By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

Aeolus451 on 11 June 2018
Podings said:
KingCherry said:

Creators are increasingly being told who to appeal to, isn't that the point of the original comment? So it's not exactly sincere ranting that creators 'can appeal to whoever the goddam please'.

Well let me add to my rant. Creators can appeal to whoever they goddamn please for whichever reason they goddamn please, be it whether they have good reason for just wanting to, or that they are "told to" by interest groups, their own bosses, their marketing department, or their dicks.

Games were never NOT meant to be sold to someone, and you can just NOT buy the games that you don't like.

I rather them not fuck up the IP in the first place because I'm a fan of it. I want it to stay around. It's stupid to just let sjws/activists ruin everything by being quiet to their antics then voting with your wallet after-the-fact. So it certainly matters to the fanbase (the consumers) why the company does something that's not in line with their wants.



Around the Network
StuOhQ on 11 June 2018

I went into this thread expecting an ignorant regurgitation of "SJWs" and other such nonsense, and was surprised to see a relatively logical argument here. I do think that inclusion is a virtue in and of itself, but I also think most movies are created in a boardroom/think-tank (or at least written with that mentality) and story plays second fiddle to meeting the marketing checklist.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

DonFerrari on 11 June 2018
Podings said:
KingCherry said:

Creators are increasingly being told who to appeal to, isn't that the point of the original comment? So it's not exactly sincere ranting that creators 'can appeal to whoever the goddam please'.

Well let me add to my rant. Creators can appeal to whoever they goddamn please for whichever reason they goddamn please, be it whether they have good reason for just wanting to, or that they are "told to" by interest groups, their own bosses, their marketing department, or their dicks.

Games were never NOT meant to be sold to someone, and you can just NOT buy the games that you don't like.

Yes as much as they can do whatever they want with their products, consumer can complain. So why the need to attack OP and do name calling?

FentonCrackshell said:
At one point the people who whined about there being no representation were the worst. Now the people who are angry that there is representation are the actual whiners. Take the new Gears trailer for instance. It showed and no SJW jumped on how the main is female. It just released, looked cool, and people liked it. But the first post about it is some guy crying that a woman is the lead.

See, my take on these divisive things has always been that the first real step we'll take toward equality is when we can all show up in the same setting and it all be seen as normal. What I mean by this is that when whites can make racial jokes and not have to apologize or when a woman can be the star of an alien shooter and not have some insecure male cry because the alien shooter that’s always had a superman who can singlehandedly dispatch an entire alien army with unlimited firepower is suddenly “unrealistic” because now there’s a woman who can do the same thing. But in the end SJWs whine too much. And anti-SJWs whine about that all the time. EQUALITY!!!

Yes, equally can be very moronic.

Ripley was a regular woman, so she fought with woman strength and won because of her wits. If it was fantasy and she was super powerful then she handling them as let's say superwoman wouldn't be an issue at all. Issue would only be if she was regular woman but with power exceeding a strong male in very exaggerated way that suspension of disbelief couldn't cover.

I think it's bad if you try to use reality/story as base but do totally wrong things, like have Asian and black Asgardians, female knight division, etc. Now if it's fantasy, droids or whatever that is loosely based on real world or myths then you are free to do whatever you want (but as someone put in another post in this thread, the current problem that SJW brought is when a woman lead is cast several times they make her flawless and capable of solving everything alone and it makes it boring... which is my problem with Superman, that they make so overpowered that they need further shenanigans to try and make a conflict).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Podings on 11 June 2018
Aeolus451 said: I rather them not fuck up the IP in the first place because I'm a fan of it. I want it to stay around. It's stupid to just let sjws/activists ruin everything by being quiet to their antics then voting with your wallet after-the-fact. So it certainly matters to the fanbase (the consumers) why the company does something that's not in line with their wants.

Thing is, it isn't the activists that ruin anything. It's the management at the studios that make the games. They alone decide if they want to appeal to certain loudmouths. Your options are to shout even louder than the interest groups you disagree with, or to vote with your wallet. You can't make the people that a studio tries to appeal to just go away.

Besides, franchises have been ruined since time immemorial by IP holders trying to "expand" the audience. This is not a new development for video games either. This sucks, but the games that you love that already exist won't go away, and maybe eventually the franchise will come back around.



Podings on 11 June 2018
DonFerrari said:
Podings said:

Well let me add to my rant. Creators can appeal to whoever they goddamn please for whichever reason they goddamn please, be it whether they have good reason for just wanting to, or that they are "told to" by interest groups, their own bosses, their marketing department, or their dicks.

