Is Catering To Women, Homosexuality and Minorities Restricting Game Developers' Creative Freedom?

[SuaveSocialist]

MikeRox said:

SuaveSocialist said:
"Is Catering To Women, Homosexuality and Minorities Restricting Game Developers' Creative Freedom?"

No. Creative freedom is restricted when women, homosexuals and minorities are left out of the equation. By addressing the existence of a broader audience than say, the male heterosexual majority, there is more room for creativity. Try explaining that to the SIGs, though.

1. I think you're misunderstanding the debate. The question is more "is being forced to include certain demographics for the sake of having those demographics" restricting creativity?

2. The very definition of creative freedom is that the creator can put whatever and leave out whatever they want. Saying you can do this, but must also have that, restricts creativity.

3. I still don't see how sexuality is even a factor in most games though. Is Mario straight or gay? How would you ever know this? Same for such as Link. Unless the game has a sex scene you don't really know and it doesn't come into it. Even a same sex relationship could be 2 bisexual characters for example. Its just irrelevant to most games.

1.  I just answered the question.  Sounds like some other people are debating a different question.  The question asked if catering to women, homosexuals and minorities restricts creative freedom.  No, it does not.  The creator may do so without "being forced to include certain demographics for the sake of having those demographics".   Acknowledging the broader audience does not manifestly require that males, heterosexuals and the majority be removed from the equation and said acknowledgement is not indicative that the creator was "forced" to do so.  

2.  The creator may cater to women, homosexuals and minorities without having been forced to "do this, but must also have that".  As you said, the creator can put in whatever.  That very well may cater to women, homosexuals and minorities.

3.  This is irrelevant to what I said.

My answer remains unchanged.