And that's the point where they simply don't buy or support the game in any way. It's really the only way those who don't like the art should fight back.
Why can't people express their opinions about something besides buying or not buying? People aren't walking wallets.
It's definitely important to let artists know that they feel uncomfortable about their work, but I don't think it is ever going to do anything or change anything.
Maybe. Maybe not. Artists are allowed to act like they want within the legal boundaries of the society they're in. But whether or not change will happen as a result of criticism doesn't mean that some should stop criticizing. Not that you are claiming this, but some people usually make such a conclusion.
In a game featuring sexuality, what brings equality? Removal of sexuality or equal representation?
My personal opinion: Display and market the character in question with plenty of agency, establish believable reasons for the design. etc.
But there are better people to answer such a question than me.
And they are free to ignore this game and not buy it. But instead they want to enforce their opinion on others and force autocensorship.
People are voicing their criticism. People are saying they would like better representations, because there is plenty of penis-stroking female characters as it is right now. That's all there is to it.
That's when people of group A don't buy the game if it offends/annoys them and play something else.
I don't like military related things for the most part I'm not going to go tell them to change those because it's not to my liking.
Group A is equally as important as Group B
Everything you are saying points to Group A being better in every way than Group B
But people are advocating that the (A) people have more saying (their opinions are more valuable) in what should exist in the future, since they want the things the (B) people like to not exist because its BAAAAD.
Is B's opinion worth as much as A's?
It goes both ways. Why should either party be forced to change in order to appease the other party?
I'm going to group all your posts together because you all echo the same argument.
First of all: I'm not talking about worth the comparison between A and B. I was pointing out that B does not negate the existence of A, which is what Fine Ham Abounds and SolidSnakeX seemed to be saying (jokingly or not). So in that regard, I wasn't ascribing value to either group.
Second of all, just to address the topic of value between the two groups. Group A feels harmed by the existence of the design. Group B is not harmed by the design not existing (or being altered in more respectable ways). Is it really that necessary to have yet another over-sexualized female character primarily aimed to the pleasure of some men?
There will be groups of A's and groups of B's for every game ever. Which is why ultimately there's no problem here, everything is working as intended.
Not when there seems to be a general problem in mainstream games culture in regards to non-white, non-heterosexual, and female representations.
At this point Lime you are just pushing a subject matter that has nothing to do with the game and slamming anyone who likes the art as oppressive.
You're projecting. I'm being pretty mild-mannered right now, I think
Anyway, I've asked you multiple times before in this thread and you've ignored me, but I'll ask once more. Would you please explain in concrete details what exactly you think the larger problem that you constantly allude to is? What exactly is the problem that you are campaigning to fix?
And I seem to recall that I've replied to all your posts Zefah. And I think I've identified the larger problem in the gaming industry plenty of times. I would like to refer to my many repetitious posts about the data and arguments for why gaming has a problem in terms of representation of minorities and why media representation matters.
Correct. But it's hard when the people pressing the issue (rightfully pressing it) come off as antagonistic or spiteful when doing so. It's easy to get defensive about stuff like this. "You like this so, and this is bad, thusly you are a bad person" is rarely what people trying to champion change are trying to say, but it IS how it comes across 90% of the time.
I can understand why people become defensive as an initial reaction when they haven't been made aware of how people different from themselves experience things. It is a problem when some people retain their incorrect position
But I think in general that people take gender-related criticism of privileges way too personal. And I think that much of this "90% of the time" you are referring to, is because people cannot separate person from object. You see the same type of reaction when some posters criticize Game Y and the people who like Game Y become defensive and feel personally offended. This is perhaps just a stronger and more emotional issue, because it's so incredibly personal and has to do with privileges and marginalization and power positions.
Right, but there's also a pretty stark difference between finding issue with the sexual nature of someone's art and calling them a deviant for making it (which is how this specific issue started).
I agree. But the specific issue in this thread is pretty muddy, so I could imagine there's a lot of assumptions and baggage being brought into the overall discussion, so misunderstandings come up again and again.