That's more immature than being upfront that you like sex/sexuality and it's going to be in your game. Not because skin makes us run for the hills, but he lied and was dishonest. What most of us can criticise in unity is stuff like Kojima's creation of Quiet and way in which he framed it. Mainly because it's coming from an honest developer with a history of creating adult rated content, and as I've said above some are just going to have to accept not every single game ever released from now until this planet ends is going to be put through a purity filter and be one for the kids. Often though there is criticism of said feedback when it seems to be targetted at niche content like Nier. However, the good debates tend to revolve around offering developers feedback when there is cliche roll your eyes sexual content and/or content that just doesn't fit. It'll probably come about one day! Sex dolls can be argued to be a bit creepy, but they don't have any sort of AI or anything resembling autonomy. ![]() That debate will be one to really visit once we master AI and we actually have androids. False equivalencies of video game characters to real humans are a bit daft, as one has autonomy and the other is just make believe. Sex isn't something to be ashamed of though, and unless you live under a rock sexual needs, desires and content is all legal and often healthy to consume. I understand the irony in that last sentence in that many developers behave rather immature themselves. Some of it seems to come from sheer immaturity around sex and sexual content, from both sides. For many iffy reasons nudity is still largely the scapegoat of a lot in the west. It's a tough knot for me to unravel.įor many understandable reasons nudity/sexual content gets a ton of debate. And the same can be said for something a creator makes, that the problem resides more in those that latch onto and are influenced by it than the art itself, but, again, it doesn't change the effects. Even if one wants to point out that most if not all of the 'problem' is on behalf of the individuals who do the objectifying when looking at women, that doesn't change the effect. Both are acts that people are free to make, and both can have negative consequences regardless of the relatively harmless nature of the acts themselves.Īt the same time, I don't really think that anyone should shame someone else for how they dress, but I think there's some room for acknowledgment that, in some instances, it can be problematic. ![]() Again, the only difference still seems to be extent of how many people it affects. ![]() I can't see any other way around it, anything else just seems inconsistent. As shitty as it is, it just seems like both should be up for criticism. All I've been trying to understand is why one (how a woman chooses to present herself) is above criticism and the other (what a creator chooses to create & publish) isn't. Your misunderstanding doesn't make the argument bullshit, and I'm not even making an argument. Like I tried to say above, I'm not against people criticizing, and I don't think criticism is censorship, and I don't think anyone is stopping creators from creating & publishing what they want.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |