Finally. It's nice to see a sane feminist, it is very rare. [...] I'd hope feminist would understand male and female hormones are different. [...] Didn't expect to say that to a feminist.
Were these comments really necessary?
Finally. It's nice to see a sane feminist, it is very rare. [...] I'd hope feminist would understand male and female hormones are different. [...] Didn't expect to say that to a feminist.
Alternatively, CDPR wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
I mean, Roche calls her out for her dress, and she doesn't have anything to say about it. That's right, the writers had nothing to say in defense of how the character designer outfitted her.
This screams overgeneralization, dude. Most feminists are totally nice, I swear.Either way, I agree with you. Didn't expect to say that to a feminist.
I want to come back and address this for a second, because I think it warrants discussion.There is no solution or justification, sex sells. And as long as some woman use there womanhood for it in the media it will never change. Just open Instagram and see how many woman objectify themselves.
I am with you on this, but sometimes the problem is being pointed at men but the problem lies with both. As long as people buy these games where woman are overly sexualised, it wont go away.
Oh, when you quote it like that, it seems a little out of context. I'm from the UK, and we have something called banter. I suppose Anericans, etc cannot tell or "feel" it.
This screams overgeneralization, dude. Most feminists are totally nice, I swear.
I'm British. You were generalising and this post about Americans really isn't any better. Going into a thread about female character design and leading with 'those crazy feminists!' wasn't very clever. Why not just apologise and move on without putting it down to others misinterpreting your 'banter'.Oh, when you quote it like that, it seems a little out of context. I'm from the UK, and we have something called banter. I suppose Anericans, etc cannot tell or "feel" it.
Damn. Over here we can basically rip someone apart just as a little jest, and it would be done back unto us. I forget sometimes Anericans are a bit more sensitive for some reason. I'll try to refrain from inadvertently upsetting you.
I'll edit my original post.
Okay, dude. I don't doubt it. Just like some meninist and cult groups have nice people. No, I'm joking. Damn, I wish banter was universal.
On a serious note; I have had bad experiences in the past. Don't feel comfortable saying it here, but don't mind PMing. So I have only ever seen feminist and meninist in a negative light.
Being in this forum has really shown that there are, indeed, "good" feminist out there.
Sorry again for my Brit humour/banter. I'll refrain from it here.
Okay, I re-read by post, and it's definitly a generalisation.I'm British. You were generalising. Why not just apologise and move on.
Oh, when you quote it like that, it seems a little out of context. I'm from the UK, and we have something called banter. I suppose Anericans, etc cannot tell or "feel" it.
Damn. Over here we can basically rip someone apart just as a little jest, and it would be done back unto us. I forget sometimes Anericans are a bit more sensitive for some reason. I'll try to refrain from inadvertently upsetting you.
Quiet: what men want.
Snake: what men want to be.
It's all about what men want.
Is this really so hard a concept to grasp?
It's oke, Generalize a bit more. I know women that want to be Quiet and men that don't want to be snake.
As for censorship, from wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus.
This is how I define it, and it's close enough for me to say that this kind of criticism IS related to censorship - bearing in mind the community consensus part of the definition. Trying to create a community consensus whereby people can't or won't make certain types of art - that's absolutely censorship.
Much like any criticism of depictions of people in games, any one specific creative can depict their characters how they like, but when a visable trend across multiple popular franchises occurs (combat lingerie, female characters having skimpier outfits than male ones with the same job), that trend has a far greater impact on the audience than the sum of its parts. Games aren't toys any more, it's a huge media industry, and as such should be used to criticism.
It's oke, Generalize a bit more. I know women that want to be Quiet and men that don't want to be snake.
Great post, most will forget this though. This happens on both sides as attraction and generally anything sexual sells due to us being humans.Straight male content creators creating content that is their visions/likes primarily, which lines up with being interested in the opposite sex, and idealized "beauty" in the opposite sex. As it's fantasy, you can create slim models, big boobs, big butts and perfect skin very easily. No real-life actors are needed. It's like customizing a sex doll for your creation. Some good reading starting points here
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01205/the-triggers-sexual-desire-men-vs-women
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...iggers-sexual-desire-pt-2-what-s-erotic-women
and using that as leverage in many genres that are still heavily male-dominated
https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/
https://quanticfoundry.com/2016/12/15/primary-motivations/
It would be like asking why in the thousands of romance novels that exist, the male archetype is routinely financially successful, tall, dark-haired, in-shape (sometimes muscular, but at least not overweight), adventurous, risk-taking and often quite dominant/forceful. A difference between novels and gaming though is literally hardly any males read romance novels (because males prefer visual stimulus), but even with the stats/polling above, many females play games. Therefore, on the argument of sales, it can be argued why would romance novels try and be more diverse as no males would buy them anyway? They're catering almost exclusively to their target demographic and the stats back it up.
