Why are we afraid of criticism?

[QuietlyListening]

Most of the actual criticism is fairly well articulated. It's usually in the form of, "X aspect of Y game is racist/misogynist/xenophobic/whatever. Here are the stereotypes it reinforces and here is why those stereotypes are destructive." The flame wars usually erupt in the response.

And to those saying that this type of criticism doesn't happen in other media. That's patently false. Here in DC, there's a pretty big uproar over theaters whitewashing roles and denying parts to actors of different ethnicities. Similar criticisms have been levied at movies and television as well. Hell, the Bechdel test originated out of film criticism.

 

[Netrigan]

Most of the actual criticism is fairly well articulated. It's usually in the form of, "X aspect of Y game is racist/misogynist/xenophobic/whatever. Here are the stereotypes it reinforces and here is why those stereotypes are destructive." The flame wars usually erupt in the response.

And to those saying that this type of criticism doesn't happen in other media. That's patently false. Here in DC, there's a pretty big uproar over theaters whitewashing roles and denying parts to actors of different ethnicities. Similar criticisms have been levied at movies and television as well. Hell, the Bechdel test originated out of film criticism.

Criticism is a sort of conversation with a work of art. It's beyond good or bad, it's about what ideas and feelings the work inspires and even if the criticism is scathing, it just might inspire someone to go balls out in complete contempt of those reactions. I love Crank 2, which seems to be the film makers middle finger to everyone who has ever been offended by anything.

And the works themselves can respond to criticisms. There's a fun little mission in one of the Borderlands 2 DLCs centered around gamers taking deep offense of video game reviews... or spinning the Fake Game Girl criticism on its head by casting a character as a put upon Fake Gamer Boy before Maya, the Fan Girl realizes she's being a dick. Lord knows enough real people have been cast in the role of villain as a form of criticism.

For the creatively bankrupt, criticism is a denial of their feeble talents. For the talented, it's often a challenge to rise above.

 

[angryscotsman93]

It's because I don't particularly care. There's room for videogames with diversity, there's room for games with less diversity. There's games with diversity, and there's games which aren't diverse. It's all making a mountain out of a molehill.

This about sums it up for me, really. We've got room, it's just that a few of the people pushing for it, as well as a lot of the people pushing back against that small group, are goddamn crazy. That kind of attitude taints the whole discussion and makes it impossible for any of us to have a good time.

 

[hockeyd13]

This just in: apparently believing women about incredibly awful threats made against them is white knighting and therefore patronizing and fuck it, just fuck it, I'm done, I'm going to go jump off a fucking cliff because the ground meeting my face at max velocity is kinder than the entire gaming community and whining bunch of shitbabies thereof when it comes to women's issues

Slightly more seriously, though, to get back to the topic instead of me just screaming into the void:

I think videogames and the actions people do in them are more connected and therefore seem more personal because this is really the first really interactive mainstream media. It's not just a vague character, say, going to pimp out some bitches in Steelport in SR3, it's *my* character - the one I've made, the one I've carefully groomed, the one I've acted through during the entire game. For me, that's why it feels so especially gross when SR3 treats women like chattel - yeah, yeah, what did I expect and all that, but still. feelsbadman.gif and so on.

Maybe that's why people find it so hard to swallow critique. The characters we're given are proxies and we're meant to think of them as proxies for ourselves.

Except that behavior research has basically severed any real sort of correlation between the act of playing even a violent game, and their actions IRL (provided they are mentally stable). At most, gaming causes a slight and short-lived increase in aggressiveness that does not carry over into general negative behavior patterns unless an individual is already mentally unstable.

I thought we, as a community, had put most of this dialog to bed when Jack Thompson got his pee-pee slapped for being a self-righteous prick. WTF happened that we're now beset will pseudo-science bullshit about games nefariously influencing us and our behaviors.

It's Tipper Gore and her moral crusade against rap and rock in the 90s all over again.

