>>324115526 I kinda wish the leotard version didn't go up the ass so much, I'd like it more if it was closer to this, with the tail included of course. I'll still be using it when I get the game, but I know it's gonna bug me when I unlock it.
You can out the girls in bunnysuits for the two SK 3DS games, although it looks bad in the SK2 since the cleavage got covered up and a bunch of tacky looking shit was added on. I figure the vita games also have the outfit, but I don't have it yet.
I wish the game had costumes to go with all the head piece. What's the point of angelic halos, succubus head batwing, cat ears or devil horns if there's nothing to match it on the body? I mean come on, a variant of the bunny suit with cat tail, or some white angelic gown wouldn't have been too hard to put in the game instead of those 50+ fucking tank tops
>>324122205 I go to pornsites when i'm horny and need to release I look at pretty girls in public or on tv or in my games or wherever to just get a nice taste of visual pleasure And when you order a hamburg you want some lettuce on it, doesn't mean you're in the mood for the full salad, just a little lettuce on it is nice. Just a little sexy girl here and there when you don't need to fully release is nice too.
I don't understand the stuff that was censored in this game. I'm not even talking about Lin. I mean the weird things they censored elsewhere but not in other cases, and this skimpy thing BUT NOT THAT SKIMPY THING and blah blah blah.
But most of all censoring the Traditional Japanese costumes seems.... why? I mean, who the fuck would a traditional japanese costume offend?
>>324117138 Not him but I have an honest question, do you believe that every person on this planet wants sexy stuff in every game? Just, honest question. I am not talking about having lewds in the games where it's obviously meant to be there or devs wanted it, I mean, do you believe that every single game should have stuff like that regardless if it fits or not?
>>324122521 So why do people hound 1 thread out of 150 just to show off how pissed they are about sex appeal in video game? No one is physically being harmed by it. Everyone has their own kink, getting overly upset over trivial things just makes people look like a sheltered child. It's time to act like an adult because if it wasn't for sex, you people wouldn't even be here right now.
>>324122521 >Just a little sexy girl here and there when you don't need to fully release is nice too. And by the same logic you might not want any lettuce on there too. But stating an opinion like that on /v/ marks you as an SJW, might I add not even saying that games shouldn't have sexualized stuff, just saying that you don't like it is bad.
>>324122783 >do you believe that every single game should have stuff like that regardless if it fits or not? Someone who likes sex appeal in every game would probably also feel that it always fits. Such as myself.
>>324122892 Cause they're taking out options in the game's we paid for. If I pay for a game and when I play it am in the mood to have the character in the censored outfit, I should be able to have that option and not have it stripped due to sjw faggotry
>>324122970 We are not talking about X, what this thread is basically asking is? >Why doesn't every hamburger have lettuce? Which is same as >Why doesn't every hamburger remove lettuce? If you ask me. Why are you giving priority to inclusion of one thing in every game as opposed to exclusion of the thing from all games AND ALL GAMES MIGHT I ADD. According to this thread regardless if it's a survival horror, rts, CRP or any other genre they all should have lettuce, again regardless if the dev wants it or not.
>>324123032 That's stupid, there is no other way to describe it. This isn't about Witcher lewd scenes which are okay, this is about Triss walking in a thong mid-dramatic scene. If you prefer comedy and lewds over every single other emotion and experience, than sure, but I can't see how otherwise one could constantly enjoy that.
>>324122783 Do you believe every person on the planet wants to play video games? What you think is acceptable and what is not the deciding factor for what developers put in their games, at least not on it's own. People sometimes have to go with what actually sells a game more and it just so happens that putting a lot of politically correct values in a game will earn you far less than it would have if you shoved a lot of sex and gore into it.
>>324123132 Every hamburger I've ever ordered comes in one of several 'types' that have things on them at a base, and you can 'opt in' to have certain elements removed. This is a choice, and is good for business. Having a hard recipe that they refuse to alter is usually bad for business, no matter what group said recipe serves when unaltered.
It's the pasta sauce marketing concept, we used to have far fewer pasta sauces, but one day this dude figured out that people liked other sorts of pasta sauce in a test group. They'd made few types because people always bought those, but they only bought those because that's all there typically was, so they started making other sorts of pasta sauce and they expanded their user base and increased sales.