It's mainly a combination of what ticks in the male generalized creators/audiences minds, sexually/erotically, and how the target marker stacks up for potential sales/interests (is this genre heavily male dominated?). Diversity can come from creating less risk adverse content, and potentially more employment diversity in the industry. Plus, not every male dev/content creator does put out adult/sexual content, there is diversity in the market currently even if many argue it's not currently good enough.
Explanations for why above, including biology/psychology, shouldn't be mistaken for me suggesting that it should always be the case. Some people ask why, but then don't want to engage in some realities as to why.
Sex always sells, prostitution is the oldest work there is for a reason. Sex is a basic instinct and therefore always sells. The degree may be different from game to game, but it always sells, period!I think the "sex sells" thing, at least as far as it concerns videogames, has been more or less debunked. Most games that focus on showing boobs and have nothing worthwhile to back that up (gameplay, story, whatever) rely on a small but dedicated niche audience to sell at all. So basically:
Pretty much this, make it 50% and everybody is happy. I don't interfere with your male fanservice and you don't interfere with my female fanservice.TBF it goes both ways you don't see anywhere near the same amount of female orientated fanservice as in some Japanese games anywhere in any retail western game. Female orientated fanserice generally does not exists. The difference is in japan that's still reasonably niche in games but common as fuck in manga/and becoming more common in anime. So all you generally see is ludicrous female objectification. It won't be going away anytime soon but there does seem to be surge in female operated works and more and more companies recognise the power the yen female otaku's have.
The best case scenario your going to see is a bit more equal opportunity ludicrious objectification.
Great post, most will forget this though. This happens on both sides as attraction and generally anything sexual sells due to us being humans
No, really this whole sex sells thing is reductive and simplistic and "men creating what they like" doesn't begin to cover all of the issues that feed into this but I've already addressed this and don't particularly feel like repeating it. It's a good start and includes data but if all this was as simple as "men like looking at tiddies!" it would be easier to solve. It's not easy to solve.Great post, most will forget this though. This happens on both sides as attraction and generally anything sexual sells due to us being humans.
Sex always sells, prostitution is the oldest work there is for a reason. Sex is a basic instinct and therefore always sells. The degree may be different from game to game, but it always sells, period!
I mean, there are games with classy female designs and they sell well (better than fanservicey games, even!). That's the only argument needed, "sex sells" doesn't apply to everything, everytime.
I agree! I have no problems whatsoever with fanservice games. But exactly as you said, fanservice becoming the norm is not something I want, personally. The should be room for games that aim for classier designs, you shouldn't have to be forced to abandon a genre.And honestly I'm totally fine with fan service games out there. There are games that definitely skew to a male audience (senran kagura, onechanbara, DoA), but it's when this shit seeps sooooo often to "mainstream" games it gets annoying, as well as the defenders of the "sacred art" of showing off giant tittied woman and upskirt camera views for the amount of females arbitrarily dressed in miniskirts or tight bubblegum butt spandex
I feel this point is overblown. Yes we are """sexual creatures""" but no one has ever died because they didn't get laid (don't joke, I get it haha 'don't use it you lose it' w/e, you still WILL NOT DIE because your bones weren't shook).
If anything the effect of a constantly reinforcing culture are, if anything, overlooked.
I feel a part of the issue of sexy women in games is less "but men liked to look, we're built that way" is way easier explained because the culture at large enforces and constantly reinforces sexual/pleasurable imagery --- especially with women because we constantly enforce the idea sex sells. We are so used to sexual stimulation at this point and the internet and media we have make it easier than ever to be exposed to it (and we are).
Chicken or the egg, basically; does art imitate life or life imitate art (or very likely both; but media can much more easily 'blow up' that message).
