I mentioned majority as well and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter which.

Yes you are quite right. I looked over that bit when writing my comment and focused on the suggestion that this criticism stems from a minority. You were being more general than that and identifying as pressuring from any group, no matter how large, as an unwanted influence for change of a product.

I'm not talking about gameplay or balance, I'm mostly talking about story, concept work and theme related censorship. Gameplay alterations are an entirely different thing that have nothing to do with censorship as far as I know.

This is something I couldn't disagree with more. Not only do I believe the impact of thematic content is essential to how a game is experienced by players , but I also think that game mechanics have the at least theoretical potential to suffer from 'censorship', it just so happens that his a lot rarer and there is a lot less awareness of how this can happen such that players don't even perceive this as censorship.

To me the artistic and entertainment merit of a game stems from considering every element as a unified and hopefully coherent whole. If I am asked to assess a game's artistic merit, then my ideal way of criticising a game would be considering how the thematic and aesthetic content works in harmony with the game mechanics and system design. In fact I think a long standing blind spot of game criticism (at least outside of fairly insular academic circles) is a failure to evaluate games on the unity of all of these elements. (This is why I consider a game like Papers, Please to be one of the few true masterpieces created in the last decade or so.) Visuals and thematic elements don't have to just be a gloss that is painted over the top of a functioning game system to make it bearable to look at for hours on end. If I interpret a game as having a specific message, meaning or experience that the developers are intending to share with the player, then how every single game elements work towards that goal is something I will judge through that lens. To use a cliché example of the kind of stuff I see as a problem: A woman character who is wearing a bafflingly skin tight and unrealistic outfit seemingly for the enjoyment of male viewers, in stark contrast to the design and realism of other characters or the narrative arc of the game, is a mark against certain player's ability to experience the game in the same way others get to take for granted. It even does a disservice to what the developers may have been trying to achieve, as they are not even aware that their creative process is so deeply entrenched in background chauvinism (NOT misogyny. I think few 'defenders' of 'creative freedom' actively hate women, they and the developers they support are just ignorant of how naive their creative expressions are.)

If the developer of the next Senran Kagura game says that the physics engine carefully serves the purpose of jiggling the character's breasts in just the right thematically coherent ways, then I accept that game should be judged on whether all the various game elements do in fact serve that thematic intention. However, that in no way should deny me or anyone else from also criticising that specific thematic intention, or the developer's decision to satisfy that interest in the part of the game's audience. In the absence of any statements from an artistic creator saying that "x thing is trying to convey x meaning" (which is rare), critics should be free to assume that intention on behalf of the developer based on the evidence presented by the game, as well as question that intention. From what I've seen from the members of [redacted gaming controversy] they believe this behaviour counts as unethical corruption, which is ludicrous.

Put how many quotations around the word 'censorship' or 'forced alterations' doesn't change the fact about what they are. If you value games as art, even a little, you need to give people the creative freedom to even do 'mistakes'.

This is what I would say happened in the case of the Bat Girl cover. The artist created something, had the freedom to maybe make a mistake, and then was told that something they recently created was possibly a mistake based on changing social values. They agreed it was a mistake and changed it. They also didn't have to change it, nor did they have to agree it was a mistake. Everything about this situation reflects the kind of creative freedom that defenders of artistic freedom seem to think is in jeopardy. Really, it seems like the imaginations of these activist individuals seems to conflate "the capacity to criticise creative works" with "the capacity to control the means of production for creative works". In order to justify this suspicion, extremely vicious and patronizing theories about how their targets use guilt, peer pressure, emotional manipulation, sexual favours, and pretension to enforce this change in social values is invoked by 'consumer activists'.

Many of said sites do it for ad money only, they don't care either way. To think that they do is on par with delusional optimism because they are there to only click bait and the easiest way to do this is to appear controversial.

This is similar to the kind of bitter suspicion I was just talking about. Outlets that cater to the supports of these changes in attitudes are hand waved away as belong to exploitative meddlers. Organized media support for these views can't be anything but a manipulative plan to extract money (directly or indirectly) from people looking for controversy, and so long as it disregarded as insincere it can be ignored. Sure, specific articles published by these outlets aren't always Pulitzer grade material. Some are clickbait. But the existence of clickbait related to the subject matter of social justice does not invalidate the concept of social justice. There are plenty atheists, or economic libertarians, or gay rights activists, or whatever, fighting for increased recognition and control of problems they perceive in the world who might get pandered to by blogs or media outlets. But that doesn't automatically discredit the concept of their ideals.

That is just my opinion but then again I strongly disagree with unneeded radicalism in the world of video games as this is my hobby, job and passion and it has nothing to do with politics, sexual orientation or ethics as much as picasso's works are a state of how the black man is being suppressed.

I disagree. I don't think media products consumed by a society can necessarily escape being criticized for expressing what some perceive to be problems in the society that creates them. They are not rendered immune to criticism just because they are meant to be consumed as entertainment. They are not epiphenomenal smoke pumped out by the mind of society. This is just another way that the targets of criticism hand wave away from acknowledging their part in the problems some feel exist. All I can hear is, "Shut up, I'm just having fun", which is a response I can easily imagine might have been used to defend enjoyment of blackface minstrel shows as to the way women can sometimes be depicted in modern games.

Also humorously, if it wasn't for the context in which I was reply to your comment, I would say its hard to decide whether the following two parts of your comment apply to members of [that controversy] as to 'SJW' opponents of [that controversy]:

They know there is no winning the argument and don't want their workers, the developers, to have to deal with it. Some just outright fall for it thinking they are siding with the more rational side when in fact they are feeding the crazy it's attention cake.

Radicalism, being outrageously loud and controversial, overpowering people with copy pasta with no real logical conclusion isn't going to bring anyone together. More so it's harmful and alienating even people they deem to represent. That is just my opinion but then again I strongly disagree with unneeded radicalism in the world of video games

In my eyes, the members of that controversy seem convinced of their own radicalism, trading hyperbolic copypasta and alienating the people they are supposed to be defending in the service of their righteous radicalism they convince each other is objective and rational.