What? It can be lewd too. Wtf? Art can be anything. You are the one that implied it has to be “beautiful.” Hell no. You don’t get to both act like you’re the dictator of art and that other people are actually being too strict with art. Art is whatever the creator wants it to be. You don’t get to decide that just because you can’t masturbate to the character that it isn’t art.
Yeah, that’s correct. You can like or dislike any art. The people arguing it must only have sexy women or it’s bad are in the wrong. You can like sexy women, but that’s not a requirement and has a totally different set of goals to The Witcher 4 presumably.
Yeah, that’s correct. You can like or dislike any art. The people arguing it must only have sexy women or it’s bad are in the wrong.
Yes, you are correct. But that is a small minority of trolls.
What most people protest against is that publishers like Sony force censorship on developers and that self proclaimed “DEI consultancy” firms, “game journalists”, and other people lobby, pressure and extort developers to make characters uglier.
That they’re being forced to make characters ugly. In the case of The Witcher 4, she looks how you’d expect given her age, physical abilities, what she’s gone through, and also the book descriptions. (The books basically say she looses her physical appeal.)
They’re making games primarily to make money. The companies are trying to maximize that. If they’re telling them anything about character design, it’s to make characters that sell the game. I think it’s significantly more likely games with the ridiculous clean, skimpy, sexy characters are having that dictated from above. The Witcher 4 is designing the character that they think works with the game they’re making.
Complaining when art isn’t being made to appeal to you specifically is the most entitled thing you can do. Play the game or don’t. I don’t care. If it doesn’t look appealing to you, then fine. You don’t get to have every game made for you. If you only want to play games with sexy women, there’s plenty of those. Go play them and stop complaining when anything else is made.
The Mona Lisa isn’t a particularly attractive woman, but it’s one of the most famous and renowned pieces of art. Personally, I think it’s highly overrated, but that’s just my opinion and doesn’t change the fact other people love it and DaVinci chose to make it on purpose.
What even is this? It looks like a mix of putting things in my mouth and making straw-man arguments.
In the case of The Witcher 4, she looks how you’d expect given her age, physical abilities, what she’s gone through, and also the book descriptions. (The books basically say she looses her physical appeal.)
I have no issue with Ciri and am looking forward to Witcher 4. Never said anything to the contrary.
They’re making games primarily to make money. The companies are trying to maximize that. If they’re telling them anything about character design, it’s to make characters that sell the game. I think it’s significantly more likely games with the ridiculous clean, skimpy, sexy characters are having that dictated from above.
I gave an easy to verify example in Sony and Stellar Blade, when the game developers publicly spoke out about their intentions to not censor.
It is difficult to verify what effect the pressure from “game journalists” like Kotaku had, but the articles are public so you can see them advocating for “less sexualized” characters and giving bad reviews to games that don’t comply.
Complaining when art isn’t being made to appeal to you specifically is the most entitled thing you can do. Play the game or don’t. I don’t care.
Exactly what I was saying I want as well. Doubly so if you are not even the intended audience and are just pushing your religious/moral beliefs.
The Mona Lisa isn’t a particularly attractive woman, but it’s one of the most famous and renowned pieces of art. Personally, I think it’s highly overrated, but that’s just my opinion and doesn’t change the fact other people love it and DaVinci chose to make it on purpose.
What does that have to do with anything. DaVinci was not pressured into drawing Mona Lisa the way he did.
I have no issue with Ciri and am looking forward to Witcher 4. Never said anything to the contrary.
Thats what this thread is about. Why are you even commenting this kind of stuff if you don’t care?
I gave a very specific example in Sony and Stellar Blade, when the game developers publicly spoke out about their intentions to not censor.
Marketing. Hell, even still the incels complained that it was censored because a few outfits were slightly different, a few with a tiny bit more cloth. The Witcher has been far less “uncensored” than Stellar Blade, with full nudity. What does it even mean when their game with no nudity is “uncensored” when no one was trying to censor them?
