Sony implements new policy censoring Japanese games for possible fanservice content

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's interesting how this topic moves from "come on guys this won't strangle creative freedom" to "good riddance to that creator, I never liked em anyways".


Not the best pokerface there XD.

Only if you consider creative freedom solely measured by how many underage big titties girls are in a game I guess

Clearly this guy did enough to quit after 13 years with the same company. Who are we to say he's wrong.

Look, I just do not want them to horn up Io or Sara any more than they already have, okay?

She is 11

I...don't see anything inherently sexual/"horned up" about an 11 year old in a bikini.

Maybe this is sexy to some target audience? Or is the idea that despite you not finding this sexy someone somewhere does and that notion in and of itself is bad for you? The whole "people shouldn't like what I don't" thing.


For me, this just is a kid in a bikini striking an "adult-like" pose trying to mimic what she sees on magazines to seem older cause that's what kids that age do. I'm not gonna freak out cause someone somewhere else might find it hot lol.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

For me, this just is a kid in a bikini striking an "adult-like" pose trying to mimic what she sees on magazines to seem older cause that's what kids that age do. I'm not gonna freak out cause someone somewhere else might find it hot lol.

Except, you know, that's not a real child. It is an imaginary child drawn by an adult (most likely a man). So someone decided to draw an 11 year old in a way that's explicitly drawing upon the imagery and aesthetics of adult swimsuit, glamour and erotic photography. This is complete with a body that no 11 year old would ever possess, so either the artist is really bad (unlikely considering the general quality of the image) or they are intentionally evoking the body of a young adult woman in a picture meant to represent an 11 year old. We should never ascribe agency to fictional characters, because what they do in fiction is always sprung from the mind of the creator of the work. So when someone draws an 11 year old in a classic erotica bikini picture, that's on the artist, not the imaginary 11 year old.

As a curious aside, I never posed in sexually evocative poses when I was an 11 year old and I can't recall any of my friends doing it either. We tried to be older sure, but none of us had any real understanding of what sexuality was and even if we did, we had no idea how to appear sexy, especially not in the hyper-sexualized way that the supposed 11 year old in that picture does.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

For me, this just is a kid in a bikini striking an "adult-like" pose trying to mimic what she sees on magazines to seem older cause that's what kids that age do. I'm not gonna freak out cause someone somewhere else might find it hot lol.

Except, you know, that's not a real child. It is an imaginary child drawn by an adult (most likely a man). So someone decided to draw an 11 year old in a way that's explicitly drawing upon the imagery and aesthetics of adult swimsuit, glamour and erotic photography. This is complete with a body that no 11 year old would ever possess, so either the artist is really bad (unlikely considering the general quality of the image) or they are intentionally evoking the body of a young adult woman in a picture meant to represent an 11 year old. We should never ascribe agency to fictional characters, because what they do in fiction is always sprung from the mind of the creator of the work. So when someone draws an 11 year old in a classic erotica bikini picture, that's on the artist, not the imaginary 11 year old.

As a curious aside, I never posed in sexually evocative poses when I was an 11 year old and I can't recall any of my friends doing it either. We tried to be older sure, but none of us had any real understanding of what sexuality was and even if we did, we had no idea how to appear sexy, especially not in the hyper-sexualized way that the supposed 11 year old in that picture does.

When that is the character, it stands to reason for them to be chosen to be drawn as such. Entering the realm of "why would X person draw Y in Z fashion" is entirely subjective opinion-based and there's nobody that can tell someone else what art style is fitting or good for their own work. Each person will decide that for themselves and if there's an audience for it then that's enough, despite others disliking it. The dislike is basically irrelevant as long as it doesn't affect sustainability.

Also, you need to be aware of the characteristics of the anime artstyle and the traits that go along with it and not compare it to realism or confuse anime characters with real people and so on. The average cup size in anime is something like a double D whereas in reality it's B.


