I'm of Native decent. I don't care about this change. I'm not offended either way, I would buy the game either way, the change isn't for me, it's for people who want to get offended for me.

Sun Jan 31 16 02:55pm
(Updated 1 time)

Too bad we can't have both. The Tomahawk outfit was one of the ones I was feeling the most. Great design and cool theme; such a shame.

And the Natives keep losing ground to the cowboys even a century later. Some things never change.

Sun Jan 31 16 03:12pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

lol Sad In order to avoid a non-existent controversy, they did something that actually could be interpreted as racist instead of just keeping the harmless thing that glamorizes the relevant race's historic culture.

I can't even imagine the decision making process here. Today's hyper-PC society has clearly scared everyone into a state of deep confusion.

Sun Jan 31 16 04:00pm
Rating: 2

These days with everyone being outraged about something it's common for cultural appreciation to be mistaken for cultural (mis)appropriation. Can't wear a kimono because that would be racist. I remember reading about a kid getting in trouble with his school for wearing a Mariachi costume and he's Hispanic! He's not even allowed to appreciate his own culture! We're truly in an age of lunacy and it's sad to see Square contributing, even in just a small way.

This is textbook appropriation actually. A character who isn't native in a game unrelated to native culture, made by non-native people, dressing up in native clothes for fun. What about that appreciates native culture as opposed to using it as a cheap costume gag?

Your example of the kid at school is exactly why appropriation is a problem. Because the people to whom non-majority cultures belong can't even celebrate their own cultures without othering themselves or being called "spics" or "wetbacks" or whatever, while everyone else takes the imagery of that culture and freely uses it in cartoons, movies, halloween costumes, football mascots and the like.

It's all about where the content is coming from. Nobody accused Never Alone of being racist, because it was made with actual appreciation and involvement from people within that culture, choosing to share it.

Sun Jan 31 16 04:52pm
Rating: 3 (Updated 1 time)

Please go away. No amount of other people doing the thing you do makes it suddenly not yours.

By your own logic any indians (and yes, you can say indian, my gran promises) who wear a "cowboy" outfit are appropriating white culture, and im sure you dont actually think that (though likely for reasons more racist than logical).

If doing your own culture leads to social disadvantage, while it's depicted by people outside your culture everywhere in media for fun, then yeah, it would probably start to feel not yours.

White culture is the dominant culture dude. The cowboys won. Putting on a cowboy outfit is assimilation, not appropriation. Actual native people do that all the time - to fit in. There's some stuff you can say about regionalism, and how people in more urban areas look down on rural things, but by and large there's been whole industries built on celebrating or affecting cowboy-isms, and John Wayne and Garth Brooks made lots of money, so I think cowboys are doing ok.

Not to mention that a cowboy is an occupation and not a race of people. The controversy here seems to come from the idea that Native Americans are being depicted as a class such as a rogue or knight ala the old game my parents played as kids, Cowboys and Indians.

Ah, But Tomahawks are a tool and a weapon, and people were readily trained in using them. Therefore the use of "Tomahawk" as a class is no different from "Axemen" or "Swordsmen", since it describes a tool being used. Moreover, Tomahawks were improved upon, by colonials back in the early days of the colony no less, with a metal blade and used for trading WITH Native Americans. I mean, if you're going to complain about appropriation, you're going to have to go back a few hundred years to start it, honestly.

But it's not just the weapon, it's the whole outfit. If it was just the weapon there wouldn't be any controversy.

Your comment is an excellent example of racism without logic.

Sun Jan 31 16 05:26pm
Rating: 1

I don't believe a culture can only be appreciated by someone within that culture as long as it's being done respectfully. I haven't seen video of Bravely Second so I can't say for certain if this was the case. If the character is drinking fire water, turns red and whoops around then that's definitely disrespectful. Wearing some clothes and using a different weapon doesn't seem quite the same level.

Of course I know many others don't feel the same way because of the outrage culture brainwashing.

There are people so desperate to be offended that they'll scold you for thinking ninja or samurai are cool. The arguments are so cold and out of touch that I question the suggested humanity behind them.

Saying that someone can't harmlessly express an admiration for an iconic piece of cultural history in such ways just because they don't have the same skin color is far more racist than the act of dressing up.

