And where is the problem if the anime/manga/videogame requires it? If the author wants to emphasize that point I see it well.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- Status
And where is the problem if the anime/manga/videogame requires it? If the author wants to emphasize that point I see it well.
I have lurked this thread for a while. I am trying to educate myself and empathize better with this issue, as it is important to a lot of people.
Posts like these are why I do not post in this thread and are the reason people get defensive. How is someone supposed to respond to this?
Carry on.
These are trying times, but I still believe. These two keep the dream alive for me
I'm genuinely unable to be surprised by these things after I saw someone claim in another thread that characters like Ivy from Soul Calibur add to diversity in female designs.
The person was literally arguing that people who care about women are "white knights" and that Japan is more open minded for being overly sexual in its approach to female representation in media, that's not an argument in good faith and you take issue with the responses instead? Come on now.
There have been people who don't agree with us who have been civil and honest like Valkyr1983 and nobody has tried to mock him or anything.
So
Further, having characters that look 12 but are way older as a way around hyper sexualizing 12 year olds isn't being open minded, it's some Roy Moore level shit. I also think it reflects pretty poorly on Japanese society as a whole if we look at their depictions of women in this medium in particular.
do you equate thinking a costume is tasteless is white knighting? Bad design is bad design, it's not about white knighting anything.
Further, having characters that look 12 but are way older as a way around hyper sexualizing 12 year olds isn't being open minded, it's some Roy Moore level shit. I also think it reflects pretty poorly on Japanese society as a whole if we look at their depictions of women in this medium in particular.
When it is common to the point where nearly every shounen and sienen manga has it does it become a problem. Fanservice is fine. Things that are directly built for fanservice is fine. No one here really cares about senran kagura or DOA:E. But when it is constantly everywhere it becomes an issue.
Bear in mind that post is in response to someone claiming that a thread about women objecting to the way women are often depicted in a media format are the ones who just don't get it.
There are thousands of less combative posts you could have replied to rather than cherry-picking one in the middle of discussion in an 80+ page thread to then go 'It's a bit heated in here'.
Asking questions is fine, but there were no questions asked. Sturm opened with an aggressive blanket statement about Japan, while using charged terms like 'white knighting'.
BTW... ... ... come in closer... ... ... she's actually... ... [Ys VIII spoiler]How about Dana from Ys VIII as food for discussion?
Now, I absolutely loved Ys VIII, put 50+ hours in and like Dana as a character- she's fun to be around.
However, what I find really weird is the plate-armoured panties and random plates on her hips (perfectly placed to direct any deflected sword swipe down onto her exposed skin). I mean, she's a priestess from a culture that doesn't wear much. That's cool. But the design itself still wants to include scraps of armour, but only to draw attention to the lack of it, that's what I find a bit odd.
The curved blades are cool- her fighting style are like a whirlwind and they present a distinct change from much of the rest of the cast's quasi-European weaponry. But the skimpy see-through scraps of cloth that go from her belt to her shins- why? I can't see them surviving one moment of combat.
If the outfit is 'ritual dance priestess gear', that's cool, but does she really wear it when exploring a primeval world? I laughed when I finally unlocked a new outfit at the tailors for her, hoping for something a bit more practical, but it was only a variant in red and black instead! :D
I actually quite like her sandals/boots combined with the skimpy outfit, they look like comfortable, wearable footwear even if you're a scantily clad primeval priestess. However, I think it's the oddities of those pointless scraps of cloth when fighting and pointless armour pieces designed to dig into her groin that bother me more.
Hidden content
Fun game, but id never play it in front of real people.
Not only that, but I am sick of people pulling out these old hat and frankly insulting arguments like the one I quoted that just reek of 'Glorious Nippon can do no wrong!' in terms of design of female characters. Especially when parts of the argument are rooted in falsehoods.
You think it's hard to respond to my post? Try being a woman on this forum and try to respond to some of the asinine points and arguments presented in this nearly 90 page thread.
Keep the hope alive my friend. We all know giant white robots are the most faithful ones, they won't let you down even in your darkest hourThese are trying times, but I still believe. These two keep the dream alive for me
I love the terms White Knight and Virtue signaling because the very use of them tells a lot about the person. The first implies that the only reason a man would care about a woman's well being is the assumption that he'll be rewarded with affection from her, and the latter that one only shows they care about social issues to boast about their supposedly superior morality.