Also prostitution might be old work, but i highly doubt it was the ideal work women who get into that work really want to do (we just know men are willing to pay stupid amount for it, which helps a disenfranchised woman).
Yes, I was discussing this with someone else yesterday. We definitely need a re-usable bullet point of all the bad arguments to avoid. The most tiresome ones to repeat, IMO, would be those:With a view to a better thread next time, honestly, I feel like these threads need a beginners guide.
1) nobody wants to remove the cartoon titties. If you like a particularly niche otaku game, it's probably not one of the ones being talked about here, which is why characters in multi-million sellers like Quiet pops up more than schoolgirl ninjas in these discussions.
2) criticism is not censorship. We criticise some aspects of games all day long without demanding their expulsion from the industry. There are loads of recurring topics on game design here that address aspects of the final product, rather than demanding for the product to stop being made.
3) Better character design includes better sexy character design too.
4) Better approach to romance and relationships means better writing and ultimately better intimacy/sex in games.
5) criticism of characters in combat lingerie isn't kink shaming. Loads of people have kinks. You like what you like, that's cool. However, understand the effect on society in general if mainstream games often depict women as sex objects with regard to the fact that its a primary media source for a shitload of women and girls who buy a shitload of games and make up half the audience.
*cringe* You apologize for making generalizations, then you generalize Americans and British people; you refer to your inane generalizations as "banter" or "humour" (no one's laughing, so take the hint), and then you somehow make this all about you. Please stop derailing discussions like that in the future. It's OK to not post. Sometimes, it's better to not post.Oh, when you quote it like that, it seems a little out of context. I'm from the UK, and we have something called banter. I suppose Anericans, etc cannot tell or "feel" it.
Damn. Over here we can basically rip someone apart just as a little jest, and it would be done back unto us. I forget sometimes Anericans are a bit more sensitive for some reason. I'll try to refrain from inadvertently upsetting you.
I'll edit my original post.
Okay, dude. I don't doubt it. Just like some meninist and cult groups have nice people. No, I'm joking. Damn, I wish banter was universal.
On a serious note; I have had bad experiences in the past. Don't feel comfortable saying it here, but don't mind PMing. So I have only ever seen feminist and meninist in a negative light.
Being in this forum has really shown that there are, indeed, "good" feminist out there.
Sorry again for my Brit humour/banter. I'll refrain from it here.
Edit: Changed my original post slightly. I was thinking my post was quite positive towards OP.
Coming in a 30 page thread to say something that's been addressed countless times is obnoxious. I hope you realize that. Read the thread if you're interested in finding out, or leave if you aren't.
Right. It's like the "what about yaoi/otome visual novels, huh?" argument. Comparing specific niches vs comparing mainstream. If the objectification of women were limited to Vita titty games, hardly anyone would care.I don't understand the romance novel comparisons. You're comparing an entire medium (video games) to a genre (romance) in a medium (the novel) with far, far more diversity. Call me when the majority of the fiction you find in a library - not just one section - either doesn't include a representative sample of male protagonists/characters and hypersexualizes them when they do include them.
Woof. I don't even know where to start, or if it's worth the effort in the first place.In my opinion if they keep it even I am okay with it. It is fictional work after all and therefore should be free. I will always be for good, strong female characters in all genres and situations.
Art imitates life and life imitates Art to some degree, still, as sentient creates we can differentiate between both of these. That is the reason why I will always stand on the side of creative and artistic freedom. If you want to make some depraved stuff in fictional content I have nothing against it.
I can agree that sometimes the sexual imagery in media is too much and we should take a more layered approach that promotes different stages of sexual imagery. A simple naked body can be sexual but also can be totally normal for example.
Probably doesn't help that humanity always has been a patriarch society due to how biology structured the two genders. If we can level it down to an even level I am totally for it. Totally swinging into the other direction would be bad in my opinion, a female dominated society is as bad as the male one we currently have. I am however positive in that it will change over time to a more even state as gender lines loose their pronunciation and the spectrum of what both or rather all genders encompasses changes.
Of course not all women did it because they wanted to or liked it, the same as it is today. They did it because it made money and let them survive. Doesn't change the fact that sex always sells as long as the general public is not able to discern the difference between various stages of "sexual content" or content in general. You see this a lot in analyzing the story of a game, the art, the game mechanics, etc. . Most only look from one side and never notice the other because it takes mental effort to do so. I think I can make the conscious effort to buy a game because of fanservice while at the same time I can not do it as well.