There's definitely SOME truth behind the cultural appropriation thing. We don't want to be offensive to cultures that we claim to love. We don't want to "charicaturize" them. But on the other hand, the odd thing is, if you look back in ancient art from each of the various cultures, you'll realize they had a tendency to charicaturize themselves without anyone else's help. They knew they had certain specific qualities about themselves and others that they appreciated and payed close attention to. AS for garb, If you were cold in Britain no one would scold you for wearing a suit & hat, just like if you were to visit India and get lost in the desert, no one would bat an eye for you wearing a turban for functional reasons if you had to.

The real problem with appropriation is when it actually becomes offensive. The problem is, some people think that pertains to "I'm a culture, not a costume". But what does that even really mean? "We don't want to overdo the caricature to the point where it's offensive or use derogatory terms unless for some reason it was meant to be a part of narrative to help it reach a conclusion or a character to grow" should be the correct answer. And yet not appropriating anything at all actually seems deeply conservative and xenophobic even. If cultures didn't want to share anything, we wouldn't have anime, tacos, good RPGS, or Pasta. And at this point, with global warming increasing...it's only a matter of time til everyone's functionally back to wearing ponchos and sombreros anyways...and I say that as a Mexican myself. I could go on, but it'd be a bit off topic.

I've always considered it offensive in the way that it's a job class, not a character. It's playing dress up. No different than having an Italian job class where you fight with pizza sauce.

Native American character would have been cool.

Having really cool clothes and using a tomahawk is quite an ill comparison to flinging pizza sauce. Let's not skew the nature of this, please.

A better comparison would be if the Italian job class were based on being a genius inventor like Leonardo da Vinci and using those inventions as weapons in battle. Plus, you could dress as per the time period with the Bravely art style flair - sounds awesome to me.

Imitation, in this case, is clearly flattery if we're viewing it through an honest lens.

Yeah, I do think my example was an exaggeration.

So excluding Native Americans, replacing them with Cowboys and giving Cowboys a Southern Accent ISN'T prejudice!?

Sun Jan 31 16 05:18pm
Rating: 2

Cowboys are white. It's ok to be prejudiced against them.

Sun Jan 31 16 06:11pm
Rating: 5

Haven't you heard? They're teaching kids these days that racism and prejudism are only things white people can do. Minorities are incapable of racism, just like women are incapable of sexism. Only you white male monsters are capable of that ugliness.


Sun Jan 31 16 08:51pm
Rating: 1

I sadly have to agree, even though I'm not a "privileged white male" myself

Sigh. I appreciate the removal of the outfit in theory, but I don't think this change is going to solve anything. As many people have pointed out, replacing a "Native American" stereotype with a "cowboy" stereotype is really blindsighted. It's just going to fuel more of these annoying "censorship" arguments.

Unsurprising after those earlier screenshots came out but still disgusting. How anyone ever thought this was an appropriate change is beyond me.

Sun Jan 31 16 03:57pm
(Updated 1 time)

I think they shouldn't have changed it. I'm with Xenocross; it works in theory, but it ultimately doesn't solve anything. Plus, I don't think Wild West cowpokes and "spiritual power" quite share the same realm.

This is stupid.
I'm not against all of the changes they made and I think some are justified. But this, this is just dumb. I'm just going to leave this comment I made on another topic discussing this particular change:

Is it just adapting the game to western audience? In which case they really must think we are morons if they actually thought that having a stereotypical indian was too much cultural diversity for us to handle. That's almost insulting.

Is it not to offend native americans with a stereotypical representation of their culture? In that case how is replacing that representation with the stereotypical enemy suppposed to help?

Sun Jan 31 16 04:13pm
Rating: 2

Meh...can't convince myself to get outraged over this kind of thing. Such minor insignificant stuff. Game will be fantastic and that's all I care about.

As someone who has defended Nintendo's changes to games lately, I think I'm pretty done defending them now. This is a pretty silly. Seems a bit more controversial to white wash a character instead of keeping them native american themed.

Sun Jan 31 16 05:09pm
(Updated 1 time)

Nintendo's changes to games

This is Square-Enix though... Does Nintendo have anything to do with localizing this?
Seems a bit more controversial to white wash a character

Is it "white washing" if the character is white to begin with? The job doesn't seem to change Magnolia's skin color.

