While I don’t like neutering an artist’s vision in the name of conformity or commercial pressure, it’s generally a wise business practice to avoid deliberately offending your potential audience. I suppose a healthy gaming franchise needs new users to thrive, and maybe toning down the excess will broaden the game’s appeal.
I agree that neutering an artist’s vision is almost always a mistake, but I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed with the times as well? Furthermore, with patches, updates, downloadable content, and expansion packs for games, at what point is a game, as a work of art, complete?
How do you even begin to preserve a work of art when it is constantly changing and evolving?
I went off on a weird tangent about game preservation after my initial question, but that’s what I meant with my “I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed as well.”
If the artist’s views have changed, and they are either supportive or the driver of a change like this, is it neutering their vision? It’s certainly straying from the original vision, but I wouldn’t call it neutering.
When I think of neutering, or really, betraying an artist’s original vision, I think of something more akin to Terminator 2 (James Cameron was pushed to give the movie an open-ended ending), or, more recently, 2003’s Dumb & Dumberer.
One character is explicitly underage and sexually assaulted in game. Another is the “she died young and is a ghost so she just LOOKS young but she’s actually way older” trope.
This is definitely important in this case. While Skullgirls definitely had a following, it’s a difficult game to turn on in a couch setting because to those unfamiliar with the game, the style could easily come off as predatory.
While I don’t like neutering an artist’s vision in the name of conformity or commercial pressure, it’s generally a wise business practice to avoid deliberately offending your potential audience. I suppose a healthy gaming franchise needs new users to thrive, and maybe toning down the excess will broaden the game’s appeal.
That video you shared was great!
I agree that neutering an artist’s vision is almost always a mistake, but I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed with the times as well? Furthermore, with patches, updates, downloadable content, and expansion packs for games, at what point is a game, as a work of art, complete?
How do you even begin to preserve a work of art when it is constantly changing and evolving?
If an artist’s vision is sexualized children, maybe that artist needs an eye exam.
I went off on a weird tangent about game preservation after my initial question, but that’s what I meant with my “I wonder if the artist’s vision has changed as well.”
If the artist’s views have changed, and they are either supportive or the driver of a change like this, is it neutering their vision? It’s certainly straying from the original vision, but I wouldn’t call it neutering.
When I think of neutering, or really, betraying an artist’s original vision, I think of something more akin to Terminator 2 (James Cameron was pushed to give the movie an open-ended ending), or, more recently, 2003’s Dumb & Dumberer.
Is it childen in that game?
One character is explicitly underage and sexually assaulted in game. Another is the “she died young and is a ghost so she just LOOKS young but she’s actually way older” trope.
This is definitely important in this case. While Skullgirls definitely had a following, it’s a difficult game to turn on in a couch setting because to those unfamiliar with the game, the style could easily come off as predatory.