Finally, anime is by its nature exaggerated. It's characters bigger than life. Meaning and expression condensed to heighten its potency. This will of course lead to everything being hyper-X, hyper action with swords cutting mountains in half and hyper cuteness with people's eyes sparkling bright and so on. So in the context of an anime aesthetic, the girl isn't actually hyper-sexualized at all cause it's pretty plain and she blends in and you can't even see outlines through the clothing or anything. So that being the case, the image is indeed portraying this type of innocent mimicking I was mentioning but it does it in a style that makes sense which comes off overblown if you compare it to your real life equivalent. Thankfully, it's not purporting to be realistic. It's still very easy to not confuse it for actual sexuality and just see it as childish antics.

Basically, my point is that this drawing also fails like you say you did at appearing sexy, and I am somewhat confused by people who claim that they find it sexy.

Are you sure you find it actually sexy and aren't just concerned that other people hypothetically do? Cause I don't see it lol. I just see it as merely trying to be sexy and nothing more.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Also, you need to be aware of the characteristics of the anime artstyle and the traits that go along with it and not compare it to realism or confuse anime characters with real people and so on. The average cup size in anime is something like a double D whereas in reality it's B.

I am, thank you. This is entirely irrelevant though, since while Anime is (or rather, can be, not all Anime is) exaggerated, it does not change the basic composition of the image.

Basically, my point is that this drawing also fails like you say you did at appearing sexy, and I am somewhat confused by people who claim that they find it sexy.

Are you sure you find it actually sexy and aren't just concerned that other people hypothetically do? Cause I don't see it lol. I just see it as merely trying to be sexy and nothing more.

So you start your argument by criticizing subjectivity, then make an appeal to subjectivity at the end? Surely you also see the double standard presented here?

The problem is not whether you, I or someone else finds the picture sexy. The problem is that it is drawn in such a way as to evoke a particular style of pictures, that of pin-up or erotica. Which means that, whether the artist intended it to or not, it is a picture drawn in a style intended to make the subject seem sexy and titillating. Whether a particular style or aesthetic is a good fit for a picture can be discussed endlessly, especially if we are debating artistic merits, but I think most people would agree that pin-up pictures is an atrociously bad fit when you want to portray 11 year olds.

That's what I am criticizing here. Not the intentions of the artist, not whether I personally find it arousing (as a general rule, I don't find any kind of anime arousing) or if someone else does. I am criticizing the choice of a style that's generally reserved for adult pictures intended to titillate when the subject is meant to be an 11 year old.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Also, you need to be aware of the characteristics of the anime artstyle and the traits that go along with it and not compare it to realism or confuse anime characters with real people and so on. The average cup size in anime is something like a double D whereas in reality it's B.

I am, thank you. This is entirely irrelevant though, since while Anime is (or rather, can be, not all Anime is) exaggerated, it does not change the basic composition of the image.

Basically, my point is that this drawing also fails like you say you did at appearing sexy, and I am somewhat confused by people who claim that they find it sexy.

Are you sure you find it actually sexy and aren't just concerned that other people hypothetically do? Cause I don't see it lol. I just see it as merely trying to be sexy and nothing more.

So you start your argument by criticizing subjectivity, then make an appeal to subjectivity at the end? Surely you also see the double standard presented here?

The problem is not whether you, I or someone else finds the picture sexy. The problem is that it is drawn in such a way as to evoke a particular style of pictures, that of pin-up or erotica. Which means that, whether the artist intended it to or not, it is a picture drawn in a style intended to make the subject seem sexy and titillating. Whether a particular style or aesthetic is a good fit for a picture can be discussed endlessly, especially if we are debating artistic merits, but I think most people would agree that pin-up pictures is an atrociously bad fit when you want to portray 11 year olds.

That's what I am criticizing here. Not the intentions of the artist, not whether I personally find it arousing (as a general rule, I don't find any kind of anime arousing) or if someone else does. I am criticizing the choice of a style that's generally reserved for adult pictures intended to titillate when the subject is meant to be an 11 year old.