 

[Netrigan]

This just in: apparently believing women about incredibly awful threats made against them is white knighting and therefore patronizing and fuck it, just fuck it, I'm done, I'm going to go jump off a fucking cliff because the ground meeting my face at max velocity is kinder than the entire gaming community and whining bunch of shitbabies thereof when it comes to women's issues

Slightly more seriously, though, to get back to the topic instead of me just screaming into the void:

I think videogames and the actions people do in them are more connected and therefore seem more personal because this is really the first really interactive mainstream media. It's not just a vague character, say, going to pimp out some bitches in Steelport in SR3, it's *my* character - the one I've made, the one I've carefully groomed, the one I've acted through during the entire game. For me, that's why it feels so especially gross when SR3 treats women like chattel - yeah, yeah, what did I expect and all that, but still. feelsbadman.gif and so on.

Maybe that's why people find it so hard to swallow critique. The characters we're given are proxies and we're meant to think of them as proxies for ourselves.

Except that behavior research has basically severed any real sort of correlation between the act of playing even a violent game, and their actions IRL (provided they are mentally stable). At most, gaming causes a slight and short-lived increase in aggressiveness that does not carry over into general negative behavior patterns unless an individual is already mentally unstable.

I thought we, as a community, had put most of this dialog to bed when Jack Thompson got his pee-pee slapped for being a self-righteous prick. WTF happened that we're now beset will pseudo-science bullshit about games nefariously influencing us and our behaviors.

It's Tipper Gore and her moral crusade against rap and rock in the 90s all over again.

There's a tendency to disprove any connection between media and behavior by going straight to the most extreme behavior, but think much smaller than that.

How many videos of people dumping ice water on your head did you see last month? Did all those people really care about the cause? Did they even understand the challenge and by doing it was keeping money from the cause? Or did they think it looked like a fun thing to do with the added incentive that it was for a good cause... even if they didn't really understand how.

We emulate our media constantly. It tells us what's normal and what's taboo. It tells us what's desirable and what is not. Whatever we choose to put in it will influence us. If you make a point of normalizing homosexuality, it's not a surprise when a couple of decades later gay marriage starts happening. The influence is not immediate or absolute, but it's there. It's why advertising exists. It's why PR firms exist. It's why people use buzz words. We are far more malleable than we realize. People are constantly changing the way we think.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

so sexism is a zero sum equation?

If by "zero sum equation" you mean you haven't told me who gets to decide whether a certain sort of criticism contributes anything, then yes.

you are arguing that a "sexist" portrayal of a women is only acceptable if there are non-sexist portrayals as well, i dont agree

btw my point is, criticism a game got being sexism is like criticism Michelangelo's David for public indecency, in essense i guess it doesnt even look like you are critizing the work of art itself, but rather the message you THINK it delivers

Why can't I do both? I dislike the design itself and the message it's sending. Not only is it sexist, the design is fucking boring and done to damn death. Dressing women like strippers and pretending they're wearing armor stopped being interesting decades ago.

so Michelangelo's David is not that good because it shows too much skin?

and thats another thing, if we start judging works of art for their supposed message, we will have to start doing some hard historical revisionism, because spoilers: people in the past, were assholes

and to the people in the future, we will probably look like assholes as well, maybe in a couple of decades, people from the future will look at this social justice movement with the same condescending attitude we today look at prohibition era activists

you can argue a character design is overdone or uninteresting, but arguing its sexist is silly in my opinion

but you the thing is, his work is not bad, you just dont like it, and you are trying to shame him for that

On what merit do you judge whether his work is good or bad if not on whether people like it or not? Other types of art may have some sort of deep, meaningful, pretentious excuse, but that's generally a cop out and I really doubt there's some deep meaning behind designing women with fanservice as a top priority.

does it have good gameplay? does it have responsive controls? does it give you a good amount of bang for your money? does it have a good story? does it look good?

those are some of the most important, of course a game can be short and sweet, or have not much of a story, etc, any one flaw can be ignore if the rest of the package is good

also heres a deep meaning to designing women with fanservice: freedom of speech

maybe the designer likes to accentuate her physique and sexuality

http://es.playstation.com/media/gsVgmHsG/BayonettaHero_vf3.jpg

maybe he likes a particular style

https://www.nullchan.org/a/src/1398707223114.png

or maybe hes going to a certain theme for his work

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2825/11231278976_999ce62407_b.jpg

censorship is good for nobody

back to the piss christ example, that shit IS offensive, i feel offended, should we now ask artist to not portray religion in a bad light?