Options are good. Having the outfit in there for the perverts is a wonderful thing, removing an outfit meant for perverts is a terrible thing because having it in didn't force the user to, well, use it. Having options, even options not everyone is into, expands a user base as proven across multiple markets.
And there are tons of perverts. To this day one of the most profitable and medium changing things you can sell is SEX, not matter how little or how much, how soft or how hard, how subtle or how explicit - sex sells like crazy. Sex, pornography has pushed and changed and evolved more mediums out there than you can rightly imagine, and it's still doing it to this day.
>>324123298 I believe that dev has full right to put whatever he wants into his game and seeing that Fallout 4 which doesn't have any Doomlike gore or any explicitly sexual outfits is the third best selling game this year after COD and NFL, I am pretty certain that lewdity and gore has very little to do with sales anymore, this isn't 90s. Sales depend on this >Is marketing good >Did it get some sort of media backlash that could damage the sales >Is it from a line of a popular game series >Is game about something that is currently popular and trendy or something that has always been popular But most importantly it's the marketing. Now no doubt sexualization and gore or any other aspect of a game might increase sales to a certain audience, but that's not waterproof, certainly not more waterproof than whatever Bethesda and Activision are doing, which is mostly catering to casuals. Now that we got the stupid sales argument out of the way... I also believe that the dev has the right to put whatever he wants into his game and seeing how indea games like Undertale get popular out of nowhere and bring quite a nice sum to their devs, that can work too as long as your game is actually not shit.
Basically what it boils down to is this, majority of fagots on /v/ like lewds, and there is nothing wrong with that. Majority of fags try to justify it with sales and other bullshit so that they can shitpost about people who do not like lewds. Simply put, you would have to give me some form of statistical study or evidence before I would believe you that sexualization has anything to do with videogame sales today. You just want lewds and it has nothing to do with games content, quality or sales.
>>324123298 I will never understand how people can get their panties twisted this much over some halfnaked polygons. I had Fiora die in the swimsuit and the only thing it did was made the flashback funny.
>>324123819 >no gore Fallout 4 has tons of gore. >no skimpy outfits Not only are there skimpy outfits, but the same skimpy outfits the females can wear, the males can wear too.
Let's also remember that one of the selling of Bethesda games is modding, and that some of the first mods for FO4 have been mods that implement skimpy stuff, nudity and all sorts of sexually charged mods. People know, at a base, when they buy a Bethesda game like TES or FO that they'll get stuff like that through modding even if it isn't in the base game because Bethesda support modding at a base unlike many other games, some of which are hard to mod for in the first place, and some which developers purposefully discourage or even punish modding in.
These are massively important points to realize when talking about a Bethesda game.
>>324123436 What you are stating right now is not even about sex anymore, because as I said dev can do whatever he wants, but instead you have stated the dreaded >Devs should open up to wider audiences That's what you basically said, games should strive to hit for every single niche. That's impossible, simple as that, it is not fucking possible and again I am not even talking about aesthetics or sex here.
Because of people like you today we have Skyrim and Fallout 4, both casualized pieces of shit non-RPGs which as Todd himself has stated are trying to make RPGs a thing for everyone. Appealing to everyone ruins it for everyone who isn't the biggest audience.
>>324124037 That's only what I said if you take it to the most extreme extent. Rather it's pointing out that people that like "X" may like several varieties of "X" rather than just "X" and may like to customize "X" to an extent, but not to the extent that it becomes "Y" because, yes, people like Pasta sauce, and may want to try different types of pasta sauce but probably not to the extent that they've replaced every aspect of pasta sauce to the extent that the pasta sauce is now Vegemite.
Yes, you can find ways to refute my points, but as you've done so, you've only done so by taking the points to an extreme that was never intended nor suggested.
>>324124030 You are again talking about a niche >Not only are there skimpy outfits, but the same skimpy outfits the females can wear, the males can wear too. Please show me a pic or name said armor.
