I could see them bumping her up to 15 for whatever reason. Sometimes they do things like that. I don't think they would try to get away with pretending she's 18, though. I also think it's fitting that everyone in Bravely Default (even characters who were over 18 to begin with) was aged up by three years, so I was asserting that the increase would at least be a smaller one in X.

If I'm reading your last paragraph right, I think you're saying that there's no need to make changes to such a niche game? If that's the case I agree. I don't think there's any reason to make changes to this game no matter how much it would sell, though sometimes a tweak is made here and there to avoid the possibility of upsetting people, like the tiny edit made to one of the FE: Awakening DLCs.

That's a tough Q. I'd go with the 'dev team should make what they want' but of course there will be others who are strongly opposed with it and have a problem with it. Others may not be so comfortable with it, but if the designers want to do that or have some sort of agenda they want to do, I don't see why people should stop them. I'll just go with no.

Just to make sure I understand your position: the developer making it possible to sexualize a child is OK because the player is the one actually doing it?  

I don't think the sexualization of a character is only determined by camera angles, focus and lingering.  Outfits and poses can easily sexualize a character regardless of what the camera is doing.  

I was making a generalized comment and not referring to a single instance or game.  I will assume you are talking about 'Bravely Default' since that is the only game mentioned in the OP.  In such a case, I think all of these outfits sexaulize the character: http://www.cinemablend.com/images/sections/61392/nintendo_61392.jpg.  We can disagree on that, but I would find it suspect if you think any of those outfits are suitable for an actual 15 year old.  This french maid/bikini/lingerie outfit serves no other purpose than to be sexual.

kind of stupid, its a virtual character, regardless of how the character looks, theyre the "age" that you are told they are.
also, providing the private parts (vagina, nipples, penis, anus) are covered, they are dressed, if you go to a beach in summer you will see girls of all ages in skimpy bikinis, and guys striding around in shorts or just speedos, and thats widely accepted as normal.

I personally dont see why "scantilly clad" is wrong, if anything the issue isnt what theyre wearing, the issue is the minds of the people who view it and link it to sex based on nothing more than appearance.

How does the developer "make it possible" to sexualize a character? This isn't like GTA where characters are blatantly having sex and such. Does Smash Bros make it possible to sexualize characters because you can pause the game and look up the girls' skirts? There are trophies of Peach and Daisy in their Mario Tennis outfits, you can basically see their underwear, are they being sexualized? In any game that gives you a decent level of camera control, you can zoom in on whatever you like. People can sexualize anything they want with or without help from the developer.

If outfits alone can sexualize a character than explain how full-frontal nudity is not a "sexualized" outfit (or lack thereof). There are no sexualized poses in either of the games I'm discussing, so that's all you're going on here.

Bravely Default is an interesting case. The bikini is actually plot-relevant. The fact that it is 'sexy' is important. Anyway, consider the graphical style and resolution of the title -- does this really look more objectionable to you than visible male genitalia?

I was actually referring to Xenoblade X, the target of the recent criticisms. Characters can wear revealing outfits. This is a problem because one of the characters is a thirteen-year-old girl. But she can also wear any of the dozens if not hundreds of not-revealing outfits. It's not like you can strip her naked or put her in a sexual situation or position. Again, for the majority of the gameplay she would be obscured by her weapon anyway. This is far from an ecchi game, it just has some revealing outfits in addition to normal-looking military armor, ridiculous anime armor, classic sci-fi inspired stuff, etc.

I agree that people can sexualize anything, but that doesn't mean a developer should encourage the behavior.  Outfits and poses that have a sexual nature only feed into the idea of women (or men) as sex objects.  You were saying that The "sexualization" of the character -- determined by camera angles, focus, lingering -- is in the hands of the player.   While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that developers can limit such experiences if they choose - hence they 'make it possible'.  

I didn't play Bravely Default, but the article I read said the ages were changed to 18, sexual innuendos were removed, and sexual outfits were toned down for a western release.  They clearly agree that it was sexual in nature or they wouldn't have felt the need to make these changes.  I feel the outfit is more similar to lingerie than it is to a simple bathing suit.  I've never seen anyone wear a similar outfit to the beach or pool, but I have seen similar outfits in the bedroom (and porn).  The article also states that these changes were made without affacting the story or game.  So why sexualize a child in the first place?

I think the outfit in the link that you posted has a sexual intent (regardless of the resolution).  I honestly think the graphical style only makes it worse.  It looks like a 10yr old with an adult body in lingerie.  Visible male genitalia CAN be sexual, but isn't necessarily sexual by nature.  That was the whole point of my original comment 'nude =/= lewd'.  I can understand how someone might think they are the same thing but they are not synonymous.  There is a tremendous difference between nudism and porn for example.  I don't think the scene of Bart Simpson naked had any sexual intent at all.      

Make up your mind. At once you argue that outfits and poses alone can be sexual in nature, while noting the obvious difference between simple nudity and pornography. How can you reconcile this disparity? If nudity can be non-sexual, can't lingerie?

The outfit in Bravely Default is presented in a sexual nature. That's the whole point. The villain of that subplot seduces and exploits women with essentially a date rape drug. One of the main characters uses a sexy outfit to seduce him (or pretend to be seduced by him) and lure him into a trap. That's the plot. As for "why sexualize a child in the first place," as this is a single subplot of many in the game, I doubt this character's age was determined for that purpose. Naturally the outfit could be altered slightly and still be 'sexy', the character could have her age increased a bit without changing anything significant in this or any other part of the story -- in fact, for the localization this may have actually maintained the meaning better than keeping her original age. At some point I remember him saying that children don't interest him. In Japan, the age of consent is younger than in America, so I think the seduction of a 15-year-old might provoke different responses from different cultures... I'm no expert in world cultures though so this is just a thought.

Anyway, regarding the way the character's age was decided independently from her sexualization in this subplot, I think the same holds true for the outfit in Xenoblade X. They wrote a story involving a teenaged party member. All party members can wear the same outfits just like in Xenoblade, and it seems like this time rather than changing the outfit's appearance completely depending on which party member is wearing it, the outfits will have the same appearance across all party members of the same sex. This way each outfit only needs two different designs rather than one for each party member. They could have changed some of the outfits just for this one character, but it's really unnecessary. The first game also had a teenage (17) party member who could be stripped to her undies. I don't remember people getting mad about that? I think the absurd jiggle physics on the adults in Xenoblade were much more worthy of negative attention. I hope they fixed that shit in X, it was dumb watching them flop all over the place every time a woman turned to face a different character. Back on-topic, developers can do whatever they want to try to limit the player's ability to sexualize characters, but I think it's kind of like trying to prevent people from pirating your game. A wasted effort that won't really stop anybody and only inconveniences the player. After all, perhaps the best way to prevent the sexualization of any of the characters would be to remove camera controls entirely from the game. Obviously the developer wants the player to be able to equip their characters with 'sexy' outfits, and whatever you think about that, at least they're equal-opportunity about it. The dudes can run around in boxers and stuff.

Please explain the phrase "it looks like a 10 year old with an adult body." If she has an adult body, in what way does she look like a 10 year old? If you feel the sexualization of people or characters should be determined by how old they look and not how old they actually are, aren't you edging somewhat close to the ridiculous Australian censorship laws?

I'd hit it, in 5 years of course ;)

Even when I was younger, by age 13 most people were having sex. I have yet to come across a game where this occurs though.

Censorship is always bad, so no.