We're the real monsters. Dreaming of things being fair etc. What a load of tossers.
We thought it was the GG'ers were the maroons, but it was actually us!!!
My opinion on tolerance and prejudice in a country like Japan on the subject commented by the companion is aggressive? I'm hallucinating. Do not worry, I will not comment again on this thread.
I don't deny that those types of men exist but the problem with the term is that it's all encompassing and it's very easy to dismiss a person's opinion solely on the way you defined it regardless of a person's intentions.
Okay. I want to address this.
Now I can't speak for everyone here, but many of the posters here have noted that they have no problem with sexy characters in context. If I had to guess, a lot of people here would be okay with nudity in films or other art that is tasteful, contextualized and is not objectifying the woman, I assume that would carry over to specific comparable games as well. I think that goes to show that these posters aren't closed-minded in terms of sex, especially considering the Japanese games you're pointing to don't feature nudity, but instead mostly pandering fanservice. I believe it's a matter of not wanted to be presented as a piece of meat to be fucked, but instead wanting being presented as an autonomous human being.
It's probably worth examining sexuality in Japan and considering if that's influencing their media.
Can someone please inform me if I'm overstepping with my assumption in italics.
I find the the usual implication of 'white knight' with 'insincere about what they say, wants reward of affection' to often just show the user's somewhat simple laser-focused framing of male-female dynamics through their own viewpoint of 'single young guy pursuing woman'. How dare a man care about his daughter, sister, mother etc.
The idea that caring about equality meaning that, as a man, you must be insincere about your beliefs and just using it to get close to women just makes me think anyone using such a term has never really left adolescence behind and actually developed healthy relationships.
The whole 'What if wanting equality means you are the sexists! What if disliking objectification means closed-mindedness! What if showing empathy means insincerity!' line of twisting any argument is such a basic level of response to criticism that it surprises me that it's proven so effective over the years.
Last edited:
I couldn't have said this better myself.
I don't care about games that are just fan service. They're not my cup of tea but at least you know what you're getting. I hate seeing women objectified in games where it is just 100% unnecessary just to pander to a certain audience. We're people too and we don't exist solely for the male gaze.
You're not wrong here, and honestly I don't think the response was contextually unwarranted, but I think there's a nugget of truth to the fact that responses like that (even to people who were kind of asking for it) can be a bit alienating to people who are lurking the thread. As much as people come in here with disingenuous arguments and we continue to experience a merry-go-round of intermittent disingenuous drive-bys, I really do feel like we're at our best when we're inclusive and driving ourselves absolutely mad trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt for way too long than we reasonably feel like we should have to. When you're dealing with a societal problem that's as ingrained as this one is, the best way to reach people is often by just being well, pleasant.
I've written a bit previously about this, but strictly speaking anime fans (I know this because I am one so I know a lot of them), including women and people who would otherwise be advocates of social justice, can be a bit nervous about stepping into arenas like this one regardless of their beliefs because anime is already something of a lightning rod for derision in nerd culture. While I'd never assert that the type of person you're referring to doesn't exist or their standpoint isn't worthy of criticism, defaulting so quickly to aggressive phrasing does tend to keep people on edge who might otherwise be productive members of the conversation.
It's important to remember that while we're veterans on this merry-go-round and the thread's been around for quite a while, many people who step in are coming in fresh and a hostile environment (even when the hostility is contextually warranted) can scare them off.
I don't really want to come off as tone policing--I've been posting borderline essays in here for a while, you guys know me by this point--and I don't think it's fair that we, alone, should be held to higher standards and avoid losing our tempers or taunting back, but he's not wrong that it'd probably lead to more people not getting scared to join the discussion if we can manage it as much as we're able to.
I think a lot of what these kinds of responses come from in the case of Japan is often a skewed impression of another country's culture as a result of one's primary or sole lens into it being an extremely niche media. Anime otaku culture, least of all the extreme niches within it, are not a microcosm of Japanese culture. It would be the literal equivalent of basing your view of wider American society solely on primetime soap operas or comic books, which I think we can all agree by and large aren't particularly representative of how things actually work or what the masses' opinions are on things. There's nothing wrong with anime, and there's nothing wrong with really liking anime a whole hell of a lot, but it's important to remember that a niche corner of nerd culture from another country doesn't represent its actual populace's thoughts on things any better than niche nerd culture in your own country.