Now for the modding part, what you have stated is a meme and demonstrably false. You can actually compare downloads and ratings of mods on Nexus modding. Sexual content has it's audience, sure, but the top mods are always mods that increase immersion, add random stuff like sandstorms, add more needs, custom questlines etc. and I am not even mentioning the absolute top which are always without an exception UI,game fixes and graphics mods. The option to get lewds is there, it's even bigger because it's fucking modding community where you can get loverslab with dog pregnancy and all that, but if you believe that majority of modding base is using those, you are wrong.
>>324124192 Why not take it to extreme though? Because for some strange reason the biggest argument to always pop-up in these threads is money and that sex appeal is profitable. Well what's even more profitable is modern western AAA industry which have it all boiled down to a perfect formula and /v/ is constantly fighting that bullshit, and rightfully so.
>>324124037 The problem is we're talking about things already in games, options that already exist, that are being removed "BECAUSE REASONS". Essentially we're talking about the removal of choice versus leaving in the things and letting people choose to or not to use said things.
The Hamburger point is apt. The Hamburger comes with Red Green and Blue toppings. You may choose to order the Hamburger and get all the toppings. You may choose to not have one or even all of the toppings. You cannot choose to have Purple on your Hamburger unless you take it home and have purple on your shelf to use yourself (this represents modding, if you're too stupid to follow).
Hence we're describing a game that ships with skimpy outfits and practical outfits and melee combat and ranged combat, for example. You can choose to use the skimpy or practical outfits or use both as you please. You can choose to spec into melee or ranged or do a bit of both. All these things are int he game and there for the good of the user experience.
Then you have people that say one of these things shouldn't be in the game at all, so next version of the game comes out and it has all the things but then it's ported to the west and one of those things is removed because people might be offended by it. Nevermind that you have to do extra work to remove said thing and nevermind that the user could have just decided not to use the lettuce. You've taken away choice, and not some form of choice that goes to far or tries to do everything. It's the sort of choice the game had at a base and it was removed, actual resources and time and effort and manpower expended to remove these things ALREADY PRESENT all in the name of pleasing people that could have already been pleased by leaving in the outfits and said people just not using them.
>>324123819 >seeing that Fallout 4 which doesn't have any Doomlike gore or any explicitly sexual outfits is the third best selling game this year after COD and NFL, I am pretty certain that lewdity and gore has very little to do with sales anymore, this isn't 90s. Holy shit guy. Correlation does not imply causation.
>>324124503 What gave you the idea that I am for removal of content when I said that I believe that lewds are alright, but that the threads topic implies that something should be in every game regardless if the dev wants it or not.
You need to decide, is this about artistic license or about sales. If it's about the prior than lewds are absolutely okay, but what's more important is that if someone wants to make game with zero lewds or an even more extreme case, some retarded dev wants to release a full on tumblr trans game they have the right to do so. If this is about sales than you can push lewd in whatever game you want because you might believe that it will sell more...and the same way you can straight up remove chunks of content if you and your marketing team believes that it clashes against ideals of a certain audience and would create backlash/be bad for sales.
So go ahead and pick one, unless you want to pick the mess of a third option which is incoherent >EVERY GAME SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE Which will always lead to modern AAA industry until we have some crazy AI supercomputers with VR that lets us fucking create whatever virtual universe we want.
>>324124583 That's true, but has anyone in these threads ever brought any statistical evidence that sex, more importantly this particular kind of sex, sells in videogames? I mean, the burden of proof is upon every fag that posts that shit of an argument.
>>324125429 >Hyperdimension Neptunia games keep selling somehow As some other certain anon said in the thread >Holy shit guy. Correlation does not imply causation. That being said you will not be able to find any evidence to support your claim because sadly videogame journalism doesn't bother with any actual studies of "gamers" or the market.
>>324126334 SJWs aren't the problem, the internet is. Why would you pay for pics of naked women when you can find millions of it on the internet for free? The only down side though is that you won't be able to find nudes of girls who work for playboy anymore.
>>324129127 >Also porn is cancer. Too bad anon because as the old saying goes, the internet is for porn
>>324123756 Yes. Some games that may have had playboy bunny costumes had to be altered or removed in the U.S edition because of the copyright playboy has on them, how NoA managed to keep it in the game is beyond me.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.