In the end, make a game with female fanservice how they like it. I would play it if the game is good or I am generally interested and would just ignore the fanservice.
The only problem is that those games wouldn't sell as much and companies would stop down this path fast. =/
Probably doesn't help that men seem to be more focused on visual attraction while women value protection, parent ability and financials more due to instincts of protecting their children.
I may be wrong but I never red about a woman saying "The way he dressed forced me to rape him", only men seem to use sentence.
Yup. This shit right here makes me quit games. Talk about being ripped out of any sort of immersion. "Here's the part where you stare at the hot lady"Yeah, I think my biggest issue is not even character design (although trust me, some of the costuming leaves a LOT to be desired), but mainly the "camera" or "gaze" of what it does to the female characters. All the low, lingering shots... that's, to me, where it becomes painfully obvious that the assumption is that the player is male. It's coded into it, right there, that this is where we'd want our eyes to linger, to take in, to ogle. And that sucks. A woman is being implicitly told that this game wasn't made for her.
Even if a male character is designed to be this buff, half-naked beefcake (which I would argue also isn't for the female gaze either, but everyone has different tastes), the camera rarely will zoom and linger on their ass, their crotch, etc.
This is such a good post. And to take it even further, it brushes uncomfortably close to the idea that men don't have any self control, etc., and I doubt anyone wants to forward that kind of damaging, toxic discourse. We do have control. We do understand that there are times for fan service and times for not. We can make decisions about how to do things in certain ways, and when, particularly when dealing with artforms, and even when these artforms are group efforts.I feel a part of the issue of sexy women in games is less "but men liked to look, we're built that way" is way easier explained because the culture at large enforces and constantly reinforces sexual/pleasurable imagery --- especially with women because we constantly enforce the idea sex sells. We are so used to sexual stimulation at this point and the internet and media we have make it easier than ever to be exposed to it (and we are).
Chicken or the egg, basically; does art imitate life or life imitate art (or very likely both; but media can much more easily 'blow up' that message).
Especially when it's something like the Quiet torture scene in MGSV, which spends an inordinate amount of time focusing on her breasts... while she's being tortured.Yup. This shit right here makes me quit games. Talk about being ripped out of any sort of immersion. "Here's the part where you stare at the hot lady"
You can send me a PM if you want to further discuss it and it turns Off-topic. If I said anything wrong or you don't agree you can argue with me and I am open to change my mind. =)Woof. I don't even know where to start, or if it's worth the effort in the first place.
You can send me a PM if you want to further discuss it and it turns Off-topic. If I said anything wrong or you don't agree you can argue with me and I am open to change my mind. =)
Maybe something was misunderstood as I am not a native English speaker.
Yeah, that's better than my list.Yes, I was discussing this with someone else yesterday. We definitely need a re-usable bullet point of all the bad arguments to avoid. The most tiresome ones to repeat, IMO, would be those:
- No, it's not just "fringe feminists" or "American/puritanical prudes" that care about that (aka "it's manufactured outrage");
- Yes, devs are ALLOWED to do what they want, criticism isn't censorship or censorship advocacy;
- Criticism of a product isn't a judgment on people who enjoy the product;
- "I enjoy T&A, I love my fanservice, so I don't care" -- good for you, now go away, this thread isn't about you;
- "My <insert female SO> enjoys it" -- yeah well my boyfriend thinks you're wrong so THERE;
- "Sex sells" is a reductive, dismissive and overly simplified way of looking at things, just coming in the thread to declare that "sex sells" or "men love tits" is not helpful.
- Sex != sexism. Sexual content isn't inherently the problem: sexist content is, and is what is being criticized.
nah. it's a terrible post. it was a whole lot of words that say something very obvious without adding to the conversation while obfuscating this person's complete inability to understand what is actually being discussed. it's bait designed to get people to quote it saying "great post".
people are horny. great insight. it's not an excuse for anything and exactly the kind of bullshit deflection we are constantly fighting against in these threads.
I'm just tired and a lot of those arguments have been addressed numerous times in this thread.