EDIT: Y'all know what I mean by "nothing wrong with anime" in this context. Please no snark. :(
Last edited:
The Vita has been a useful piece of kit, yes :D
Admittedly I only really use portables these days. My last console game (before my life became really busy) was Tokyo Mirage Sessions on WiiU, where both my wife and I were unable to keep a straight face at the relatively light-hearted cheesiness of it all. Now she keeps trying to sneak a peek at my Switch to see if I'm watching more J-pop antics without her, but is most disappointed to find me killing Elves in Skyrim :-)
Last edited:
Are you talking about yourself?
You are not Quiet, Ivy, Cammy etc.
Nobody is talking or thinking about you while playing games.
We are not the characters in games. That's one of the main reasons people play games. Playing as and with fictional characters.
And you are talking about tasteful art.
But comepletely missing the point that what someone finds tasteful you might not. You want nudity in media art and entertainmant in a specific way that YOU like.
By the way, things in media, movies, games and in general don't need to fit a context at all.
Just throwing my 2 cents in here but not all places take "offense" to nudity in the same way. Here in Iceland we're pretty lax on nudity being offensive per se. This skit aired on prime time television, with children watching etc.
(NSFW I guess, depending on where you live)
http://www.visir.is/section/MEDIA99?fileid=CLP38158
Also from the age of 6 there are mandatory swimming classes in school weekly, where everyone showers together, like in the skit and there are no private showers. So from a very young age you are exposed to nudity and it is pretty normalized.
(NSFW I guess, depending on where you live)
http://www.visir.is/section/MEDIA99?fileid=CLP38158
Also from the age of 6 there are mandatory swimming classes in school weekly, where everyone showers together, like in the skit and there are no private showers. So from a very young age you are exposed to nudity and it is pretty normalized.
No I mean, Bayonetta is presented as an autonomous woman. At least that's the argument that many people use
Quiet is uh, presented as someones fetish that's being pandered to you.
When the camera zooms in on a characters breasts it's not presenting her as an autonomous character, but an object to be gazed at.
It might be a stretch to use the word autonomous, but I'm not sure what else to use. I assume that's what you were referring to.
This sort of thing has been going on since at least the 90s, and it's really kind of bizarre. You'd think people who took such an interest in a country would examine its culture beyond the bounds of (for the most part) children's entertainment, but, eh, no. Instead, they seem to have this idealised view of Japan as some sort of country-sized Akihabara :S
(I remember the Anime Society at my uni deciding to represent Japan during a culture week - not, you know, the students studying Japanese, or actual Japanese students, but the Anime Society, none of whom had even visited Japan...)
And, of course, that seeps into their assumptions about Japanese culture and its view - and treatment - of women. Which, eh, isn't that great, but try telling them that...
I mean , you were the one who came into a 80+ page thread and started using loaded terms like "white knight" and "censorship" , while downplaying Japan´s sexist attitudes towards women and it's reservations towards sex and sexuality.
Everyone, but I imagine underrepresented people particularly see themselves in works of fiction when someone similar to them is present in them. As a latino myself I get excited when I see latino characters in prominent roles and even more so when they're well written and enjoyable characters. This happens to women too and more often than not they see themselves as either unimportant, non existent or like a walking sex doll, and that's denigrating when they compare themselves to men and the way they're represented.
And more importantly, the ways a demographic is depicted in media is a representation of how the corresponding culture may see that demographic, so imagine being young girl who likes japanese games and having those characters as "role models".
That's the point, it's not anything crazy. I don't see the need to be so reductive.
Interesting stuff. There's cultural differences, sure, but when you say 'normalised', I'm guessing from that that Icelandic TV doesn't overtly focus on the sexualisation of young women above others, as opposed to being generally comfortable with adults being naked. The latter is cool.
I think part of this discussion has been about variety, diversity and the focus on sexualisation/objectification of young women more than just the percentage of skin showing across the board. If it's always young women that have to be in the combat lingerie with the camera caressing them as they pose while the guys stand around in trousers, it's not quite the same as a general objection to nakedness.
Right, this is exactly it. I can't exactly post pictures here but as an example it's entirely possible to draw a badass berserker woman who goes into combat completely topless or even nude and not have it fall under what we criticize as sexualization, where a character of a similar archetype may actually literally be wearing twice as much clothing and still come off as sexualized. It's a matter of presentation, context, camerawork, so on and so forth more than the percent of the body that's nude.