I'm not suggesting anyone change anything to suit my opinion which I think is the key difference here. I'm just saying it's all subjective so people should just patronize anything that they prefer instead of trying to change things that aren't their cup of tea. But yeah, I don't disagree that my not finding it sexy is subjective too, I just think that's the majority opinion and am confused by the suggestion that that image is something that's getting people hot and bothered over this girl.


And I agree with your basic concept of the composition but because the girl is 11 the idea to me seems more akin to that of a young girl trying to act precocious/over her years because children admire "adulthood" or "adult things" as a rule so I see it as her trying to play the "adult beach-goer" or "beach beauty" stereotype role. Kinda like trying on her mother's lipstick. It just doesn't look as clumsy as it'd look in real life cause anime aesthetics.

I think that's the normal interpretation when you see a kid pose like that. I don't think it's normal to jump to the assumption that she's actually just seriously aware of these concepts and putting adult sexuality out there. Thinking of characters like that is what sexualizes them in fact.

Trying to make it seem like the artist made you see this character in this light is I think a way to deflect from your own dirty mind. I think this is where a lot of the feelings of being uncomfortable come in these topics, people feel guilty they find something hot that they know they shouldn't and lash out. It's pretty silly since in this case it's just drawings anyhow. Ah well.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Trying to make it seem like the artist made you see this character in this light is I think a way to deflect from your own dirty mind. I think this is where a lot of the feelings of being uncomfortable come in these topics, people feel guilty they find something hot that they know they shouldn't and lash out. It's pretty silly since in this case it's just drawings anyhow. Ah well.

Once again you are applying a Watsonian (what happens in the story?) explanation to what me AltnameJag consider a Doylist (why did the author do this?) problem: Someone decided (or was told) to draw a picture of an 11 year old character where said character poses in what is a quintessential pin-up picture. We could all play pretend and make up reasons why this character does that in fiction, but it is a pointless exercise because it is essentially fan fiction.

I am much more interested in the real life discussion about why the artist would decide that this is a good way of presenting their 11 year old girl character. Because the artist decided to draw this, some form of editor decided that this was fine to publish. If the idea was to show us that this is a girl who tries to seem older then she is, why does it have to be in a sexually charged image? If the idea is to show that she is naive, why do it like this? These are the questions I want to discuss, because they are much more meaningful then each of us making up fan fiction about how she ended up posing for a weird picture.

The fact is that the artist decided to draw an 11 year old girl in a sexually charged and titillating image. It might say something about the author, the fans or just be that the author has all the awareness of their chosen media of a blind goldfish, but it still happened. That's what we ought to be discussing, not our fan theories about why the character would stand like that or whether I am prudish for recognizing the composition of the image as pin-up inspired (though, that alone should point to the contrary). Because when images of this kind keeps coming out of a particular studio and they are more often then not centered on characters intended to not even have entered puberty, we really should be discussing the unfortunate and uncomfortable implications that comes with it. That does not mean I think everyone in the studio or their fans are pedophiles or child molesters, but we really ought to consider why they think it is fine to keep producing media that sexualizes pre-teen children.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Trying to make it seem like the artist made you see this character in this light is I think a way to deflect from your own dirty mind. I think this is where a lot of the feelings of being uncomfortable come in these topics, people feel guilty they find something hot that they know they shouldn't and lash out. It's pretty silly since in this case it's just drawings anyhow. Ah well.

Once again you are applying a Watsonian (what happens in the story?) explanation to what me AltnameJag consider a Doylist (why did the author do this?) problem: Someone decided (or was told) to draw a picture of an 11 year old character where said character poses in what is a quintessential pin-up picture. We could all play pretend and make up reasons why this character does that in fiction, but it is a pointless exercise because it is essentially fan fiction.

I am much more interested in the real life discussion about why the artist would decide that this is a good way of presenting their 11 year old girl character. Because the artist decided to draw this, some form of editor decided that this was fine to publish. If the idea was to show us that this is a girl who tries to seem older then she is, why does it have to be in a sexually charged image? If the idea is to show that she is naive, why do it like this? These are the questions I want to discuss, because they are much more meaningful then each of us making up fan fiction about how she ended up posing for a weird picture.

