>>714790205Nice try, edgelord. I’m not lying. What I'm doing is calling out the industry for pandering to the lowest common denominator, whether it’s woke dogma or coomer bait. Games were better when they had balls, not when they’re jerking off to ESG scores or horny weebs. You want dignity? Demand developers stop treating us like braindead cash machines.
>>714790503You think we're mad about hot chicks in games? Nah, retard, this shit is about the lazy, soulless porn-bait that devs shove in to mask their dogshit writing and gameplay. It's not about "female beauty" being a green flag; it's about talentless hacks using jiggle physics as a crutch because they can't craft a story or mechanic worth a damn.
>people prefer something that looks goodNo shit, Sherlock. But when "looks good" means every female character is a walking OnlyFans ad with no depth, it’s not art, it’s pandering to coomers. Good games don’t need to lean on softcore to sell. Compare classic Lara Croft to modern titty streamers in AAA slop. One’s iconic; the other’s a cheap dopamine hit. Guess which one’s made by people who hate actual creativity?
>shit games despise female beautyWrong. Shit games exploit it. They don’t hate beauty; they hate effort. Slapping a half-naked waifu on the cover is easier than building a world that doesn’t suck. If you think that’s a "green flag," you’re the one buying into the marketing, you gullible fuck.