Falling said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
i never said anything even similar, i said, what makes one claim more valid than the other?
how is limiting an artist's vision more variety?
Do you work in the arts at all? Because from my own experience, criticism has led to a far better product than had I stayed in my own echo chamber. I had a vision, certainly. But a creative work is often a work in process, one that becomes realized as it is created. It is not simply transcribing word for word, image for image, fully formed from your head. Sure, you can let criticism run roughshod over you. But inciteful criticism strengthens art; it does not diminish it. I would argue better characterization for women in games strengthens the game (in games where characters are a meaningful concept.) It is important to hear feedback to improve the next work. Some criticims you adopt, some you consider and use sparingly, and some you ignore. But the presence of criticism does not squelch so-called artistic vision.
theres difference between useful criticism and useless criticism
useful criticism: the body proportions in this realistic painting are off (the work of art is objectively flawed)
useless criticism: this sculpture doesnt have enough ballons (the work of art doesnt appeal to my tastes)
a "sexist" character does not in any way diminish the quality of a game, a women character can be weak, or revealing, or promiscuous, etc, and still be a good character, because these are concepts an artist can work with, there are weak women just like there are weak men, there are women who embrace their sexuality just like there are men that do
the idea that a set of traits from a character can diminish a work of art is completely ridiculous
is Django Unchained a worse movie because it features racist characters?
is Maus a worse comic because the artist didnt hide the fact his father is racist?
hell no