The fact is that the artist decided to draw an 11 year old girl in a sexually charged and titillating image. It might say something about the author, the fans or just be that the author has all the awareness of their chosen media of a blind goldfish, but it still happened. That's what we ought to be discussing, not our fan theories about why the character would stand like that or whether I am prudish for recognizing the composition of the image as pin-up inspired (though, that alone should point to the contrary). Because when images of this kind keeps coming out of a particular studio and they are more often then not centered on characters intended to not even have entered puberty, we really should be discussing the unfortunate and uncomfortable implications that comes with it. That does not mean I think everyone in the studio or their fans are pedophiles or child molesters, but we really ought to consider why they think it is fine to keep producing media that sexualizes pre-teen children.

Well, I think the only relevant context here is one from the angle of the game and its lore and so on. I don't really care to insert all that real life stuff into it. This is kinda like when people say "keep politics out of games", I'm just interested in seeing games through the in-game world and the lore and figuring out whether something is congruent with the plot, established chars and so on and analyze it that way. Also It's not really fanfiction to just explain what you get from an image. You can discern things related to some type of setting from it for sure and that's not something you just came up with out of thin air.

Anyhow, for the sake of having had discussed this so long I can give you the basic answer of the fact that in Japan they see being into these girls as a fetish (similar to how homosexuality is also seen as a fetish) and their inclusion is in part just their way of covering their bases and offering variety to satisfy every fetish out there but that doesn't really answer anything important about the specific character here and opens up a completely irrelevant to freedom of expression can of worms. In fact, it's reductive, it diminishes the character into only being something someone uses to trick people into spending money on something, and a character is much more than that. A character can be both exploitative and also a great char at the same time. As long as you honor the good part of thems it doesn't really have to matter what someone else is getting out of them.

 

[Erttheking]

Well, I think the only relevant context here is one from the angle of the game and its lore and so on. I don't really care to insert all that real life stuff into it. This is kinda like when people say "keep politics out of games", I'm just interested in seeing games through the in-game world and the lore and figuring out whether something is congruent with the plot, established chars and so on and analyze it that way. Also It's not really fanfiction to just explain what you get from an image. You can discern things related to some type of setting from it for sure and that's not fiction.

Anyhow, for the sake of having had discussed this so long I can give you the basic answer of the fact that in Japan they see being into these girls as a fetish (similar to how homosexuality is also seen as a fetish) and their inclusion is in part just their way of covering their bases and offering variety to satisfy every fetish out there but that doesn't really answer anything important about the specific character here and opens up a completely irrelevant to freedom of expression can of worms. In fact, it's reductive, it diminishes the character into only being something someone uses to trick people into spending money on something, and a character is much more than that. A character can be both exploitative and also a great char at the same time. As long as you honor the good part of thems it doesn't really have to matter what someone else is getting out of them.

No offense, that sounds a lot like saying "I don't want my favorite thing to be analyzed critically." Just because you want to blatantly ignore the circumstances of a character's creation, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Also, if you want your conclusions to not be dismissed as fanfiction you need evidence. What about that girl's personality suggests that she's " trying to play the "adult beach-goer" or "beach beauty" stereotype role." Because unless you have anything to back this up, it has no grounding in reality and can be perfectly dismissed as fanfiction because it's officially something you just made up. So. Evidence, please.

I'm sorry, is it creative freedom or is it soulless corporate shilling, because you kind of go back and forth on the two. Also, being reductive about the loli character designed to pander to people who get boners for under twelve-year-olds, oh boy, don't I feel ashamed. And yes, a character can be exploitative and a great character. Problem. More often than not, they aren't. So tell me, what gripping character development or arc did this Sara go through?