Exactly what I was saying I want as well. Doubly so if you are not even the intended audience and are just pushing your religious/moral beliefs.
Which includes the belief that all the characters need to look attractive, right? You’re angry at them too, right?
What does that have to do with anything. DaVinci was not pressured into drawing Mona Lisa the way he did.
The point was that art can be whatever the artist desires. It doesn’t have to look attractive. Substitute it for any unattractive art made for profit if it’s not a good enough example. There’s plenty of them.
What? It can be lewd too. Wtf? Art can be anything. You are the one that implied it has to be “beautiful.” Hell no. You don’t get to both act like you’re the dictator of art and that other people are actually being too strict with art. Art is whatever the creator wants it to be. You don’t get to decide that just because you can’t masturbate to the character that it isn’t art.
I did not intend to imply anything of the sorts.
I intended to say it is perfectly fine to like and dislike any art you want. And it is your right to voice criticism of the art you dislike.
I kind of see how it could be interpreted that way and will edit the comment.
I also misunderstood this to mean something you masturbate to can’t be art. :(
Yeah, that’s correct. You can like or dislike any art. The people arguing it must only have sexy women or it’s bad are in the wrong. You can like sexy women, but that’s not a requirement and has a totally different set of goals to The Witcher 4 presumably.
Yes, you are correct. But that is a small minority of trolls.
What most people protest against is that publishers like Sony force censorship on developers and that self proclaimed “DEI consultancy” firms, “game journalists”, and other people lobby, pressure and extort developers to make characters uglier.
I highly doubt it. You’re pulling shit out of your ass, or listening to other people pulling shit out of their ass.
Just to be safe, which part? Those things being what most people are protesting or those things being true?
That they’re being forced to make characters ugly. In the case of The Witcher 4, she looks how you’d expect given her age, physical abilities, what she’s gone through, and also the book descriptions. (The books basically say she looses her physical appeal.)
They’re making games primarily to make money. The companies are trying to maximize that. If they’re telling them anything about character design, it’s to make characters that sell the game. I think it’s significantly more likely games with the ridiculous clean, skimpy, sexy characters are having that dictated from above. The Witcher 4 is designing the character that they think works with the game they’re making.
Complaining when art isn’t being made to appeal to you specifically is the most entitled thing you can do. Play the game or don’t. I don’t care. If it doesn’t look appealing to you, then fine. You don’t get to have every game made for you. If you only want to play games with sexy women, there’s plenty of those. Go play them and stop complaining when anything else is made.
The Mona Lisa isn’t a particularly attractive woman, but it’s one of the most famous and renowned pieces of art. Personally, I think it’s highly overrated, but that’s just my opinion and doesn’t change the fact other people love it and DaVinci chose to make it on purpose.
What even is this? It looks like a mix of putting things in my mouth and making straw-man arguments.
I have no issue with Ciri and am looking forward to Witcher 4. Never said anything to the contrary.
I gave an easy to verify example in Sony and Stellar Blade, when the game developers publicly spoke out about their intentions to not censor.
It is difficult to verify what effect the pressure from “game journalists” like Kotaku had, but the articles are public so you can see them advocating for “less sexualized” characters and giving bad reviews to games that don’t comply.
Exactly what I was saying I want as well. Doubly so if you are not even the intended audience and are just pushing your religious/moral beliefs.
What does that have to do with anything. DaVinci was not pressured into drawing Mona Lisa the way he did.
Thats what this thread is about. Why are you even commenting this kind of stuff if you don’t care?
Marketing. Hell, even still the incels complained that it was censored because a few outfits were slightly different, a few with a tiny bit more cloth. The Witcher has been far less “uncensored” than Stellar Blade, with full nudity. What does it even mean when their game with no nudity is “uncensored” when no one was trying to censor them?
Which includes the belief that all the characters need to look attractive, right? You’re angry at them too, right?
The point was that art can be whatever the artist desires. It doesn’t have to look attractive. Substitute it for any unattractive art made for profit if it’s not a good enough example. There’s plenty of them.