I've said this twice in the thread already, what's wrong with my answer?
Like I'm totally willing to critique the game, but I have no idea why people have to lump in "they're catering to a horny otaku base" with this premise that nudity can actually serve a purpose, and that the problematic element of the game isn't that there's 16 year olds in the nude, but that they've sexualized the visual component. When people come in and say "well they don't have to be nude" that isn't a worthwhile critique because not only was it the artists intent to have and use that nudity in a meaningful metaphor for one of the games central themes, but is also justified by the plot itself as a logical component.
Saying that the portraits uncomfortably sexualize women is a great critique, saying that the activators are in unnecessarily gendered locations is great, talking about how the narrative itself can go male gazey with a couple of the offhand remarks Ogata makes that sexualizes women is a point I've mentioned before, etc. I think it's great to engage in what's problematic, and have in myself tried to do a "mega post" containing the most severe cases of problematic elements the game has so others could be aware (including what I consider the less well done parts of the LGBTQ aspect).
What I loved most about the game was the narrative. I think the narrative is better for having them nude because it makes sense and has a meaningful metaphor. I think the videogame as a whole is worse for sexualizing women and children, and could have been better. That's what it means to like something but be willing to engage with its core problems. If the cockpits would have been merely headshots (and yes, not had their hair/face accessories), I think it would have been a better game. They still would have been nude though.