 

[RaikuFA]

So supposedly a DLC for that One Piece game isn?t getting localized because of this. I don?t know the full details but it apparently involves Nami and Robin at a bathhouse. They?re 20 and 30.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Well, I think the only relevant context here is one from the angle of the game and its lore and so on. I don't really care to insert all that real life stuff into it. This is kinda like when people say "keep politics out of games", I'm just interested in seeing games through the in-game world and the lore and figuring out whether something is congruent with the plot, established chars and so on and analyze it that way. Also It's not really fanfiction to just explain what you get from an image. You can discern things related to some type of setting from it for sure and that's not fiction.

Anyhow, for the sake of having had discussed this so long I can give you the basic answer of the fact that in Japan they see being into these girls as a fetish (similar to how homosexuality is also seen as a fetish) and their inclusion is in part just their way of covering their bases and offering variety to satisfy every fetish out there but that doesn't really answer anything important about the specific character here and opens up a completely irrelevant to freedom of expression can of worms. In fact, it's reductive, it diminishes the character into only being something someone uses to trick people into spending money on something, and a character is much more than that. A character can be both exploitative and also a great char at the same time. As long as you honor the good part of thems it doesn't really have to matter what someone else is getting out of them.

No offense, that sounds a lot like saying "I don't want my favorite thing to be analyzed critically." Just because you want to blatantly ignore the circumstances of a character's creation, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Also, if you want your conclusions to not be dismissed as fanfiction you need evidence. What about that girl's personality suggests that she's " trying to play the "adult beach-goer" or "beach beauty" stereotype role." Because unless you have anything to back this up, it has no grounding in reality and can be perfectly dismissed as fanfiction because it's officially something you just made up. So. Evidence, please.

I'm sorry, is it creative freedom or is it soulless corporate shilling, because you kind of go back and forth on the two. Also, being reductive about the loli character designed to pander to people who get boners for under twelve-year-olds, oh boy, don't I feel ashamed. And yes, a character can be exploitative and a great character. Problem. More often than not, they aren't. So tell me, what gripping character development or arc did this Sara go through?

The girl above is Io not Sara. And again like how a char can be both exploitative and a great char so can they be both corporate shilling and artistic freedom. Corporations will fund artists whose creativity coincides with their desired shilling method, that way you get art that is not hackish but rather something someone really wanted to make.

Granblue is hardly my favorite thing, this is my stance for all art in general. In fact I only recently got into this franchise (outside of seeing a few of these people as cards in Shadowverse) due to the recently announced Versus game. In any case, if a specific char isn't a good char, that fault is not tied to whether or not they pander to some target demographic. Pandering is often done to cover up other failings. It is these other failings that ought to be focused upon if we aim to improve a medium and aren't just cynically trying to crap all over it like the tc does with the senran series repeatedly throughout this topic. The error here is that criticism from the angle that ignores the setting only ever tackles the symptom and not the real cause for why a character is bad, if they are even concerned about that at all in the first place.

Anyhow, Io's strongest characteristic is her dislike for being treated as a child. She was abandoned by her old mage instructor so she has a complex about being seen as immature and will try to play up her maturity in an often comically overdone way due to a deep insecurity that if she is seen as a kid she will be abandoned again. Basically her entire character is that of a young girl that can't wait to grow up. Also, she has fashion as her hobby, which is where my mention of her trying to mimic something she saw in a magazine with the above pose is based on.

So supposedly a DLC for that One Piece game isn?t getting localized because of this. I don?t know the full details but it apparently involves Nami and Robin at a bathhouse. They?re 20 and 30.

No, it is localized and released in Europe. Only America isn't getting it. Cause bikinis on 30 year old archeologists are evillllll.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I'll be sure not to get my lolis mixed up in the future.

Pandering can totally make a character bad, it's called putting the cart before the horse. If you're more interested in roping in a specific demographic by checking off boxes, you can easily produce a crap product. You say that pandering doesn't make a story bad because the real problem is because of structural issues. I say those structural issues were there because the creators were more interested in pandering.