I don't think how a culture sees naked bodies is all that relevant to the discussion (how they may "admire" the female body and the extent to which they may use its imagery is a different topic entirely) and I certainly doubt many here have issues with seeing naked people IRL or in media.
The issue here is the prevalence of women being used eye candy for men first and foremost instead of being their own character and how nudity and sexyness is only ever used for men's pleasure instead of them being part of these female characters' identities, not that there's sexy women in video games.
The issue here is the prevalence of women being used eye candy for men first and foremost instead of being their own character and how nudity and sexyness is only ever used for men's pleasure instead of them being part of these female characters' identities, not that there's sexy women in video games.
That's how nature works. Men love breasts. You can't blame them. Also a lot of women love breasts. And a lot of women with great breasts love their own breasts.
Some people really love hands. Now that's a niche or fetisch. Some even have love for big noses. That's really a super niche I guess.
Men and women loving breasts is really one of the most common things on earth. So if Kojima want's to express that in his game, it's not strange at all.
The argument of Quiet not fitting in the context is weak because things don't need to fit a context at all. Fitting a context is no requirement for things in games at all.
The Gold Saurcer is also out of context in FFVII, why would the party go play all sorts of games in there while they should make haste in finding Sephiroth. There are probably countless of out of context things in games
Yea, I mean I'm very uneducated on Japan, but I constantly hear that there is a serious issue with the younger generation not entering relationships or having sex. So I always assumed that's why it's bleeding out in weird ways all across their media. But I guess you're right, I hardly see even a small portion of what's actually being produced over there, so I probably shouldn't make too many blanket judgments on their media.
Oh, I may have misread his post. I thought he was questioning my use of the word autonomous & objectification.
Edit:
Ah, great. That's kinda what I was assuming. Really wasn't sure about speaking for people and making that claim though.
Didn't you get banned or at least warned for making these disingenuous arguments before in this thread?
Did you really come back here just to do the same thing?
Also lmao at that guy trying to say Japan is "light years" ahead of other countries. Buddy, that's absurd and ignorant of how Japan actually is.
They're tossers but they're loud and effective. I can't recall how many times I've stood away from threads and discussions about a subject I truly believe in because of them. Having intelligible discourse about sexism on the internet is nigh-on-impossible because of people that dismiss others based on very shallow and incisive perspectives, or some that are more concerned about dismantling and discussing semantics even when the person clearly doesn't disagree with them. Even on this very threat there is nonsense and we're on the few quality safe-havens on the internet for this type of discussion.
If we spent less time bickering over small differences, stood behind a general idea or sentiment and based our opinions on that the threads would be a lot more constructive and a lot less alienating.
Nothing you've said here is wrong, but I'm having trouble grasping what your current goal is. We're fully aware of the fact that men (and women) like breasts. I like breasts, too. We can find solidarity in our mutual love of them, because they're pretty great. Kojima can definitely do whatever he wants with his games, since they're his games. You'll find no argument here on that front. Making contextual sense also is definitely not a requirement for literally anything in games--games can be however the people who make them want to make them, whether they're logical and sensible or not.
What does that have to do with women talking about things in games that make them uncomfortable? You don't seem to be asserting that they're wrong and shouldn't feel uncomfortable, so I don't want to assume that that's your goal.
What kind of discussion are you looking to have, right now?
That's factually not true.
Why do you say that?
Someone said that I lied about having a girlfriend because I once had said that I would like to date a girl that games. But that's just something I have never experienced. That doesn't mean I have no girlfriend at the moment. But somehow someone thought those two comments can't be true at the same time, so someone said I was lying. That's it.
So please don't say things that are not true.
But I you don't want me here ok goodbye. I go talk about rpgs again somewhere else.
Visiting the Golden Saucer in FFVII didn't feel out of place because the characters all needed a break and was a tourist destination. Plus, there's a certain suspension of disbelief in that game with how it uses the absurd, which Kojima sometimes uses to great effect and sometimes not.
For example, I thought the juxtaposition of a woman who had undergone a tragedy due to war, such as being a victim of having those around her murdered and having to hide under their corpses, or have been subject to sexual violence, and then making her a sexy model was very tasteless and strange (in a bad way). Or how Quiet was tortured multiple times in the game, and the camera happens to zoom in and focus on her breasts as it happens.