Not trying to be a bitch, but I would strongly advise you read the thread or at least the last few pages or so to get an idea where we're coming from.
No need for apologies, I wasn't offended. It's just tiring, man.Sorry if it offended you and it has been addressed. As you correctly assumed I haven't read all 30 pages as I haven't been on Reset for a while. Therefore I am sorry if I said things that were mentioned and corrected before.
Quoting for good measure.I have to agree with the OP.
I am finding that the more I play games, the less tolerance I have for overly - sexualized designs. I could understand the position if that extended to both sexes equally, but when it doesn't, then I don't feel the developers have made their case. I do realise that there is an inherent part of our nature that we desire certain things more than others, and that could be the same for both sexes or different. Does that mean that service providers should exploit or pander to those desires as they deem fit? My opinion is that they should not.
In life, we generally, consider out actions and their consequences. Is it beneficial for me, for others? Is it right, is wrong? Is there really a need to do it?
Is it beneficial?
For the developers behind this objectification, yes. At its most basic, they feel this will appeal to the sexually tuned demographic, usually male, and this will hopefully lead to maximised sales, and profit. That's a conceived benefit. Is there a basis? According to this http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2649-sex-sells-more.html from back in 2012, it does. But also it suggests that it takes more explicitness to grab our attention and arouse us. So where do we stand in 2017? And at what point do you draw the line, and say this much and no more? If that statement is true, that we have become inured to such designs and imagery, then reasonably such an approach will eventually be ineffective. The only logical path for continuing in that direction will be to become more explicit, otherwise what's the point?
I'll answer that question. If we exclude the above reasoning, then the point is that designers wanted it due to their predilections. The same consumers who profess to 'love the boob' are of the same mind-set as those producing it, in some, if not most cases. The more explicit, if not outright porn, anime are examples of this. It follows through in other entertainment media, from comics to film. Thus the salacious desire of the consumer is transferred when they become the creator. Then it's not primarily about business, but fulfilling their desires foremost, with the expectation of finding a like minded audience, second.
This reminds me of Gwynevere in Dark Souls. If I recall the interview correctly, her design was initiated by the designer to whom Miyazaki capitulated. To me she stood out in a game filled with the beautifully grotesque. For arguments sake, assume you agree with the following: is she beautiful? Yes. Is she grotesque? Yes. Grotesque in that she is huge in stature and more so her breasts which practically drape on the bed. However, she stands out in the game because there is no deeper meaning to the nature of her grotesqueness. She just has large breasts. No different than a female character that is sexualized in any other game. It's telling that in a later interview, Miyazaki showed doubt about that decision.
To use the already mentioned 'go to' examples of Quiet and Cindy's, characters that are clearly sexualized. Quiet's sexualization is front and center. Her outfit is skimpy, emphasising her body, her scenes in the game are designed to be titillating. The camera manipulates your attention, on occasion taking control and forcing you to be part of that sexualization. With Cindy her breasts are prominent to her design, the red bra actively drawing your attention before your gaze moves to the rest of her design. Both are separate games, both share the same philosophy: the objectification of women by accenting parts of their body and the display of their flesh. I don't believe in MGS V there's a male equivalent comparable to Quiet. Neither do I believe the same is true for FFV. There is no male that has their penis accentuated in a similar fashion.
Is it right?
I believe not. At the stage the work is private, you only have to answer to yourself (assuming the content is not illegal). The moment you offer it to the public for consumption, then you assume the responsibility for your work, its impact, and it's discussion. Are you perpetuating a cycle that has a negative affect on the female population of society? Does your work add anything constructive to it? By that I don't mean the discussion we are having right now, but does your work present an objectified female character and then address that issue in a meaningful way in the work? No? Then you've failed, in my opinion.
There are arguments that this is just fun, and harmless, that people are just being prudish. I think that's being dismissive. Men, mostly, are hot wired to appreciate the female form. That doesn't mean that that desire should be pandered to. As mentioned before, once that desire is met, they'll need to go further to get the same effect, otherwise it will be more of the same.
Is there really a need to do it?
Only if your pandering to your own desires and those of your audience. Then at least be honest for why you're doing it and your intent. If you're saying Quiet is a strong character And her sexualization is part of her character, then you better address that in your game. If you can't, you've failed. The other approach is to include it in your game If you're attempting to use it as a theme in your work, where you are actively examining the subject. Moving the conversation forward.