And with all due respect, it hardly sounds like an interesting character. Maybe could have been, but then I see the 11-year-old in a bikini striking a sexy pose and I think "Oh wait, I'm not supposed to take this seriously, the author thinks I jerk off to this. The sick fuck." Because there is no way in hell that the image posted above was done as a joke, and if by some miracle it was, it's the type of joke where you play everything straight and then claim you were doing it ironically. You know, the shit kind of joke. Kind of sounds like she was built from the ground up with the idea of loli pandering in mind. Which doesn't really work for someone unless they already jerked off to eleven-year-olds.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Snip

I'll be sure not to get my lolis mixed up in the future.

Pandering can totally make a character bad, it's called putting the cart before the horse. If you're more interested in roping in a specific demographic by checking off boxes, you can easily produce a crap product. You say that pandering doesn't make a story bad because the real problem is because of structural issues. I say those structural issues were there because the creators were more interested in pandering.

And with all due respect, it hardly sounds like an interesting character. Maybe could have been, but then I see the 11-year-old in a bikini striking a sexy pose and I think "Oh wait, I'm not supposed to take this seriously, the author thinks I jerk off to this. The sick fuck." Because there is no way in hell that the image posted above was done as a joke, and if by some miracle it was, it's the type of joke where you play everything straight and then claim you were doing it ironically. You know, the shit kind of joke. Kind of sounds like she was built from the ground up with the idea of loli pandering in mind. Which doesn't really work for someone unless they already jerked off to eleven-year-olds.

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character or of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her in her modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

 

[Erttheking]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her i the basic modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?

Hate to burst your bubble, but if she wasn't doing this before then it sounds like it was OOC. So whatever the character and setting had going for it, it got thrown out of the window when they decided that they were going to sexualized the 11 year old girl with a "joke." And I feel fairly confident in saying "hey, here's a character that's not even a teenager yet, look how hot she is" is pretty darn sinful.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her i the basic modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?

Hate to burst your bubble, but if she wasn't doing this before then it sounds like it was OOC. So whatever the character and setting had going for it, it got thrown out of the window when they decided that they were going to sexualized the 11 year old girl with a "joke." And I feel fairly confident in saying "hey, here's a character that's not even a teenager yet, look how hot she is" is pretty darn sinful.

That's not what this says though. I explained this already. She's just trying to appear more mature than she really is and that's a facet of that. The idea is more akin to "look at this kid trying to pretend she's all grown up, isn't she precious". It is the viewer who chooses to interpret that sexually upon already knowing this, which imo is antithetical to her characterization, hence wrong. Art need not change based on people's wrong or uninformed interpretations.

If you choose to ignore the context and established setting as the prism through which the summer pose is to be seen through, that's willful ignorance. I also find the idea of her being sexual in any way weird in a vacuum too, but I guess different strokes.

Ultimately, this is all just people worrying other people (but never themselves, no sir) will find something sexual that's wrong and they have to stand against it for...reasons! Yeah, reasons. Me think thou doth protest too much. This is basically the child exploitation version of calling Pokemon chicken fighting and being against it on the basis that cruelty to animals in real life is wrong, as though that has any relevance at all. (because of course a kid who plays Pokemon will be more likely to put his dog into a dogfight and Pokemon caters to cockfighters, right?)

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

And it's official, Takaki had it with Marvelous and has left for Cygames

https://gematsu.com/2019/03/kenichiro-takaki-leaves-marvelous-remains-producer-of-the-senran-kagura-series

https://nichegamer.com/2019/03/26/kenichiro-takaki-leaves-marvelous-still-producer-on-senran-kagura/

Words cannot describes my contempt for the fandom of the Senran Kagura series and this news brings me joy.

Can't blame the guy, he has his reasons.

Also, what did the SK fandom do to you? They're not the most obnoxious fandom I've ever seen. Most of that I met online or at a GameStop were friendly and understanding. I know you don't like Takaki or SK, but at least he is honest about his fan-service and does not make excuses or justify with bullshit reasons.