Pretending criticism is censorship is good for nobody as well. At least, it's not good for people with honest intentions who aren't just trying to silence discussions. If it wasn't obvious, I do not run the government or some sort of powerful agency and I am not sending my henchmen out to arrest what's-his-name for creating art that I don't like. I am criticizing him for making something I don't like and he is well within his rights to ignore my criticism and make it anyway at the cost of my patronage. No one forced him to choose greed over his all-important artistic integrity, he chose for himself.

so when artists are being forced to self-censor themselves:

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/wildstar-to-reduce-character-breast-size/

what do you call that?

when you accuse someone of sexist, when you call em misogyny or agents of the patriarchy or some other crap like that, thats not criticism, thats slander and public shaming and yes is damn wrong

you might not like the designs, that does not make the creator sexist

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Why?

When someone criticises us, we feel that it reflects badly on us, as if we're being shamed socially. Ergo; we don't like to be criticised, because it feels like a direct attack on us as a person, instead of what criticism is/should be; an honest evaluation.

That's why.

 

[Harpalyce]

Except that behavior research has basically severed any real sort of correlation between the act of playing even a violent game, and their actions IRL (provided they are mentally stable). At most, gaming causes a slight and short-lived increase in aggressiveness that does not carry over into general negative behavior patterns unless an individual is already mentally unstable.

I thought we, as a community, had put most of this dialog to bed when Jack Thompson got his pee-pee slapped for being a self-righteous prick. WTF happened that we're now beset will pseudo-science bullshit about games nefariously influencing us and our behaviors.

It's Tipper Gore and her moral crusade against rap and rock in the 90s all over again.

That's, uh... that's not what I was talking about at all?

I'm attempting this pre-coffee so forgive me if it's a bit inelegant, but um. I was talking about my own personal experiences in the whole how it makes me feel bad and aggravated to see certain things in video games. It's cool if you don't see it that way. But it's a real thing, it's me feeling bad, it's not me going on a moral crusade. Sure, media totally does influence us in subtle ways (emphasis on subtle) and video games are not the great exception to that, but that's not what I was talking about at all. Netrigan's got that covered.

To be really honest I'm kinda struggling to see how you got that from what I posted? My post was me ranting about the whole 'GamerGate' scandal and Sarkeesian's death threats, then me coming back to try and be a bit more level-headed and positing an idea about why criticism seems more personal against video games than it does against other media. So, uh... yeah, that's what I was saying, not trying to be all Tipper Gore on anyone.

 

[cainejw]

Most of the actual criticism is fairly well articulated. It's usually in the form of, "X aspect of Y game is racist/misogynist/xenophobic/whatever. Here are the stereotypes it reinforces and here is why those stereotypes are destructive." The flame wars usually erupt in the response.

And to those saying that this type of criticism doesn't happen in other media. That's patently false. Here in DC, there's a pretty big uproar over theaters whitewashing roles and denying parts to actors of different ethnicities. Similar criticisms have been levied at movies and television as well. Hell, the Bechdel test originated out of film criticism.

The Bechdel test's origin was a joke in a comic. It wasn't born from serious film criticism. While it has moderate to low test-retest reliability due to its simplistic rules, it has no equivalent reliability or split-half reliability. The Bechdel test has no criterion, construct, or content validity whatsoever. With little to no reliability, it has no validity.

