You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
What? It can be lewd too. Wtf? Art can be anything. You are the one that implied it has to be "beautiful."
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.
Art has nothing to do with being something you can masturbate to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is also plenty more evidence like deleted tweets. But if this isn't enough to protest against, then nothing is. So the question is, do you really believe that developers should not be put under pressure in either direction? Or do you believe it is only entitled when we demand "more beautiful" characters but perfectly fine when other demand "uglier" characters?
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.
Thats what this thread is about. Why are you even commenting this kind of stuff if you don't care?
I was replying to a comment that was general. In the first place, the few complaints about Ciri I saw was about playing as a female, not her looks.
Which includes the belief that all the characters need to look attractive, right? You're angry at them too, right?
Yes. Not all characters need to look attractive. Ciri is an excellent example of a character whose looks fit her setting and story.
I am even more angry about them, since they muddle the argument I am trying to make and make me look bad.
On the other hand, I 100% support putting pressure on Games to not cave in to the outside demands for "uglier" characters in all games. This creates an awkward dynamic where there is no way to verify the original intent of the artist so we just have to guess based on how well the art fits the game. There may be some Games being falsely accused, but I find this less problematic than doing nothing and having the pressure in both directions not be balanced.
The point was that art can be whatever the artist desires.
This point we seem to agree on.
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.
I chose this example because it is easy to verify it was not the devs choice. Yeah, the difference is small, but the principle is the same.
On the other hand, I 100% support putting pressure on Games to not cave in to the outside demands for "uglier" characters in all games.
This is the entire issue. You're assuming there's some horrible outside pressure to make characters ugly, so you're in favor of outside pressure to make them attractive. Isn't outside pressure the issue you're arguing about, not them being ugly? How is the outside pressure you're in favor of better than the outside pressure you're arguing against (and making up without any evidence of it even existing)?
I chose this example because it is easy to verify it was not the devs choice. Yeah, the difference is small, but the principle is the same.
First of all, modern games are not made by a single person. Second, how can you verify it was their choice? It's marketing. They were making a product to make money, as all studios are doing. They saw a market and made up stuff about "not censoring" to sell their product. That doesn't mean they weren't forced to make a product they didn't want to make. I'd bet on it being the opposite in fact. They saw they could put a sexy woman in the game and people would buy it, so they forced the devs to do so. (I'm pretty confident this is at least partially true, because the game doesn't seem to do anything unique or interesting. It only copies other things. There's no creativity or passion from what I've seen of it. There's no reason for the character to be hot given, unlike Nier Automata for example.)