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

Forums - Sony Discussion - The Naughty Dog Agenda

As long as the games continue to be good then I don't mind.



Around the Network

with regards to your feeling of being patronised the narrative is set up so you feel like a victim and seek to bring about revolution to enact "social change"... which is pretty much code for the stripping away of rights from everyone so that the "victims" feel "protected" and "safe"

with regards to naughty dog... yeah they've definitely changed a lot just look at chloe in unhcarted 2 as opposed to now... i suppose many would call the change progress but personally i think the underlying agenda is a stupid one and has already caused and will continue to cause more suffering in the groups its supposed to be helping... although as i said initially that's the point



I thought putting pants on a bandicoot was pretty progressive back then. We pretty much had it coming.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

deskpro2k3 said:
twintail said:

Because 2 girls can't kiss?

if it was a dude and girl, or a dude and a dude. I'll still think it's unnecessary.

I understand what you're saying.  It felt like that whole, long scene existed to say, "look, they're lesbians!"  Replay that entire scene with a guy instead and most people, including me, would say that it was overly drawn out.  I don't see how that changes just because it was two girls.



Damn it, I thought this was going to be a video about how there is an agenda to hype up and make Naughty Dog games seem better than they really are! Ergh! Guess I'll just have to make that video my own some day ; ) 

In all seriousness, this video is a bit conflicting. The basic points that are being said are reasonable, however they aren't really connected very well to what is being presented. Once you step back and realize that this entire video was created because of nothing but some tweets and the kissing scene from the E3 trailer, the whole point seems to be kind of lost. Sure, it connects to a greater overarching narrative about the new Naughty Dog as a whole, and there is some truth to what is said. But when there's basically no tangibility for your complaints, it can be hard to take you seriously, particularly when you're centering your video around how the "Naughty Dog Agenda" affects their games. 

I will say that I think Nadine is a pretty bad character in Uncharted 4, and I didn't even know about the romance being implied (or "shoved-in") by the developers on Twitter until watching this. But, what's so frustrating is - Robin states he doesn't even dislike Nadine in Uncharted 4, and the tweets are easily the least important thing mentioned in the entire video, essentially bringing us back to square one. 

Further on the topic of Chlodine (Nadine x Chloe), I think there is a bit of wish fulfillment here. While it's easy to believe that Chloe was created with no homosexual tendencies in mind, and that those most responsible for creating Chloe might in fact have had a different image for her ... game studios are comprised of many talented individuals, and it can be tough to trace the lineage of these characters. If the creators of these characters - whether they be the specific employees who brought them to life, or just the company who owns them, wants to change the characters - what is the problem? Obviously, I'd prefer that the former be the case and not the latter, since there are a lot of scenarios in media where companies change characters in ways we view irredeemable. But with such a large company as Naughty Dog, it's unrealistic to assume that these changes are completely without merit or thought put into them, that they are inherently "for an agenda". Robin might be - and probably is - right that these characters are being changed for an "agenda", but the people who decided to interpret these characters as completely heterosexual made that assumption themselves. I'm not for the changing of characters for reasons that seem idiotic, but Robin literally admits in his own example that this did not affect the game, and that these modifications were not added to the story of the game. 

But by FAR the worst thing about this video, is just how deceptive the use of the word "agenda" is. Robin describes gamers as people who just like to chill, who just like to watch cool stories, who don't care about how superficial their characters are as long as they are cool - and says this all while talking about The Last of Us, a game which goals has always been to set a different standard. Yet he has the balls to say that he cares about "cool stories" whilst simultaneously calling any potentially alienating theme as nothing more than a piece of the agenda puzzle? Seriously? He complains about a kissing scene in the E3 trailer because it's to suit an "agenda", even though the entire point of that scene - to show the contrast between Ellie's lighter and darker side - was extremely obvious. The problem isn't that his use of the word is technically incorrect, it's that he just throws in every theme under the sun under the umbrella to try and make it seem like it fits. The word "agenda" is just used as a boogie term to get people mad and scared. If The Last of Us didn't try to touch on themes that could possibly be upsetting, it wouldn't be interesting. Naughty Dog is trying to push the boundaries with their gore to make it as upsetting as possible, because they know that if they let you take your eyes off from the bloodshed for even a minute - you might mistake this as just another video game where you can feel good about slaughtering endless numbers of people all for some "noble" goal that conveniently suits your own desires. And what we're stuck on, is if two girls kissing is just a way for a company to attention whore a progressive them. That's exactly why it's in the game.