Let me put it this way, I now emphasize with Smithnikov on how he has cemented his views from 8chan thanks to the folks at Niche and Gematsu having similar reactions

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character or of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her in her modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

No, I?m worried that sexy child ninja creator is gonna have a swing at Camieux or Yaia next. (I might be a bit tongue-in-cheek) I play Granblue a lot. The summer outfit?s aren?t a gag, the April Fools outfits are a gag. That particular piece of art was added literal years after the swimsuit version of the character. It?s bad enough that there?s a batch of cougars running around making googly eyes at the Explicitly Not Old Enough To Drink protagonist.

Like, you are defending this with more vigor than the Grand Blues 4koma team

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character or of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her in her modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

No, I?m worried that sexy child ninja creator is gonna have a swing at Camieux or Yaia next. (I might be a bit tongue-in-cheek) I play Granblue a lot. The summer outfit?s aren?t a gag, the April Fools outfits are a gag. That particular piece of art was added literal years after the swimsuit version of the character. It?s bad enough that there?s a batch of cougars running around making googly eyes at the Explicitly Not Old Enough To Drink protagonist.

Like, you are defending this with more vigor than the Grand Blues 4koma team

That's just them having some self-aware humor. It doesn't really change the design and setting of the char. Hell, her entire "anti-ossan" thing is them taking potshots at the creeps out there so the 4koma is a continuation of them making fun of those folks (and also Helnar fans too I guess lol).

 

[Erttheking]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her i the basic modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?

Hate to burst your bubble, but if she wasn't doing this before then it sounds like it was OOC. So whatever the character and setting had going for it, it got thrown out of the window when they decided that they were going to sexualized the 11 year old girl with a "joke." And I feel fairly confident in saying "hey, here's a character that's not even a teenager yet, look how hot she is" is pretty darn sinful.

That's not what this says though. I explained this already. She's just trying to appear more mature than she really is and that's a facet of that. The idea is more akin to "look at this kid trying to pretend she's all grown up, isn't she precious". It is the viewer who chooses to interpret that sexually upon already knowing this, which imo is antithetical to her characterization, hence wrong. Art need not change based on people's wrong or uninformed interpretations.

If you choose to ignore the context and established setting as the prism through which the summer pose is to be seen through, that's willful ignorance. I also find the idea of her being sexual in any way weird in a vacuum too, but I guess different strokes.

Ultimately, this is all just people worrying other people (but never themselves, no sir) will find something sexual that's wrong and they have to stand against it for...reasons! Yeah, reasons. Me think thou doth protest too much. This is basically the child exploitation version of calling Pokemon chicken fighting and being against it on the basis that cruelty to animals in real life is wrong, as though that has any relevance at all. (because of course a kid who plays Pokemon will be more likely to put his dog into a dogfight and Pokemon caters to cockfighters, right?)

You didn?t answer my question. ?And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?? Kindly answer that.

Oh yes clearly. The hyper idealized pre-teen girl body in the ultra skimpy outfit striking a beach babe pose in a way that lets the player see everything. Ignore that she?s pulling this off perfectly and that there?s no comically exagersted aspect to it, like her stuffing her bra with oranges or overdoing the pose and falling over. Like I said before, if this is a joke, it?s a joke where they play it straight and then claim they?re being ironic. You know, a shit joke.

I?m sorry, Context doesn?t excuse the hyper idealized body being depicted in a way that lets the player see everything except her ass. Don?t really see how that adds to the joke.

