No, she's legal age we
swear. I know she looks like she ought to still be learning her times-tables, but the wiki says she's 18, so it's not loli.
Yeah, okay, I get that this type of design isn't unusual for Japan, but no amount of numbers are ever going to convince me she can legally be fucked. It doesn't offend me if people want to upskirt her, and since I don't buy into the idea that porn is harmful to society, I say,
have at it, but it's kind of hard for me to care that some quasi-jailbait is wearing less revealing panties. I will however agree that this change is absurd; they left in the panty-shot and just changed the panties?
Hilarious.
Although I get why the actual reasons for this change will bother some people. Japan is beginning to see the west as some prudishYes, I know people are bickering over the use of this word., oversensitive market, which is already effecting those that want this type of media. Taken in the greater context, this is more like a symptom of that, and a minor (no pun intended) symptom at that.
Oh, and another thing, why do the words "skin" come to mind?
Yeah, we
would have dressed her sensibly, but there was just no other way; we didn't have a choice, no, really.
I love laughing at the hilarious fan-service in these types of games, and I really hope they keep coming up with even more ludicrous handwaves, because it's just too funny when they try to pretend there's some lore reason for it. I really am beginning to wonder how much of it is a (futile) attempt minimize offense, and how much of it is to convince the player it's not just wank material.
Something Amyss said:
...
ManutheBloodedge said:
It could be that some of the backlash resulted in the feeling that the player had not really a choice in the matter, but being chastised for it it anyway.
It could be, but the complaints included moments in the game where you could choose but the player didn't. Like, admittedly it's been a whiole but the example of who to save by shooting them down is presented as binary, and so people just followed the script. But it's possible to save both. There are unavoidable points in the game, but think about how many soldiers insist they had no other choice even when they might have.
The easiest way to indict the soldier who "just follows orders" is to exploit a common bug in player mentality.
Similarly, it was common enough to see people say that they had to kill people in "No Russian." Except it's been demonstrated numerous times that you can choose not to partake. I think this, regardless of intent, is a solid indictment of a common mentality. It doesn't occur to us to not follow orders and not shoot people. And in fact, I wonder if the civilians bit in SOTL would have been such a big deal if people hadn't gone in knowing about that.
...
I don't think the "No Russian" mission is a very good comparison. While it's true you can get through it without killing anyone, they'll still be shot anyway, so finding out afterwards that you could have just sat back and watched them be horribly gunned down instead doesn't really invoke much guilt or regret for your part in it.
I think the comparison between following orders in game, and following orders in a real life military, no matter how well intentioned, kind of falls flat due to videogames being one big sandbox without consequences, so outside of roleplaying there really isn't any reason to question the moral implications of pressing X to be a complete arse if that's the only choice you're given. This is especially true since in videogames your choices are already limited to whatever the developers thought of and implemented, so there is another dimension to all this; it's not just a case of the player not
wanting to do things differently, in many cases the player simply isn't aware that the choice is even possible within the game's mechanics. When you play a videogame you're entering an artificial world with a very limited set of choices, so it's understandable if the player doesn't push at the boundaries when, 99% of the time,
this is all they'll get for their efforts ...
Fox12 said:
...
I consider Spec-OPs to be a bit of a flawed masterpiece, but I appreciate what it was trying to do. It raises an interesting question, though. Would players be okay with a game that asked you to kill civilians if the result was that the game ended early, and you were either killed or sent to prison? It's an interesting idea. Undertale was excellent, and I think Papers Please did a good job of exploring that as well.
...
I likewise find that interesting to consider, but unfortunately, it wouldn't work out. I really don't think there's any way to do something like that without it coming off as nothing more than a non-standard game over; a mere easter egg, if you will. It's hard enough to give players the option to kill themselves at the
end of the game, let alone the middle. In fact, if you put multiple tiers of "good" ending, all but the best sometimes feel like some non-canon fuck up. Although, there are exceptions. For me, despite trying my best, The Witcher 3 basically ended with "... and everyone, everywhere, was miserable for all time ... except for Skellige, which did pretty damn well, but everwhere else was pretty much a giant shit fest ..." and it still felt like a conclusive ending.