This is why trying to set up tests to measure sexism or misogyny fail. Nobody can agree on what sexism or misogyny is in the world, how to measure it effectively, or even who has the right to identify it. It varies between cultures, societies, geographical locations, and it can even be completely invisible and require an outside force to identify it and make it manifest to the population.

Which then brings the issue when identifying it in media. Perspective skews the data. Anita identifies countless examples in video games, but she idolizes characters who can be seen as sexist. In fact, did you know that River Song fails the Bechdel test many times? So can other characters, and you can certainly make the case for characters like Buffy, Katara, and Xena who can all fail the Bechdel test or appear very sexist given particular examination.

So while radical feminist critique is prevalent in nearly all forms of media, it has the exact same weaknesses in every form of media in that it is completely beholden to how the viewer sees the character and is easily validated or refuted based upon the perspective of the response. A response, by the way, that typically is either refused through removal of communication, stunted through the medium of publishing the critique, or waved away as either manifest or internalized misogyny.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

you are arguing that a "sexist" portrayal of a women is only acceptable if there are non-sexist portrayals as well, i dont agree

I argued that whether a sexist character made a game worse or not depended on the context of the game and gave an example of where it might not be made worse. Since you still haven't told me who gets to judge whether a game is improved by something or not, I'm going to assume you don't have an answer.

i already mentioned EVA from MGS3, she has to be rescued numerous times, she wears revealing clothes and is flirtatious... and it all makes perfect sense within the narrative of the game, her portrayal made the game better, not worse

and hell, bayonetta is another example but since i havent played the game im not willing to dive too much into that

so Michelangelo's David is not that good because it shows too much skin?

There's a difference between "this is a naked man" and "all women are weak, helpless whores who exist to be stared at by men." Do you know why? Because, as far as I can tell, there's no real message in David other than that your penis shrinks a bit when you fight a giant.

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, havent you thought there is maybe no real message behind all those things you complain about? and maybe devs just make characters they want to make or are pleasing to look at

would you say twilight objectifies men?

and thats another thing, if we start judging works of art for their supposed message, we will have to start doing some hard historical revisionism, because spoilers: people in the past, were assholes

...Did you think we didn't judge works of art for their message? Yeah we also look at the pretty pictures and go "ooh, ahh" like good, brainless idiots, but we also look at the meaning behind them. I've actually studied some ancient art in one of my college courses, and the majority of it was spent in deciphering what the possible message was. It'd have been a short, boring lecture if the professor just went "here's a vase with images on it, isn't it pretty?" and then went on to something else.

yes i actually think its possible to judge a piece of art separe from its message, thats why people can appreciate something like the birth of a nation

and to the people in the future, we will probably look like assholes as well, maybe in a couple of decades, people from the future will look at this social justice movement with the same condescending attitude we today look at prohibition era activists

And why would they do that? Because people dared ask that men and women be treated the same? How horrible of us to be so condescending as to ask that people not be sexist! We truly deserve the future's scorn for not accepting that women should be dressed in stripper-gear while men get actual armor!

"And why would they do that? Because people dared ask that our society should be free of vice? How horrible of us to be so condescending as to ask that people not be alcoholic! We truly deserve the future's scorn for not accepting that alcohol is not healthy shouldnt be socially acceptable!"

i bet prohobitionists argued something similar, dont assume history will be fond of you, none of us knows how we will be remembered

heres the thing, the fundamental flaw in your argument, you are rallying for the rights of virtual, non-existent women, remember how everyone laughed at PETA when they were protesting agaisnt Pokemon and Super Meat Boy?

women IN REAL LIFE, in most western countries are treated roughtly the same, they have the same rights and duties as men, if you see some actual injustice where real life women are treated poorly based only on their gender, fantastic, protest agaisnt that, i will stand by your side, but asking artists to compromise their work so they fit your political views? no, absolutely not

you can argue a character design is overdone or uninteresting, but arguing its sexist is silly in my opinion

Apparently, in your opinion, looking at art in any way that's not some "looks pretty/ugly" mindset is silly, so I'll take your opinion on what is and isn't silly with some salt.

in my opinion any criticism that wont make a piece of art better is a silly and worthless criticism

does it have good gameplay? does it have responsive controls? does it give you a good amount of bang for your money? does it have a good story? does it look good?