No offense, that comes off as really limp wristed deflections. But no, no no no. Sexualized pre teen girls and me finding that a bit weird is akin to me being a PETA nut. Sure. You say whatever you have to to avoid thinking about the medium you enjoy critically. I did say that this came off like you not wanting your favorite thing thought about critically. You?ve only added to that theory.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The image above is something that wasn't part of the creation of the character of her original portrayal actually. It's from a summer event that came later and is indeed basically a joke. Her original artwork is this:

https://gbf.wiki/images/thumb/f/f5/Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png/480px-Npc_zoom_3030006000_81.png

So it's fallacious to retroactively condemns a character and their setting for an image that came years down the line and presume that everyone who experienced the story had already seen the summer event art and were going into it with that baggage when everyone who was an active granblue player would have been introduced to her i the basic modest getup. It's basically unfair to reduce the character to her summer gag event (and I feel this was the problem that the original person who posted her image was worried about too, in fact, he's worried good chars get tarnished in the eyes of quick to judge insecure prudes who worry about whether someone will think they pleasure themselves to sinful drawings, his solution is just the wrong one imo, you educate those people, you don't change the drawings, art is never sinful).

And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?

Hate to burst your bubble, but if she wasn't doing this before then it sounds like it was OOC. So whatever the character and setting had going for it, it got thrown out of the window when they decided that they were going to sexualized the 11 year old girl with a "joke." And I feel fairly confident in saying "hey, here's a character that's not even a teenager yet, look how hot she is" is pretty darn sinful.

That's not what this says though. I explained this already. She's just trying to appear more mature than she really is and that's a facet of that. The idea is more akin to "look at this kid trying to pretend she's all grown up, isn't she precious". It is the viewer who chooses to interpret that sexually upon already knowing this, which imo is antithetical to her characterization, hence wrong. Art need not change based on people's wrong or uninformed interpretations.

If you choose to ignore the context and established setting as the prism through which the summer pose is to be seen through, that's willful ignorance. I also find the idea of her being sexual in any way weird in a vacuum too, but I guess different strokes.

Ultimately, this is all just people worrying other people (but never themselves, no sir) will find something sexual that's wrong and they have to stand against it for...reasons! Yeah, reasons. Me think thou doth protest too much. This is basically the child exploitation version of calling Pokemon chicken fighting and being against it on the basis that cruelty to animals in real life is wrong, as though that has any relevance at all. (because of course a kid who plays Pokemon will be more likely to put his dog into a dogfight and Pokemon caters to cockfighters, right?)

You didn?t answer my question. ?And the fact that she was depicted in a way that maximizes the amount of flesh being shown off, how does that work into the joke?? Kindly answer that.

Oh yes clearly. The hyper idealized pre-teen girl body in the ultra skimpy outfit striking a beach babe pose in a way that lets the player see everything. Ignore that she?s pulling this off perfectly and that there?s no comically exagersted aspect to it, like her stuffing her bra with oranges or overdoing the pose and falling over. Like I said before, if this is a joke, it?s a joke where they play it straight and then claim they?re being ironic. You know, a shit joke.

I?m sorry, Context doesn?t excuse the hyper idealized body being depicted in a way that lets the player see everything except her ass. Don?t really see how that adds to the joke.

No offense, that comes off as really limp wristed deflections. But no, no no no. Sexualized pre teen girls and me finding that a bit weird is akin to me being a PETA nut. Sure. You say whatever you have to to avoid thinking about the medium you enjoy critically. I did say that this came off like you not wanting your favorite thing thought about critically. You?ve only added to that theory.

The joke is that she confuses being revealing for being grown up. The whole notion of "adult charm", basically thinking that behaving in a "sexy" (in her silly ideas) way is her being "grown up" when it in fact isn't that at all. It's funny cause she fundamentally misunderstands what it means to be grown up but pretends to be all grown up, having a dislike for people who treat her as a kid, despite acting very much like one.


The thing that "excuses" (as though it needs excusing) the idealized form is it being anime art and everyone having more or less larger than life idealized bodies in general as a rule unless them being ugly or somehow imperfect is a big character trait of them. (like for example the really fat girl from persona 4 who had a huge mountain of curry during the field trip and wouldn't share with anyone)


And again, I don't think this sort of cynical criticism comes from a place of earnest desire for improving the genre, as illustrated by my initial point here about how quickly the other shoe falls when someone is forced to quit his company of 13 years, being faced with remarks celebrating his departure.