Sun Jan 31 16 05:27pm
Rating: 1

I assumed Square was making the changes but perhaps Nintendo is localizing this one?

Nintendo is co-publishing, if I recall correctly

I think they meant the character's job class, not their literal skin color. The cultural implications of either class are pretty clear.

Actually, the Native American character has brown skin in her original character art. So yes, this is pretty much white washing and borderline racism.

Sun Jan 31 16 06:00pm
(Updated 1 time)

It doesn't seem that Magnolia's skin color changes to me:

Unless you were referring to another character?

EDIT: Upon closer examination, does Magnolia's skin become lighter with the cowboy outfit, or is it just the lighting? This is making my head hurt...

Sun Jan 31 16 06:47pm
(Updated 4 times)

There are actual Native American characters within the game and he is likely talking about Amy, one of the Native American characters that is in the game.

If anything, the people crying about how this is taking out the Native American representation and/or white-washing are just ignorant to the fact that they were already doing that in the game by not making any of the Native American characters an actual playable character but then marginalizing them to nothing more than a costume change for the playable (white) characters.

Basically, it was a lose lose situation. If they hadn't changed anything, people would be complaining about the point I made about there being Native American characters in the game that you can't play as but you can dress up as one. Change it/take it out; racist censorship.

Sun Jan 31 16 06:59pm
(Updated 1 time)

There are actual Native American characters within the game and he is likely talking about Amy, one of the Native American characters that is in the game.

I'm unfamiliar with the series, so I didn't know that. Thanks for the information! I had assumed that characters could be renamed and that Aimee was just what the player called Magnolia.

I suppose that dressing as a Native American inherently isn't really offensive, but can easily be seen as such. Ergo, SE would rather sidestep the issue by dressing the characters as cowboys instead. Though that can be taken the wrong way too, so maybe SE didn't think things through all the way.

(Also, Aimee is still dark-skinned so you can't say that she was white-washed.)

Sun Jan 31 16 07:03pm
(Updated 1 time)

The sad reality is that in this day and age, anything and everything can be deemed offensive.

Aimee is an NPC. She exists within the game to give your characters the Tomahawk/Hawkeye job. What I'm saying is that instead of just having her be a playable character and therefor have a Native American on your team, they only allow you to dress up as one. That's all I was saying and that people could and probably would find that offensive.

Mon Feb 01 16 10:10am
(Updated 1 time)

Maybe. But then again, all jobs are gained through this method. You start as a general class, and you can gain classes from other NPCs you meet along the way. To then suddenly have an NPC join the party, breaking this pattern, seems honestly very weird. It would only call special attention to it, knowing something is up with it.

EDIT: I notice you can't reply to my post anymore. If you want to reply, you can reply to any other post or make a new comment, and I'll see it; I'm subscribed to this thread. Just make it clear in some way you're responding to me

Sun Jan 31 16 07:12pm
(Updated 2 times)

Edit: Sorry. Double post.

Compared to Amy's original artwork and in game model you can tell her skin is lighter.

Artwork http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/b/b6/Amy_Matchlock.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140920165128

In game model (Amy on the left and Magnolia is on the right.)

And here is an in-game screen for comparison with the Cowboy image used for the article/GoNintendo post. http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/8/80/BS_Amy_Boss.png/revision/latest?cb=20141212034504

Well, what I mean by white washing is taking the native american aspect of the character and changing it to something that is predominantly white. I don't necessarily mean the character is white now.

Sun Jan 31 16 05:18pm
Rating: 1

I fail to see how this is any better. It's just another dumb change.
I'm just getting tired of it at this point.

To all the Japan character game artists out there if you are reading this please stand up & pack up. Leave your job & form your own game company that way we don't have to put up with this bs. Nintendo runs on America, take that Dunkin' Donuts because you got a new contender in town!

But jokes aside I'm mad about this & its always going to be this way until people stop buying their games period. Look at all those years when SEGA was around they made fun of Nintendo for their kiddy image & Sony also taking shots at them not to long ago. That goes to show Nintendo will always have that rule in place for the family image. & all that talk about catering to all ages is bs, its all about greed on how much we can reach the masses out there. Yes we did get some games like Bay & Senran to name a few but look how few made it through without taking stuff out. What I'm starting to see is a pattern on their games where they always include some type of young person or give young age numbering in games so that they don't have to deal with all the backlash out there about if younger kids get their hands on a M rated game.

