I put it in quotes because it's not a totally accurate way to put it. I basically mean the difference between a character dressing like a stripper with giant honkers for no reason vs a normal-looming character who has the camera constantly looking at them at exploitative angles. Basically elements of sexualization that are diegetically within the character's agency vs things that diegetically are not (or are fully non-diegetic).
The current devs are giving carte-blanche to the first one while trying to reduce the most blatant cases of the second one.
I think in the absence of a public statement confirming it, if you have to make a distinction between diegetic and non diegetic forms of sexualization to explain one part of the change it might just be that a bunch of users that love those parts of the game gross the publisher out.
Well, my initial wording was closer to that of the devs, talking about how the game features women who are "confident in their sexuality" or whatever but that some elements were "in poor taste", so theory liberal ideology/excuse-mongering is that the character models are characters expressing themselves and what they changed were a handful of instances where the sexualization, if anything, was going against the will of the character. I might just be talking in circles though.
I been puzzling on this one. Can you explain what involuntary sexualization is? I keep bumping into the “all sexualization is involuntary” wall.
Totally fair question!
I put it in quotes because it's not a totally accurate way to put it. I basically mean the difference between a character dressing like a stripper with giant honkers for no reason vs a normal-looming character who has the camera constantly looking at them at exploitative angles. Basically elements of sexualization that are diegetically within the character's agency vs things that diegetically are not (or are fully non-diegetic).
The current devs are giving carte-blanche to the first one while trying to reduce the most blatant cases of the second one.
Ty.
I think in the absence of a public statement confirming it, if you have to make a distinction between diegetic and non diegetic forms of sexualization to explain one part of the change it might just be that a bunch of users that love those parts of the game gross the publisher out.
Idk anything though so 🤷♀️
Well, my initial wording was closer to that of the devs, talking about how the game features women who are "confident in their sexuality" or whatever but that some elements were "in poor taste", so theory liberal ideology/excuse-mongering is that the character models are characters expressing themselves and what they changed were a handful of instances where the sexualization, if anything, was going against the will of the character. I might just be talking in circles though.