In conclusion, for every Horizon and Aloy, there are multitudes that are happy to continue objectifiying women. Given the history of women in society, I think self-reflection and being responsible is more beneficial than continuing to perpetrate the same old denigration in the name of fun and self-gratification. This is just from the top of my head, so I expect my opinion might not be fully fleshed out, but I look forward to any examination of it.
I really didn't want to go down the hole in this thread, but i can't understand your stance of it's ok if women choose to do it, but not ok if a fictional character chooses to do it? really makes no sense.I want to come back and address this for a second, because I think it warrants discussion.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're mistaken in a lot of ways. Sure, there are women who post the sexy pictures for male attention, but others just want to look and feel good. A woman's identity is not based upon her inherent sexiness, or lack thereof. The people who post the pictures obviously want to be noticed, and there's nothing wrong with that. Same goes for the men who post shirtless muscle pictures, if you want to go down that road. It's normal for both genders to want their bodies to be appreciated, but in a respectful, non-derogatory way.
The difference between those pictures and media objectification of women is the choice. Women in real life choose to post those pictures, whereas shoehorning an objectified character into a video game for the pleasure of men is not. It's a choice that the dev themselves make, and not a choice that the female consumer base makes. We have no say in the matter, just as you have no say with the inclusion of Buff Shirtless Dude #386.
There is also a choice made in how a female character is presented, which is often drastically different from her male counterparts. It's been said time and time again: women are typically sexualized for male consumption. Men are sexualized as an assertion of power and dominance. We could also go down the rabbit hole of "women on Instagram and real life are also pressured into being sex figures for men", but I really don't want to get into that because I'm tired and my lunch is getting soggy.
I really didn't want to go down the hole in this thread, but i can't understand your stance of it's ok if women choose to do it, but not ok if a fictional character chooses to do it? really makes no sense.
The whole thread really boils down to i don't like "X" and it's irrelevant what X is. living in a free associate means you can not like stuff, you can choose to complain about it, not support , protest it, etc but pushing other people to say they shouldn't like it or trying to make other people see why it's so offensive, is pretty much the same as pushing anything on others. You can voice your opinion protest games, not buy them etc it's your right, but in the same sense you can't argue devs shouldn't have the right to make their characters how they see fit because then it goes into social pressure oppressing other people's freedoms which isn't right
Criticism is a form of censorship, and so what? We're not talking about government censorship. There are many things we, as a society, have decided to generally not do in our various forms of media. I think avoiding harmful depictions of women is a good addition to that list.
And more generally, to address some of the arguments I've seen here, remember there are two issues here. One is the issue of women not feeling comfortable playing games with overly sexualized women in them. If that were the whole of it, there might be some argument for "why not just play something else." But the second is the issue that it's reinforcing harmful stereotypes, not to mention inspiring future game designers. And that effect holds even if no woman ever plays another one of these games. So yeah, I'm willing to say that I'm all for pressuring game makers not to do that anymore. And I'm willing to say that's censorship.
Apparently super duper hard. As hard as reading apparentlyno one is pushing other people to say they should or should not like whatever
devs can and will still make whatever they please
some women are saying we find a few issues with a thing. that we have criticism of how women are widely sexualized in mainstream gaming. THIS IS NOT "pretty much the same as pushing anything on others".
say, a person go and see a superhero movie. then they say, this movie suks. this is CRITICISM. it is NOT censorship.
howwwwwwwwwww haaaaardddd is itttttt geeeeeezus
How in god's name does an inanimate, fictional character choose to be designed a specific way?I really didn't want to go down the hole in this thread, but i can't understand your stance of it's ok if women choose to do it, but not ok if a fictional character chooses to do it? really makes no sense.
The whole thread really boils down to i don't like "X" and it's irrelevant what X is. living in a free associate means you can not like stuff, you can choose to complain about it, not support , protest it, etc but pushing other people to say they shouldn't like it or trying to make other people see why it's so offensive, is pretty much the same as pushing anything on others. You can voice your opinion protest games, not buy them etc it's your right, but in the same sense you can't argue devs shouldn't have the right to make their characters how they see fit because then it goes into social pressure oppressing other people's freedoms which isn't right