| the_dark_lewd said: |
I wrote : "I was more so having careful doubt before THAN believing there was no agenda"
Which means I was recognizing that there was probably an agenda, but that some people flew off the rails too quickly, and I didn't want to be a part of that.
Although honestly, I also wrote that "I don't think having a non-toxic agenda is bad". Which I stand by. Many developers who are pretty obviously far left-leaning are not doing harm by putting political undertones in their games. And I think that people should remember that political undertones in a game is part of the art making process. Not that you should buy products that you fundamentally disagree with, but that you should be able to give different viewpoints a chance, ask yourself if the ideas hurt the game to an immense degree, and if you can't do the first two ... at least try to set aside your huge bias and give it a chance.
Of course, that kind idea of giving stuff a chance starts to wear thin when you start going to the degree of not only censorship, but censorship that lines up with the controversial sides of a party that for the most part a majority of rational people can look down upon. I don't think censoring "white man" was meant to be an attack on white people, most likely it was a way to try and steer the topic away from identity politics. What a fucking failure that is, though, when you only censor the one word combination correlating to a vast percentage of your audience ... at this point, it's just too much ridiculousness to handle, even if a lot of it is just bad PR and developer mistakes on their end.
Trevor Noah, the Anita Sarkeesian meetings, honestly that never bothered me. And that's saying a lot, because if I had joined VGChartz back in 2014/15/most of 2016, I probably would have been banned multiple times for shitting on "muh feminazis" and "muh libcucks". The same arguments that have been made against the far left for years now are just as true as they were upon conception, the problem is that you now have an opposing side that is equally problematic in a lot of ways. So, I'd rather just understand the individual philosophy of each game and developer, and not just shut out the entire community of possibly far left leaning game devs.
Trevor Noah is not funny at all, I've hated his show for a while, dude's the definition of an unoriginal democratic comedian. However, I can safely say that I never even thought for a minute of a possible controversy around hiring him. Maybe there was some progressive slant, but most likely it had just as much to do with his politics as the fact that he's the new baby face in the late night comedy scene. Before he was hired for The Daily Show, he was constantly being recommended by Jerry Seinfeld to takeover, and Jerry Seinfeld is not an extremist in either direction (even hates far leftist ideas!). I think there might be an argument to be made that a lot of these companies do not understand how much of their audience is republican ... or maybe .. a better way to put it is they didn't understand how much of their audience cared about the most minute things? I mean, I think even among right wingers being offended by Noah is odd ... it's like finding Ketchup too spicy for your palette.
Honesty, it would be better if both sides just stopped acting like they can't handle different opinions, like they were babies that needed to be protected from any possible influence they might not want.
It sucks because I think this is all just a marketing and developer disaster. I'm fully confident in saying that I don't think there's some racist boogieman at DICE who hates white guys and programmed this in the game. But they did so much stupid shit. And in the end, it's DICE. The most overrated multiplayer developer of the last five years. This is not a hill to die on, haha.