Only one or two of those have anything to do with how female design is done in a game. The rest is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion.

i think you are confused, feminism overall is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of video games, very few people use games to make a political statement, most people design games to entertain, to indulge in the escapism, to create any number of fantasies in any sort of abstract or contrived universes

also heres a deep meaning to designing women with fanservice: freedom of speech

So did you just not understand what "deeper meaning" means or do you just not care if it lets you throw some freedom moralizing out there? Once again, no one is denying people their freedom of speech, they're just letting them know that such freedom doesn't entitle them to my support.

fine, dont buy the freakin' game, is that easy

or you know, show them your opinion without shaming them, insulting them, calling them sexist, any stuff like that

so when artists are being forced to self-censor themselves:

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/wildstar-to-reduce-character-breast-size/

what do you call that?

when you accuse someone of sexist, when you call em misogyny or agents of the patriarchy or some other crap like that, thats not criticism, thats slander and public shaming and yes is damn wrong

you might not like the designs, that does not make the creator sexist

The creator treats men and women differently, that makes him pretty sexist. The difference being that he designs women to appeal to the shallow male gaze just makes his sexism contemptible. And, you'll notice that the person who "forced" him to change his designs wasn't people criticizing him but his boss. Unless you don't think the boss should be able to dictate what art does and doesn't go into the game, you're complaining about a man having to do his damn job.

He's a commercial artist which means he makes art for other people, people who get to dictate what he makes and whether he needs to change something. If he wants more damn freedom he needs to quit his job and work as some sort of freelancer.

"The creator treats men and women differently, that makes him pretty sexist."

so, if im attracted to women, but im not attracted to men, am i a sexist?

and again, its a freakin' non-existent human being, he is not discriminating agaisnt women in real life

if you are going to use the "audience" argument then your whole point dies there, since around 75%-80% of all non-casual gamers, atleast on PC, are male

the reason why his boss ordered him to change the design was because of the pointless backlash it generated, again from people who just want to censor what they dont like

 

[Starbird]

Often I have seen the refrain of, "Please stop talking about X. All this focus on social issues will suck the life and fun out of games."

This leads me to the following question:

WHAT!?

In what medium has criticism left art worse off? Are books terrible because there's literary criticism? Are movies worse because there are disciplines devoted to studying film? Is TV boring now that we analyze shows for social themes?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good. Personally, some of the most enriching discussions I've had have been over some of the most trivial examples of entertainment. So what the hell are people afraid of?

I think that the majority of gamers, at least those of a certain maturity are open to criticism. It's just the nature of the internet to act as an echo chamber of a nasty or immature minority.

For the most part I find criticism interesting, so long as it's well presented and reasoned. I don't need to agree with it or even care about it though.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

so when artists are being forced to self-censor themselves:

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

http://massively.joystiq.com/2014/01/17/wildstar-to-reduce-character-breast-size/

what do you call that?

Well, to start, it's not censorship. The first case is of an artist who was commissioned to provide something being told that it needed to be changed by the person who paid for it. Regardless of the reasons of why that decision was made, or whether he thought it was right or wrong, he had a professional obligation to his client. In his own time in art he has not been commissioned to produce, he remains free to depict women however he likes. And, frankly, his article is pretty tone-deaf, up to and including failing to recognize that Kratos and his costume is a MALE sexual self-image fantasy.

The second is a case of a developer changing their mind about a character design after deciding to consult with the community. Freedom of speech allows that - it's not censorship.