Games were never NOT meant to be sold to someone, and you can just NOT buy the games that you don't like.

Yes as much as they can do whatever they want with their products, consumer can complain. So why the need to attack OP and do name calling?

I didn't at any point call anyone names.

And I certainly did not tell OP that he can't do a rant.
What I did do was inform him that he sounded about as entitled as the people he feel companies are ruining their games trying to appeal to.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 11 June 2018
Podings said:
Aeolus451 said: I rather them not fuck up the IP in the first place because I'm a fan of it. I want it to stay around. It's stupid to just let sjws/activists ruin everything by being quiet to their antics then voting with your wallet after-the-fact. So it certainly matters to the fanbase (the consumers) why the company does something that's not in line with their wants.

Thing is, it isn't the activists that ruin anything. It's the management at the studios that make the games. They alone decide if they want to appeal to certain loudmouths. Your options are to shout even louder than the interest groups you disagree with, or to vote with your wallet. You can't make the people that a studio tries to appeal to just go away.

Besides, franchises have been ruined since time immemorial by IP holders trying to "expand" the audience. This is not a new development for video games either. This sucks, but the games that you love that already exist won't go away, and maybe eventually the franchise will come back around.

You contradict yourself when you in one post say he is acting entitled for complaining, and here say he have the option to complain louder than activists.

Podings said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes as much as they can do whatever they want with their products, consumer can complain. So why the need to attack OP and do name calling?

I didn't at any point call anyone names.

And I certainly did not tell OP that he can't do a rant.
What I did do was inform him that he sounded about as entitled as the people he feel companies are ruining their games trying to appeal to.

Calling someone entitled is what?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Podings on 12 June 2018
DonFerrari said: 

You contradict yourself when you in one post say he is acting entitled for complaining, and here say he have the option to complain louder than activists.

How is that contradictory? He DOES have that option. But utilizing it IS acting entitled. I'm not saying he isn't allowed to act entitled, but he might want to consider whether he wants to call it out as a problem that others do so, if this is the path he decides to follow.

DonFerrari said: 

Calling someone entitled is what?

Pointing out that someone expresses themselves in an entitled manner is not name-calling. I'm not even sure how I'd fashion that accusation into a namecall.  "You entitled little bitch!" would be a brash namecall, but even then, "bitch" would be the name.



bugrimmar on 12 June 2018

A good example of diversity in the right way is the Last of Us. Ellie has always been gay ever since she was created. I have absolutely no problem with her character whatsoever. Why? Because she didn't change halfway. In fact, I would be upset if they made her straight all of a sudden.

To the idiots who think there's something wrong with Ellie being gay, shame on you. There's nothing wrong with her. To the idiots who still do not understand what my rant is about, I hope you read this.



DonFerrari on 12 June 2018
Podings said:
DonFerrari said: 

You contradict yourself when you in one post say he is acting entitled for complaining, and here say he have the option to complain louder than activists.

How is that contradictory? He DOES have that option. But utilizing it IS acting entitled. I'm not saying he isn't allowed to act entitled, but he might want to consider whether he wants to call it out as a problem that others do so, if this is the path he decides to follow.
You can't say at the same time someone have the right to do something, but that acting on that right is entitlement. 

DonFerrari said: 

Calling someone entitled is what?

Pointing out that someone expresses themselves in an entitled manner is not name-calling. I'm not even sure how I'd fashion that accusation into a namecall.  "You entitled little bitch!" would be a brash namecall, but even then, "bitch" would be the name.

Because you aren't discussing his point or the merit of his point, but that he is entitled because he is saying it. And people in VGC seem to have an issue separating action and person, someone that acts that way is implicit that. How often do you accuse smart people of acting dumb? Acting dumb is the action of dumb people for example.


duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Podings on 14 June 2018
DonFerrari said:


You can't say at the same time someone have the right to do something, but that acting on that right is entitlement. 

Because you aren't discussing his point or the merit of his point, but that he is entitled because he is saying it. And people in VGC seem to have an issue separating action and person, someone that acts that way is implicit that. How often do you accuse smart people of acting dumb? Acting dumb is the action of dumb people for example.

I said it was an option, and that he was allowed to act entitled. It is is and he is. It's a free country.

And I did discuss his point, however vaguely. And while I admit that i could be more in depth and more accepting of his viewpoints, that does not make it namecalling to say that he's expressing an entitled stance. I'm not attakcing him as a person, but the nature of his writings.