Is there anything lamer than people posting bingo boards? The nadir of internet discussion. Just write a list of arguments you don't want to engage with.
Then again this is a thread that is about "Why don't hate you what I hate? I'm so disappointed in the audience", so tact is out of the window.
Summer Lesson seems like a fairly innocuous game where the dirtiest thing going on is going to be in your mind, and it probably knows that. Talking to a cute girl is not "fanservice", although evidently it's not exactly pure either. It does seem boring and gimmicky, but I think novelty of VR may make it worth a try. I wouldn't be surprised dating sims, including the ones with the naughty bits, were valid early steps or experiments in how we do role-playing and human to human interaction in videogames; this seem kind of like that.
It's about execution when it comes down to that. The key criterion, IMO, comes down to the word 'senseless' and how context justifies 'senselessness'.
Does said work handle problematic topics/content well? More specifically, does it indulge in the problematic stuff? Does it have something to say about the issue(s), or does it provide a new perspective on it/them? Does it contextualise them in a realistic way?
(Of course not everything has to, especially works which are lighthearted or have a lot of levity.)
For instance, that massacre game. What's it called. "Hatred"? IIRC it did critically badly because it didn't have anything new to say and just indulged in senseless behaviour. But plenty of games with violence do not indulge in the senselessness. Some do - and again, that's fine if executed right- instead they contextualise it and make it part of their narrative. That's an important part of Western action games: contextualising the violence. In your example, imagine a game adaptation of American History X where we play a white supremacist. Even if we only played the home drama bits. That would be saying something about white supremacy, and when the player is forced to attack his sister, the violence would be contextualised and have a dramatic purpose.
...
This probably deserves more since I'm branching out on a few points, but I'm going to try to be succinct, even to a fault, since I don't want to write as much as you did right now. You restrict art too much to "narrative". Your basing everything on "senseless behavior" fails to consider the context of indulging in aesthetics, through abstraction and stylization. Not every game is trying to build a logical world or make that world at the center of the experience (ironically, this is anything, but "senseless", it involves the stimulation of our senses). A fighting game with outlandish characters paired with illogical inability to step sideways (unless a specific animation calls for it) can be beautiful and engaging even if it is not working with a story-based context. Along those lines, things like sexualized camera direction, characters yelling out their attack names or doing JoJo's-style poses, or not moving in combat in a JRPG, are not significant problems with "context", because the context of art exists above "setting" or "story" or "realism". At the end of the day, all of the various ways to make a game work is based on the "experience" of it, not some strict rule-set of what stories are supposed to be like and whatnot. Story/setting-context is not an end, it's a means.
As for "problematic" content and Hatred vs. sexy games, you are equating the narrative context of civilian massacre with sexual indulgence (and I struggle to see how Summer Lesson enters into it, since it features no explicit content). "Problematic" simply means "I have a problem with this" (or the people you are representing do), so it's not a stretch to say there are people who don't have a problem or have as much of a problem with different things. Every game depends on how it deals with "problematic content" (i.e., the parts you don't like), and "problematic topics" just adds another reason to have a negative reaction to something. Indulging in parts you don't like and indulging in parts you find problematic is the same thing. Trying create a special rule-set for problematic content through "realistic excuses" is a distraction, especially to people who don't find that context problematic or problematic in the same way. (I'm purposefully ignoring the whole aspect of "this game will change you into a worse person in some way" aspect. Plenty of other people seem interested in challenging that in this thread though.)
Hatred is actually not "senseless", as you put it. It simply deals with an unpleasant and extreme narrative context (suicide-homicide killing spree). Compared to something like Postal or even GTA (admittedly both more humorous games), it actually goes out of its way to give the game a really heavy stylized look to empower this dark, twisted aspect. This is different from characters doing sexy poses towards an otherwise unacknowledged player-controlled camera, which lacks of that context. Whether it has something to say (also lol at their being all these "new" things to say) depends on what you read from it (as it is with all art, messages are created by the audience based on their own understanding). It's impossible to walk away from something without a message, even if it's one you don't like or take pleasure in. You can call Hatred nihilistic or deconstructs common decency, but those are in fact "messages" that say something about life. (I would reiterate that I think the experience is more important than (or perhaps just uses) the message you want to conjure up in a highly immersive work of fiction.)
And through the whole "I'm going to gleefully murder people with a head-exploding shotgun and ninja-kill them before they react, but I can only feel okay if they says they are THE TERRORISTS" thing we can see a sort of discomfort (and dishonesty) with the fact we like the killing part (including the aesthetic of it) too. Not acknowledging that, as a game which is more concerned with the aesthetics than the excuse may force us to, comes across as burying your head in the sand. I mean what else would you call trying to create a mile-wide barrier between Hatred and GTA?
Things I learned recently about GAF: it seems a very progressive hive-mind but it's actually full of closet alt-right anime lovers, who would go to any length in order not to have their fun spoiled by any sensible or reasonable opinion.
Sorry OP, if someone is already so invested in the game as to declare that he would buy it and play it without thinking about the very evident issues you pointed out, there's no convincing that could make them think otherwise. You will only get back vitriol and sarcasm to reflect back any possible introspection. No discussion will ever happen on these basis.
You were disappointed you couldn't join a hive-mind? Not sure who you are insulting more, "left" GAF, secret "alt-right" GAF, or yourself.