Censorship involves silencing somebody or something. It involves removing a thought from the discussion, rather than discussing it. It is imposed from without, rather than within. Please do not misuse the word.

when you accuse someone of sexist, when you call em misogyny or agents of the patriarchy or some other crap like that, thats not criticism, thats slander and public shaming and yes is damn wrong

you might not like the designs, that does not make the creator sexist

Slander has a specific definition. It means something that the speaker both knows to be untrue and that the speaker said with the intention of causing harm. If somebody makes a game where the men are dressed in proper battle armour and the women are in loincloths, then yes, it (and them) can be called sexist, and it's not slander.

Now, freedom of speech includes the freedom to be sexist. It also includes the freedom to call that sexism out and demand better. It includes the right to say "yes," to that demand, and also to say "no" to it. It only becomes shameful when that turns into threats and harassment.

And as far as your comments about "SJW"s and their place in history goes, I just want to point something out. Back about a dozen years ago, video games lost their freedom of speech rights. I am not joking - a court ruling declared that they could not receive First Amendment protection. It was "SJW"s like me and a number of other people who fought that decision and helped regain video games their basic freedom of speech.

We fought hard for the right to talk about video games and their content. We also fought hard for people like you to be able to disagree with us. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

i bet prohobitionists argued something similar, dont assume history will be fond of you, none of us knows how we will be remembered

heres the thing, the fundamental flaw in your argument, you are rallying for the rights of virtual, non-existent women, remember how everyone laughed at PETA when they were protesting agaisnt Pokemon and Super Meat Boy?

First, Prohibition was effort to legislate morality and impose it by law across the United States. The discussion about sexism in games is attempting to make the industry better by inspiring change from within. The two are not comparable.

Second, those of talking about sexism now and who did in the past (which included me, by the way) are not rallying for the rights of "virtual, non-existent women." We are and were rallying for real female gamers and players to be able to play games wherein they are represented as real women, not a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasy of one. To see themselves, their fantasies, and their dreams reflected in the games they play, just as we men do. Are you honestly going to look at one half of the human race and tell them that they can't have that?

If you want to be critical of our points, then that is fine - you have that right. But please get what we're saying right before you criticize - otherwise, you're just creating a strawman, and that is a disservice to the discussion.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Well, to start, it's not censorship. The first case is of an artist who was commissioned to provide something being told that it needed to be changed by the person who paid for it. Regardless of the reasons of why that decision was made, or whether he thought it was right or wrong, he had a professional obligation to his client. In his own time in art he has not been commissioned to produce, he remains free to depict women however he likes. And, frankly, his article is pretty tone-deaf, up to and including failing to recognize that Kratos and his costume is a MALE sexual self-image fantasy.

The second is a case of a developer changing their mind about a character design after deciding to consult with the community. Freedom of speech allows that - it's not censorship.

Censorship involves silencing somebody or something. It involves removing a thought from the discussion, rather than discussing it. It is imposed from without, rather than within. Please do not misuse the word.

so when its a male is a self-image fantasy?

im sorry but thats just moving the goal-post

self-censorship is a thing, and it comes from public shaming

the first person was forced to change his design because of the backlash, it doesnt matter if the order came from his boss

and i could also mention skullgirls and how the developers were shamed for their designs

when you accuse someone of sexist, when you call em misogyny or agents of the patriarchy or some other crap like that, thats not criticism, thats slander and public shaming and yes is damn wrong

you might not like the designs, that does not make the creator sexist

Slander has a specific definition. It means something that the speaker both knows to be untrue and that the speaker said with the intention of causing harm. If somebody makes a game where the men are dressed in proper battle armour and the women are in loincloths, then yes, it (and them) can be called sexist, and it's not slander.

arguing that a game that shows scandily dressed women is sexist

is like arguing a game that shows killing is sociopathic

Now, freedom of speech includes the freedom to be sexist. It also includes the freedom to call that sexism out and demand better. It includes the right to say "yes," to that demand, and also to say "no" to it. It only becomes shameful when that turns into threats and harassment.

And as far as your comments about "SJW"s and their place in history goes, I just want to point something out. Back about a dozen years ago, video games lost their freedom of speech rights. I am not joking - a court ruling declared that they could not receive First Amendment protection. It was "SJW"s like me and a number of other people who fought that decision and helped regain video games their basic freedom of speech.

