>>21145352Alright, I have two points to make.
1) Where do you draw the line with "children?" They are not a single, solid demographic, or at least are not seen that way, otherwise they would not be broken up in the data shown. A difference of a grade or two actually matters and thinking of children as "everyone under 18" skews data and fucks with any ability to even argue. It's castration of a point by using an inaccurate generalization.
2) If it is "added" consistently, does it not then become part of the core to draw in the older audience that is intended to buy the product?
I think one of the problems with this discussion is that the terms "core" and "children" are really not defined well enough to understand what the fuck we're arguing about, and thus it is treated as though there is no wiggle room to argue by those with a mentality that the game is, in fact, directed at children. Irony in this is apparent in that "children" is such a loose term that the statement means virtually nothing.
If you find anything I just said to be wrong, please tell me. I actually want to come to a solid conclusion on this so we can have a historical precedent when this comes up in the future, granted /vp/ is not a hivemind and there will always be disagreement.