Now, I've never played the Wolfenstein games, but I'd imagine I'd feel the same way if the very attractive protagonist visited a concentration camp and they juxtaposed the horrors that occurred there with the camera zooming in on his abs, and then following a sweat drop from his left pec run down his treasure trail to finally end up on his tight crotch. Then, a concentration camp victim, emaciated, crawls towards you begging for help as her breasts jiggle in her bikini top. You make it sounds like there's a duty to focus on one's proclivities whenever possible, or that this is just something natural occurring and men are just forced to go with the flow, rather than it being put in with careful intent and effort.
But I dunno, I guess there's something for everyone.
People STILL fucking trying to frame this as OH YOU AMERICANS ARE SO REPRESSED ABOUT SEX is so fucking disingenuous and it honestly makes me think you haven't read ANYTHING written in this thread. I truly do not understand how people can be so daft.
I don't disagree at all. But as the old saying goes, respect is a two-way street. And I don't think it's working like that right now. To be honest, it really hasn't worked like that at all since the discussion on this subject really ramped up years ago. I'd point to the language that is viewed as acceptable when referring to certain games or those that play them. Words like creep/y, disgusting, loser etc. And one the most common things to do is to put an age on things. Man-child is one that's used often. But I feel this really bubbled up during the whole now infamous Dragon's Crown fiasco where the art was labeled as being "designed by a 14 year old boy" and the article was titled "Game developers really need to stop letting teenage boys design their characters". Many that have played games for years have heard something along the lines of "Oh, you still play games? Aren't you a bit too old for that?". So, they know full well what they're doing when they decide to put an age on something. Despite their denials, it is absolutely meant to insult not only the developers but also those that enjoy those games. Otherwise, why would you use such language in the first place? On the flipside if those using words like that saw an article with something like "SJW" used non-ironically in it they'd rightfully react negatively to it.
Just to add to how much certain language can influence what may otherwise be a good point, i'd point to a thread that was in the Etcetera section of the forum recently. It was a thread about how sexual harassment/assault isn't a partisan issue, but rather a gender problem. It's something I don't think many would disagree with. But I think you can see where this is going now. The thread did turn into one that discussed sexual assault committed on men. Why? Because for whatever reason the author of the piece decided to refer to women who commit sexual assault as "weaselly women". This is particularly notable because she directly referenced a case in which a 47 year old woman sexually assault a 15 year old. So in that a piece that was otherwise fine, the comments went off in another direction based on a really awful description she didn't even need to make. Now there are always going to be some that are looking to nitpick anything because they don't want to have the discussion in the first place, and there's really nothing that can be done to alter their views. But there are others who'd otherwise be interested in the discussion but will be immediately turned off after reading something like that.
But getting back to the gaming part of the discussion, what language like that ultimately does is put people on the defensive and it puts others on the offensive. So what you've got then is people hunkered down ready to defend/attack instead of just discussing a subject. Which just means that the discussion is doomed before it even really began.
Well, if you didn't get banned, that's my bad. I confused you with a number of other people who got banned for doing the same thing you're doing.
EDIT: Actually I found the posts where you were, in fact, warned for doing this.
/shrug
By making the arguments you seem to love making, you're actively dismissing the feelings of a large number of people, both in this thread, and out there in the world. People love breasts, okay, cool, that doesn't make objectification okay.
I don't think you're wrong on this in the least. We don't help ourselves when we lash out, taunt back, act derisively, so on and so forth. I actually wrote about it a little bit a little ways up the page, and I think it's relevant here. Sometimes we all get our pitchforks out way too easily--it's a tendency humans kind of have in general, we let our emotions get in the way of productive discussions sometimes.
Since I try to keep mine padlocked in the barn, and you don't have yours with you right now, I do want to at least provide some context here. When it comes to social justice issues, you're often talking about groups of people who have been kept down in the same ways and shut down by the same arguments for years upon years, and now that we're in a position as a global society where speaking out can realistically happen on the large scale, you have generations of anger finally being able to be openly expressed. I agree that the anger isn't always productive, but I do think that it's important to remember where that anger comes from. When you're dealing with the same things over and over it wears a person's patience down, and sometimes you snap. That doesn't make it any more productive, but I do hope that mutual understanding of that fact can help to mitigate things and keep the pitchforks from coming out quite as fast every once in a while.