I don't know why they even bother to let their artist go forward with their design & then later censor them. Soon enough they will leave because who is going to work for someone if they can't freely do what their job title says. In the end I already got this CE ordered & in the future I will be making changes to the games I buy now on. Because no.1 I'm my own person that makes choices be it wrong or right & 2nd its my damn hard earn money that I worked hard for to which if I see something that I don't like then I don't have to buy it.

I look at my WII u which my 5yr son plays with me & I couldn't help notice I have a folder in which I keep just 10 M rated games to myself while I have more then 25 other games that he can play safely. I have parental control set up of course but I look at all these censoring games & tell myself why bother having it set up when they are doing the work for us when they remove the original art work.

Nintendo of Japan need not firing NoA staff but take all those money they got from us & their bonuses to build a new building that stands along side NoA & call it the NoAF ( Nintendo of Artistic Freedom). That way we adults can start seeing/playing the games we always wanted to play had Nintendo grew up with us back then.

For an adult you certainly aren't acting like one.

You sound like a spoiled teenager who was told he can have all but one cookie from the entire pack.

Thank you my little grasshopper now run along & go bully some more ppl on the net. Oh & don't forget that last fortune cookie that reads "your asset smells & don't think to hard now".

Mon Feb 01 16 08:45am
(Updated 1 time)

So, calling you out for throwing a childish tantrum over a costume in a video game makes me a bully?


EDIT: You've kind of proven my point by the way, thanks for that.

I kind of wonder what about this makes him not an adult. Getting angry over a change you don't agree with on a fundamental level is childish nowadays? I hope that's not the case, because everyone has emotions, and there's nothing childish about having them

He made a 5 paragraph rant about how Nintendo have metaphorically "destroyed artistic freedom" through minor changes, the kind of which dozens of companies have been doing for years as a means to appease the ESRB, Pegi, or whatnot, all the while spouting 0 facts and pretty much throwing nothing but petty insults into the mix.

That to me is childish, also, you're twisting words, he's an adult, yes, just one who's acting like a child.
I will say I think the change is dumb, but nothing to get into a tantrum over, these things happen, and if it weren't for the internet highlighting them these days, nobody would give a crap.

I honestly read something different. I don't see a tantrum, and I don't really see the petty insults either.

Sun Jan 31 16 07:14pm
Rating: 1

If you're going to flip out every time a piece of media contains a minor, incidental infraction on some value, then you're no better than the SJWs.

well theres another game i'm not getting.

Sun Jan 31 16 08:11pm
Rating: 1

As a half-Cherokee, I do genuinely find this offensive, from theory to action.

Next they'll take out the Tauren in Warcraft to make sure I am not offended by awesome minotaurs being all earthy and tree-huggy.

Sun Jan 31 16 08:38pm
Rating: 1

Warned people back at the freaking FE:Fates censorship. If people are ok with simple censorship then they will eventually think it's ok to do it.

It's a shame the second game is getting so much flak. The first game was amazing, except for the story, music, characters, SP potions, battle system, AR card usage, StreetPass usage, progression, graphics, censorship, controls, and game design.

You're out of your element. No one is talking about the game here, just that it has something people suddenly seem to care about.

[And others just want to be part of the conversation. <_<]

Well, #2's getting a lot of negative press on GN but people fail to remember that #1 was censored (and crappy), so it's hardly a surprise.

How did you know I have a Honda? :O

Mon Feb 01 16 10:02am
(Updated 1 time)

Who failed to remember it? Just because it isn't mentioned here doesn't mean people don't remember it. I remember it all too well!

Honestly, this whole thing about minor censorships is spiralling out of control, Nintendo have been, hell Square and many others have been doing it for years, look at all the old Final Fantasy titles, cleavage and partial nudity, hell SMOKING was censored back then, and people didn't care.

