IGA Gamasutra interview | August 21 2017

Well the truth is that IGA also said that personally he didn't care whether they'd have a male or female lead. Also, Miriam wouldn't be a better character if they went with a different gender. They didn't compromise or made it worse by making this choice. So I wouldn't call that "submitting to the PC crowd".
Also, she wasn't "only made as a result of the PC/feminist movement". There's much more to her character than that. She was made to have a main character with an interesting backstory and some cool abilities etc.. If you cannot look past her gender and at all the other details making up her character then that's your thing of course. But honestly, I'd prefer not to have this discussion in the first place. People (and video game characters for that matter) are more than just their gender.

It was in a planning phase and nothing was decided when he made that decision, as far as we know. This was well before the Kickstarter was launched or even known of - and that certainly begs the question of how exactly ZeroSbr knew about the gender change before the actual character. I mean, unless you found out about Bloodstained through an article about the character being changed, that doesn't seem possible...and I don't think I've seen an article about that. Hopefully I don't, heh

The reasoning of that decision is a simple one, and I can't say I'm mad at all with the suggestion of it. Strong female leads are certainly a great thing - look at this at face value and not about feminist movements or whatever, powerful girls in games are cool. They can be strong and still have some femininity, too. I'll allow some leeway of how Miriam carries herself since she has to power through a castle of demons while struggling to survive her evil magic cancer.

I completely agree with you here.
I've been hoping that they at least change her idle stance though I don't think that will happen now.

I want Miriam to come off as strong and the current animations (idle, shooting, whip) just doesn't do it for me.

Some general comments (since I've seen this sort of conversation like 34242512 different times across my time on the internet):

A) Art has never been and never will be created in a vacuum. It is often a collaborative effort (do you really think IGA isn't bouncing ideas off his coworkers?) and at a minimum is always a reflection of the environment it was created in and is influenced by its patrons, its audience, the life experience of the artist, etc. An artist responding to the world around them is not a concession to outside forces - its them using their eyes/ears and thinking "Is that a good idea?", "Do they have a point?", "Should I try this - what new avenues and opportunities could this open up?", etc. It's called being smart and open-minded. An artist can then use their brain and either accept or reject these ideas. If they accept an idea that means they themselves think the idea is good. It is a reflection of them doing what they want. If you have an issue with that you're going to take up issue with the artist.

B) If you look at the pre-production/concept phase of any product, you'll notice that things like character design fluctuate WILDLY. Even if IGA started with a male character at first, there is no guaranteed it would have stayed that way to the end. There is no guarantee that such a character would in any way be better than what we currently have or that you would have liked it. The first draft of any product tends to be subpar. There's little point in getting attached to vague pre-production content that very little is known about. I also think the sentiment is weirdly misplaced since the last true game of this type IGA made featured a female protagonist who is one of the more popular characters in the series and the game is recognized as one of the best of the series. Clearly this is a space the developer already has and is comfortable working in.

C) I've honestly starting to really dislike the word "pandering" regardless of which "side" is using it. 8/10 times people use it nowadays to mean "something done to appeal to group X that doesn't appeal to me or I don't care about". By that definition literally everything is pandering to someone - including that thing you really like that you'll swear isn't pandering. Actual pandering (the type worth lambasting) requires dishonesty (promise you do X to become popular but it's clear you're lying/stretching the truth) or doing something you know will make your product worse off overall for the sake of sales. I don't feel actual pandering is the definition that has been used in the thread so far and I don't think actual pandering applies to Bloodstained with regards to this topic.

D) If one truly believes X doesn't matter (in this case a character's gender) then one shouldn't care that it was changed one way or the other. To be clear its totally fine if you don't care about X (again gender here). However, if you DO care then you are admitting that it DOES matter and that others are in their right to care. Since nobody put a gun (literal or metaphorical) to IGA's head (which is true in 99% of these sorts of scenarios) you have to ask yourself why it would bother you that an artist voluntarily took the temperature of the gaming climate to do something that makes a lot of people happy with no negative effect on the product. If you truly don't care but it makes other people happy, what's the issue? Would you feel this way if a game designer decided to change any other aspect of their game (level design,  difficulty, controls, etc.) due to either feedback or considerations for the current climate in the video game industry  or just general culture? Those are all in the scope of "artistic vision". If not you have to ask yourself why.

E) What is "PC culture"? My experience is that often (the majority of the time) when people complain about "PCness" they are saying "I want to be an asshole without consequences" or "it bothers me when marginalized groups speak about their concerns and desires at all". I'm not going to make assumptions about what is happening here. In general I will just say those who feel that way (and there are MANY) are at best poorly/mis-informed and at worst......well there is a pretty wide gambit of ne'er-do-wells Developers have never been known to bend to the whims of a few idiots or the hysterical. However, if a broad group of people are making nuanced, respectful criticisms or commentary (the vast majority of people) then developers would be stupid to not at least listen and consider their perspectives. It's a good idea both from a moral perspective and an economic perspective.

To be clear this isn't an attempt to throw shade at anyone in particular but rather I felt compelled to pick away at what I find faulty assumptions, faulty understandings of how the creative process works and wonky term definitions - all of these tend to plague these sorts of discussions. Consider it a mini-rant; hopefully its not too "hot" a take If you want to talk more (it's fine if you don't), feel free to message me instead of posting in here if you want to leave the rest of the topic to discuss other parts of the article. Either way is cool

EDIT (this is about another topic going on in the thread): I can't say I have much issue with Miriam's idle (are we talking about the "kung fu" stance?) or attack animations. It's not clear to me how they come off as especially effeminate. The gun stance for what its worth reminds me a lot of classic duel posing. It might help to get some gifs or video clips to use as example to highlight particular stances that bother people?

Yup. That's the only one among my gripes that is feasible or likely to change.

Ya this would work.
Or just add a stance for the weapon type you have currently equipped.
The one we have now fits perfectly with the shoe type weapons.

Haha, I just woke up and the first thing I read is Pure Miriam's post. It's a better way to start the day than even coffee! Thanks.
.