Even though sometimes the discussion winds up dooming itself before it even begins, it's important to keep trying to have it, because the discussion itself is vital.
It's realy difficult to discuss things in this topic with some of you because you label things I say as disingenuous and that way you place me in a bad light and out of the discussion.
disingenuous
ˌdɪsɪnˈdʒɛnjʊəs/
adjective
- not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
While I really believe every word I say. It's really a tactic to get rid off people quick calling them unhonest.
Anyway, good luck here. It'a clearly a never ending discussion.
I don't think name-calling is a good thing to use in any discussion like this and I believe I've done it myself due to the frustration getting the better of me, but I think it's important to note that the context of the conversation is not some silly one about which games you like best, but one about an oppressed group explaining why something is a problem to them and asking for empathy and respect, so having someone from a demographic who has nothing to lose regarding the topic come and say "Well, I like the way things are and that's just my opinion" can be pretty bad. This isn't about opinions, it's about whether or not you identify a very real problem that influences people's lived and if you do then whether you care about it or not.
Also Kamitani and the DC controversy isn't the best example because he's most definitely extremely immature and petty, interpreting a journalist's criticism of his female designs as him being gay, seeing that supposed gayness as something to be ashamed of and going to the extent of drawing naked dwarves for him to further ridicule him. He's straight up a manchild and an idiot, and honestly if people take issue when someone insults the things they like and perceive them as personal attacks then that's on them. Calling someone creepy without at least arguing first is rude, but calling a game creepy is fair game.
Also Kamitani and the DC controversy isn't the best example because he's most definitely extremely immature and petty, interpreting a journalist's criticism of his female designs as him being gay, seeing that supposed gayness as something to be ashamed of and going to the extent of drawing naked dwarves for him to further ridicule him. He's straight up a manchild and an idiot, and honestly if people take issue when someone insults the things they like and perceive them as personal attacks then that's on them. Calling someone creepy without at least arguing first is rude, but calling a game creepy is fair game.
I absolutely agree. The issue is with objectification, not sex or nudity. Dragon Age: Inquisition contains both, and it's received a lot of praise in this thread.
Japan has frequently been labeled as a sexless country. More than 40% of single adults have never had sex, and those percentages are rising. Over 47% of married adults are in sexless marriages. Birth rates are at a record low. Sexual assault on public transportation is common, but many cases are never prosecuted.
To be clear, I don't think sexual objectification is unique to Japan, and I don't believe that the blame for this rests at the feet of games or anime. I do think that they are symptoms of larger problems and that the objectification of women in pop culture intensifies these problems.
Sexually objectifying media harms real women.
I would love to see someone who posts something like this:
try to articulate what the actual points of this thread are, and to show they understand exactly what they are arguing against.
try to articulate what the actual points of this thread are, and to show they understand exactly what they are arguing against.
Well, I'm sorry for that. There are a number of people who are clearly doing this sort of thing intentionally. It's difficult to separate the two. And then you tell me I'm lying when there's proof that I'm not. So, hey, sorry for making that mistake.
But, let's pretend none of that ever happened.
As I said, by making the arguments you're making, you're actively dismissing the feelings of other people. As if your position is the right one to take. What's your end-game here, if not to say "hey sorry you're wrong get over it"? I need you to spell it out for me if you want me to understand.
EDIT: Also what Inkwell said.
I somehow only read the banning part, which hasn't happened for that reason.
These are fair things to critique about those games, it's a problem with tone and it's all over the place. It's difficult to take a war story seriously when part way through a woman shows up in a bikini and starts waving her ass around. I'm sure something can be said about maintaining a surreal and dreamlike feeling in the game, but that could have been done in a more tasteful and less exploitative way. The game's story suffers for it.
FFVII is not beyond reproach either for pacing and story structure.
It's
It's really weird rationalizing talking to both of these camps.
Japan's situation is honestly pretty scary, I definitely need to read up more on that. Thanks for posting those links though.
That sexual assault article is especially awful.
Ok let's take things further.
People do not want things they like to stop existing. Whether in gaming or in anything else.
That's the true core thing here I think.
You want things changed that others don't want changed.
Then we come to the point of:
why should things change?
Then many arguments follow, like the paper someone just linked while quoting me.
Then the question is this one:
what responsibilty do developers have? You can also ask this for artists in general.
Is there a difference in responsibilty that game developers should have but painters and musicians and moviedevelopers don't need to have?
- Status