It's just the day and age we live in I suppose, people want to make mountains out of molehills

Or, perhaps, because of the internet, in this age of information, it's now more widely known that things are getting changed so people can appropriately oppose it. Back in the day, you wouldn't know if something was changed during localization

Yet now we know of just how much things were changed throughout all the games we love and grew up with, we don't try lynch Nintendo or whoever for "censoring artistic freedom" for removing some clevage on some enemies sprites, or removing a corn cob pipe and some smoke, or whatever else, you get the idea.

We look back on them and think "oh right, regional differences"
Different cultures have different standards these companies have to abide to in order appease certification boards and to try avoid controversy with the major public.

Like, some could argue it's OK ... lets use Lyn(?) From Xenoblade X as an example, some would say it's ok to put a 13 (now 15?) Year old in a bikini because its a work of fiction and its not real.
A fair argument for some, but others will argue that it's not OK to do that, due to social standards in our culture.

I think I went a fair ways off track there.

You're exaggerating. Nobody is suggesting a (metaphorical) lynching.

Different cultures have different standards these companies have to abide to

So, you're saying that the game has become more appropriate by replacing the Tomohawk class with a Hawkeye class?

I do wonder if Street Fighter 2 was a new game today, how much contempt it'll get. I mean is it even alright now? Just because it's a classic franchise?

To the mass majority, who will have no clue of the original and it's change to this, most will see no issue.

I think you're making it sound worse than what I am stating, because the change wasn't for me, it's for the ESRB, and to them, yes, this is a more appropriate change.
I saw your comment below and actually agree with you in that it's a stupid change for the reasons you stated, but at the end of the day, they're basically just trying to avoid a potential backlash for something that may or may not even happen.

The backlash occuring now is so minimal compared to the potential backlash, they could suffer is what I'm trying to get at.

Mon Feb 01 16 02:18pm
Rating: 1

Yes, sorry if I sound a bit curt. I've had very little sleep, and I'm actually not in a huge mood to have yet another argument about this. (Yet, I have to make my voice known, so I still say a thing here and there.) You may have noticed that my posts are short and largely incomplete

Sun Jan 31 16 09:37pm
Rating: 4

I'm of Native decent. I don't care about this change. I'm not offended either way, I would buy the game either way, the change isn't for me, it's for people who want to get offended for me.

Everyone is getting offended. You're offended. He's offended. She's offended! HYYYYAAAAAHHHH!

I can see it now, a bunch of frothy mouthed babies furious that a game being released in America DARE censor the Japanese characters in the original text and replace them with the English alphabet.

Mon Feb 01 16 04:47am
Rating: 1 (Updated 2 times)

There was only one right choice, that was to have both costumes in the game, but nope, stupidity wins out once again, and all in the name of political correctness!

Well, I want to give my two cents on this...
On a personal level, I am okay with this change. I don't prefer a Tomohawk class over a Cowboy class. Both sound equally nice to me.
However, on a level of principle, I oppose this change strongly because of the reason it was changed and the fact it was changed to begin with. There was nothing wrong with the class as it was

What the **** is this bull****!? *facepalm*

People love to be offended because it makes them feel important.

Am I really the only one that's like "aw cool cowboys are way cooler than Indians"? Like yeah it sucked they got totally destroyed in the 1800s by the U.S. But even then cowboys are still just cooler. I can dig it so hard, hope they get revolvers. day one buy

I always approach these issues in two ways. There's the personal level and the principle level.
I can like or dislike the content that was changed on a personal level... For example, I feel about the same about cowboys as I do about Indians. Or I didn't like the support scenes with Soleil in Fire Emblem.
However, I'll pretty much always be opposed to such changes on a principle level. And that's the side of me (and many others) you'll hear more, because that's more important.

Meh, it's a video game. There's no point in getting so mad over it.

Instead of getting mad, people should really focus on learning and teaching that whatever it is they're getting mad over isn't real and shouldn't be used as rage fuel. Ain't no point in getting mad or offended at video games. Focus that energy on real problems. Instead of "oh my god, her costume is changed from natives", focus on "oh my god, the United States still treats these people like crap."

There's a misconception here: I'm not mad.
Another misconception: Just because people oppose this doesn't mean they don't oppose other things. One could just as well oppose this edit in the game, as well as oppose how the US treats certain people.


Today's VIP

puffyvessel3830's avatar
Joined: January 2017

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!