We fought hard for the right to talk about video games and their content. We also fought hard for people like you to be able to disagree with us. Please keep that in mind.

arent you giving yourself too much credit there? dont you think it was just a group of gamers that earned that right back?

plus i could also argue that SJW are right now enforcing censorship, hate speech, corruption and nepotism across game journalism

i could but im not, because not all SJW are doing it

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i bet prohobitionists argued something similar, dont assume history will be fond of you, none of us knows how we will be remembered

heres the thing, the fundamental flaw in your argument, you are rallying for the rights of virtual, non-existent women, remember how everyone laughed at PETA when they were protesting agaisnt Pokemon and Super Meat Boy?

First, Prohibition was effort to legislate morality and impose it by law across the United States. The discussion about sexism in games is attempting to make the industry better by inspiring change from within. The two are not comparable.

Second, those of talking about sexism now and who did in the past (which included me, by the way) are not rallying for the rights of "virtual, non-existent women." We are and were rallying for real female gamers and players to be able to play games wherein they are represented as real women, not a 15 year-old boy's sexual fantasy of one. To see themselves, their fantasies, and their dreams reflected in the games they play, just as we men do. Are you honestly going to look at one half of the human race and tell them that they can't have that?

If you want to be critical of our points, then that is fine - you have that right. But please get what we're saying right before you criticize - otherwise, you're just creating a strawman, and that is a disservice to the discussion.

and why dont you guys make your own games instead of trying to force people to abide by your personal moral standards?

i wonder if japanese male gamers feel objectified by otome games

also half of the human race? are you aware that on PC atleast, between 75% to 80% of all non-casual gamers are male?

if you want to make a game that appeals to women, go ahead, i wont do a single thing to get in your way, but if you try to force your morality down people's throat, im afraid i cant get behind that

 

[Mikeyfell]

In what medium has criticism left art worse off? Are books terrible because there's literary criticism? Are movies worse because there are disciplines devoted to studying film? Is TV boring now that we analyze shows for social themes?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that serious artistic criticism could be anything but good. Personally, some of the most enriching discussions I've had have been over some of the most trivial examples of entertainment. So what the hell are people afraid of?

Art with a blind fan base.
I do reviews on Youtube, and I get dislikes on my videos, and comments like "You're just saying 'stop liking what I don't like'"

And the canned response to that is "If explaining what it does wrong makes you stop liking it you didn't actually like it in the first place"

People who don't pay attention don't want their eyes opened, because god forbid they might grow some standards.
Ignorance truly is bliss. Because if you're ignorant to true quality you become a customer for the other 99% of the content that's produced in this day and age.

 

[cainejw]

Well, to start, it's not censorship. The first case is of an artist who was commissioned to provide something being told that it needed to be changed by the person who paid for it. Regardless of the reasons of why that decision was made, or whether he thought it was right or wrong, he had a professional obligation to his client. In his own time in art he has not been commissioned to produce, he remains free to depict women however he likes. And, frankly, his article is pretty tone-deaf, up to and including failing to recognize that Kratos and his costume is a MALE sexual self-image fantasy.

I always have to laugh at this argument. Sexualized women are male fantasies and sexualized men are male fantasies. No matter what, males are the ones being served by this argument and it completely exonerates female sexuality as somehow non-existent and reinforces the radical feminist idea originating around Andrea Dworken that male sexuality is inherently prejudicial to women.

Sorry, but that's a discussion marred in sexism. Women have sexuality, and it can be just as visual as men's sexuality.

Women can be and are attracted to things like Kratos's costume. Also, there's this group of people in the world called lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. They also show attraction to sexualized men (gay men/bi men) and sexualized women (lesbians/bi women).

I really wish we could put to sleep this idea that women are never attracted to sexualized men when they so clearly are whether heterosexual women, lesbians, and bisexual women.