>>37790475Okay, fair enough, but just a thought exercise. Think about the following situations:
>dev is told his idea isn't feasible for a technical or budgetary reasonIs his idea being "censored"? You can say no because there's no way to actualize his vision, but at the same time the bottom line is that he didn't get to create what he wanted.
>dev decides on idea 2 over idea 1 because he thinks people wouldn't like idea 1 for one reason or anotherIs idea 2 being "self censored" by the dev?
>dev2 tells dev1 his idea is dumbIs dev2 "censoring" dev1?
There's a lot of other situations I'm not thinking of, but my point here isn't that what's going on is or isn't bad, but rather that the idea of self-censorship seems so broad it includes stuff we already take for granted, or might even be considered normal parts of development.
>>37790544Okay, but doesn't that kind of prove my point? By the definition being put forward there, the following things are self-censorship:
>when the rules of a network, rating systems etc cause people to not include something because they would violate those guidelines>when the artist thinks something is in poor tasteWhen you start bringing up something that broad, basically people only ever talk about it when it's something they like being censored. Like you cited Catherine for example, obviously they can't just straight up show sex happening if they don't want it to get an AO rating for example.