I find this whole "I support gay characters and can easily identify with them if they're well written - but I don't want them to show their sexuality in an E3 trailer" thing offensive. I understand it doesn't come from a place of hate, because I would have 100% agreed with this video a few years ago. But it's just so blatantly short-sided. "I'm ok with you being the way you are, but you shouldn't be like that around me", "I'm ok with you being the way you are, as long as you don't show it". I know Ellie isn't a real person, but if Rob is going to treat The Last of Us like some kind of inspiration for him, he should at least give it enough respect to understand how maddening this kind of idea is. 

All this video does is tell us is that Naughty Dog as a studio has an agenda. So what? That isn't a convincing argument, because it isn't an argument. Naughty Dog wears it's "agenda" on it's sleeve; it's not up for debate if they have an "agenda". What this video does poorly is try and connect it to a broader point about their art, and if that agenda should be supported or not. 

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood incorporated black cast members as a way of showing the peace between people of different skin colors in the ideal picture-perfect neighborhood. It was symbolic. For children, it was subtle, and ingrained in them the idea that it wasn't so odd to see such relations between people of different races.  For cynical adults, it probably seemed pretentious or as if it was pandering to certain people. Of course, there is a massive difference between this example and that of Naughty Dog, but it all comes back to the same point. No matter what the intentions are or how extreme the creators are, the point is to normalize a diverse set of people in video games. And yes, it might be a little awkward at first, it might be a little forced at first, but that is the growing pains of an industry that is moving towards a more inclusive direction. And even if that isn't something that needs to happen, even if studios are arguably "overcompensating" now, I think it's for a goal that at the end of the day is good. 



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Damn it, I thought this was going to be a video about how there is an agenda to hype up and make Naughty Dog games seem better than they really are! Ergh! Guess I'll just have to make that video my own some day ; ) 

In all seriousness, this video is a bit conflicting. The basic points that are being said are reasonable, however they aren't really connected very well to what is being presented. Once you step back and realize that this entire video was created because of nothing but some tweets and the kissing scene from the E3 trailer, the whole point seems to be kind of lost. Sure, it connects to a greater overarching narrative about the new Naughty Dog as a whole, and there is some truth to what is said. But when there's basically no tangibility for your complaints, it can be hard to take you seriously, particularly when you're centering your video around how the "Naughty Dog Agenda" affects their games. 

I will say that I think Nadine is a pretty bad character in Uncharted 4, and I didn't even know about the romance being implied (or "shoved-in") by the developers on Twitter until watching this. But, what's so frustrating is - Robin states he doesn't even dislike Nadine in Uncharted 4, and the tweets are easily the least important thing mentioned in the entire video, essentially bringing us back to square one. 

Further on the topic of Chlodine (Nadine x Chloe), I think there is a bit of wish fulfillment here. While it's easy to believe that Chloe was created with no homosexual tendencies in mind, and that those most responsible for creating Chloe might in fact have had a different image for her ... game studios are comprised of many talented individuals, and it can be tough to trace the lineage of these characters. If the creators of these characters - whether they be the specific employees who brought them to life, or just the company who owns them, wants to change the characters - what is the problem? Obviously, I'd prefer that the former be the case and not the latter, since there are a lot of scenarios in media where companies change characters in ways we view irredeemable. But with such a large company as Naughty Dog, it's unrealistic to assume that these changes are completely without merit or thought put into them, that they are inherently "for an agenda". Robin might be - and probably is - right that these characters are being changed for an "agenda", but the people who decided to interpret these characters as completely heterosexual made that assumption themselves. I'm not for the changing of characters for reasons that seem idiotic, but Robin literally admits in his own example that this did not affect the game, and that these modifications were not added to the story of the game. 

But by FAR the worst thing about this video, is just how deceptive the use of the word "agenda" is. Robin describes gamers as people who just like to chill, who just like to watch cool stories, who don't care about how superficial their characters are as long as they are cool - and says this all while talking about The Last of Us, a game which goals has always been to set a different standard. Yet he has the balls to say that he cares about "cool stories" whilst simultaneously calling any potentially alienating theme as nothing more than a piece of the agenda puzzle? Seriously? He complains about a kissing scene in the E3 trailer because it's to suit an "agenda", even though the entire point of that scene - to show the contrast between Ellie's lighter and darker side - was extremely obvious. The problem isn't that his use of the word is technically incorrect, it's that he just throws in every theme under the sun under the umbrella to try and make it seem like it fits. The word "agenda" is just used as a boogie term to get people mad and scared. If The Last of Us didn't try to touch on themes that could possibly be upsetting, it wouldn't be interesting. Naughty Dog is trying to push the boundaries with their gore to make it as upsetting as possible, because they know that if they let you take your eyes off from the bloodshed for even a minute - you might mistake this as just another video game where you can feel good about slaughtering endless numbers of people all for some "noble" goal that conveniently suits your own desires. And what we're stuck on, is if two girls kissing is just a way for a company to attention whore a progressive them. That's exactly why it's in the game.

I find this whole "I support gay characters and can easily identify with them if they're well written - but I don't want them to show their sexuality in an E3 trailer" thing offensive. I understand it doesn't come from a place of hate, because I would have 100% agreed with this video a few years ago. But it's just so blatantly short-sided. "I'm ok with you being the way you are, but you shouldn't be like that around me", "I'm ok with you being the way you are, as long as you don't show it". I know Ellie isn't a real person, but if Rob is going to treat The Last of Us like some kind of inspiration for him, he should at least give it enough respect to understand how maddening this kind of idea is. 

All this video does is tell us is that Naughty Dog as a studio has an agenda. So what? That isn't a convincing argument, because it isn't an argument. Naughty Dog wears it's "agenda" on it's sleeve; it's not up for debate if they have an "agenda". What this video does poorly is try and connect it to a broader point about their art, and if that agenda should be supported or not. 

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood incorporated black cast members as a way of showing the peace between people of different skin colors in the ideal picture-perfect neighborhood. It was symbolic. For children, it was subtle, and ingrained in them the idea that it wasn't so odd to see such relations between people of different races.  For cynical adults, it probably seemed pretentious or as if it was pandering to certain people. Of course, there is a massive difference between this example and that of Naughty Dog, but it all comes back to the same point. No matter what the intentions are or how extreme the creators are, the point is to normalize a diverse set of people in video games. And yes, it might be a little awkward at first, it might be a little forced at first, but that is the growing pains of an industry that is moving towards a more inclusive direction. And even if that isn't something that needs to happen, even if studios are arguably "overcompensating" now, I think it's for a goal that at the end of the day is good. 

I think you missed the whole point of where he is coming from.. Like me he was or still is ND fan and as someone who aspires to work there someday, I have been following every news devs diary since like forever its not hard to notice that things are getting skewed towards an "Agenda" and looking at ND stance right now it feels ND flag on SJ commentary is flying a bit higher than their priority of making class leading games, and if you dig a little bit up more its not hard to find the person who is spear heading this is Neil Druckman. And I was one of those people who had been defending and praising Neil and Bruce take over of UC4 from Amy Hening, coz i loved neils writing so much, But man I was wrong. And I wont be surprised if we find out that Amy Hening left coz she was told to alter the story to suit this agenda or if she had some female character planned for the game.

Sure Introduce your SJW characters but don't flag them as a pole barring mascot for the community or for people who hardly care about narrative in video game or let alone play them, it comes off as an agenda. Now It feels as if ND is developing story to suit SJW characters to make a point, rather than story dictating the characters.

But when all said is done, I do feel if the gamer's really do see this stupid movement spoiling their fav franchise they will not buy it, like I have stopped after UC4.



twintail said:
deskpro2k3 said:
in the last of us part 2, I feel the kissing part was unnecessary. that's all what I think about it.

Because 2 girls can't kiss?

so u are one of those people who thinks if someone has an issue with girls kissing are homophob. Cant it just be it was unnecessary and not in context to anything! Remember how Last of US e3 demo was. That was far more powerful than this cringe show of a kiss.



trixiemafia86 said:

So I found this video and it basically speaks about how naughty dog has been changing over the years to become more socially and politically conscious. I agree with most of the points made in this video and would love to know what you guys think. if you got time to spare, watch it till the end and share your thoughts.

rn

I am a male of African descent and the whole inclusive thing lately has felt more like being patronised. What are your thoughts?

Why do you feel patronized?



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

taus90 said:
twintail said:

Because 2 girls can't kiss?

so u are one of those people who thinks if someone has an issue with girls kissing are homophob. Cant it just be it was unnecessary and not in context to anything! Remember how Last of US e3 demo was. That was far more powerful than this cringe show of a kiss.

Yeah, but you gotta admit that if it were a guy and a girl it wouldn’t be  topic of conversation. A kiss either way is never really necessary. But a heterosexual kiss is never deemed as such. 



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

FentonCrackshell said:
trixiemafia86 said:

So I found this video and it basically speaks about how naughty dog has been changing over the years to become more socially and politically conscious. I agree with most of the points made in this video and would love to know what you guys think. if you got time to spare, watch it till the end and share your thoughts.

rn

I am a male of African descent and the whole inclusive thing lately has felt more like being patronised. What are your thoughts?

Why do you feel patronized?

this has to do with the whole western "american" entertainment industry. and the whole diversity inclusiveness thing usually comes off as a new way to market their products and expand their market without actual innovation. The Black Panther movie is a great example of how this "agenda" worked wonders to increasing their profit margins and in the end, I believe most of these companies jump in for financial benefits. this is my opinion.



Smartest nam evila

Current Platforms: HighendPC[rip]/PS4/PS3[rip]/Vita[rip]