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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What exactly do you consider to be "SJW agenda" in games?

 

Does the inclusion of women in BFV bother you?

Yes 15 22.06%
 
No 53 77.94%
 
Total:68
Conina said:

Well, when I think of skin in RE5, I can only remember this:

 

 

 

 

I don't remember anyone bitching about her being in the game. Perhaps it's because she doesn't come off as a forced diversity character because she makes complete sense within the story and it helps that she doesn't look or act like she ever taken gender studies.



Around the Network
Errorist76 said:
This whole catch phrase is just a way of ignorant, insecure and narrow minded people to distance themselves from what they don’t understand. It’s in the same league as libtard, leftist, or other meaningless catch words to discribe modern, non-Neanderthal people.

Projecting much?



Medisti said:
DonFerrari said:

not only personality, but the need to show it to everyone at all time =p

Perhaps I just have old people and conservatives as RL close people (even conservative gay people) but they mostly are good people who like gays but don't like the exarcebated ones.


I like pizza, therefore, every aspect of who I am needs to revolve around it. I must wear pizza themed clothing, make clear to everyone I meet my preferences for pizza, and all others are allowed to judge me based on what toppings I like.

It sounds so silly applied to any other personal preference, and personal taste is about as controllable as sexuality. People don’t just decide they like pepperoni better (though trying it may change their mind and my metaphor is falling apart, lol).

I tried pepperoni (not metaphoric) and didn't like it kkkk. And certainly there is some people that base all their live and interactions in talking about being gay, those certainly are minorities inside a minority (and would say most are teenagers and young adults, whose usually are the people trying to show off and rebel using any agenda they like).

Dante9 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

I've heard a lot of people complaining about BFV's inclusion of playable female characters saying that we should boycott the game because women "didn't fight in the war", and because that's "historically inaccurate". First of all, women did fight in the war (yes, mostly for the USSR, but it would be stupid to only allow female characters when you're playing in one specific team). Second of all, Battlefield 1 was also very historically inaccurate, and I didn't see anyone boycotting it because of that.

Let's cut the bullshit: I know that most people are complaining about BFV because they think the inclusion of women means EA is promoting an "SJW agenda" (if you're honestly complaining about historical inaccuracies in BFV, you should maybe take a step back and rethink it. No game is absolutely historically accurate, and they're not supposed to be). But what the hell is an "SJW agenda"?

I've also seen people complaining about TLoU 2 and Horizon ZD for the same reasons, just because they feature women, and, in the first case, a lesbian kiss in one of the trailers.

What is an "SJW agenda"? Is having diverse characters an "SJW thing"? Because, you know, the world is not just made of white cis hetero males, so it's just natural that games would not just have white cis hetero males.

If you think that TLoU 2 and Horizon ZD promote an "SJW agenda", give me some examples of games with diverse characters that don't "appeal to the SJW crowd". I'll just ask you not to cite Tomb Raider (as Lara Croft was [and still is a bit] hyper-sexualized) and Metroid (since most people didn't even know that Samus was a girl before the internet).

I'm genuinely intrigued.

Umm, actually it would not be stupid to allow female soldiers only in a specific faction. It would be more accurate and perhaps even justified, if there even is a Soviet faction in the game, I don't know. Anyways, the whole thing is kind of like saying that because there was a small contingent of women in some company of the Soviet army, suddenly half of all armies should be women which is just ridiculous. There certainly weren't women with prosthetic arms and swords and shit. People with prosthetics would not be put on the front line, men or women. It's just stupid, plain and simple. Why not fairies with IBS while you're at it? There's mostly accurate and then there's fantasy land, that's the problem with the diffrence here. This really is not about women as such, and you know it.

SJW agendas are usually so blatant that you don't have to dig to find them. It's become normal for either the publisher or the dev team to openly talk about "diversity" and how they want to put more of thing x or y into a game, because reasons. These companies are either buying into the bullshit of a small shill group and are virtue signaling, or they feel pressured into "getting with the program" as it were. Either way, this misguided pandering is steering these companies into a collision course with their core customer bases, which in turn is beginning to affect their bottom lines. It's so stupid I can hardly believe it. Get woke, go broke.

Now, am I against diversity? Of course not. Gaming has always been diverse naturally, without a specific need to pump it in artificially. There have been female leads that even have their own franchises. There have been different races without anyone making a fuss about it. There have even been different sexualities, although I admit that they have mostly been very marginal instances and often used for comedic effect. But sexuality really isn't that much of a deal in these worlds and adventures. Most games don't have romance mechanics, so the issue doesn't even come up. Anyone can assign their preferred sexuality to the characters they see, since it isn't usually addressed at all because the game is about something else than personal relationships. However, characters in gaming have always been about *true* diversity, which is to say diversity of thought, background, experiences and such. The sorry excuse for diversity we are being force-fed nowadays is about the most superficial things, like skin color or sexual preference. This is a very immature vision of diversity. It's mundane, it doesn't matter or bring anything of substance to the table. It leads to characters that are out of place, but it most importantly leads to very badly written characters, and this is, I think, the worst problem. Suddenly we have characters whose most defining traits are skin color or sexuality. They appear in the game to talk about their race or sexuality and it has nothing to do with the plot of the game, it's just awkward. They are hollow puppets, whose backstory is that they are of race x or sexuality z. Nobody cares, it has no bearing on the world or the story of the game. These characters just stick out like a sore thumb. Unnatural, forced diversity and crappy storytelling and character building. Remember for instance how they had to fix the character in Mass Effect Andromeda who just out of nowhere started to blabber about his (her?) transgenderism, out of the blue and off topic? It only rubs people the wrong way, because it's clearly political and ideologically driven. It doesn't belong in our entertainment. We go into these worlds to get away from that bullshit, not to be drowned in it. Gamers don't care if a character has green skin and has genitalia that they haven't even seen before, as long as the character is rich and well put together and serves the game world and overall story well.

TLOU2, well, I have to say I'm a little worried about it. Not about Ellie being a lesbian, I already knew and it's not an issue for me anyways. Luckily, Ellie has been such a good and well implemented character that her sexuality is irrelevant, as it should be. I'm worried because the driving force of the first game was the character dynamic between Joel and Ellie and how their personal arcs came together in the process of their journey together. This is gone in the second part, because Joel doesn't seem to be very much of a thing in the game at all. It would be interesting to see how their relationship as "father and daughter" has evolved through the years as they both have become older. I hope they are able to create something else meaningful for her to beef up her story going forward. Is she going to be travelling by herself, or is her character going to be reduced to "look at me, I'm kissing a girl, because I'm lesbian and that's the most important thing about me because lesbian"? I guess there could be a love story between her and some girl, but that isn't enough for a compelling story. It needs more layers.

In Horizon ZD I personally didn't notice any SJW stuff, so I'don't know what that is about. Maybe it's the fact that the first tribe that you come across is a matriarchy that didn't sit well with some people? Not a problem for me, plus this is a fantasy/scifi scenario so anything goes and whoever creates the world gets to make the rules. They are not trying to rewrite history to suit someone's narcissistic need to project their personal traits and agendas into it.

That's pretty much what all this is about, isn't it? Normal people want to admire and love the heroes in movies and games, they want to be those characters. But these SJW's want to project themselves into the story, so that they can be admired by themselves and everyone else. Narcissism 101.

Actually in most games you could even decide most of the cast is transgender or gender fluid if you want, almost always there is nothing saying otherwise. So you don't really need they saying they are X or Y, let's gamers decide. Unless it is very relevant to the story (like being based on the person struggle with identity) you should just let it not disclosed.

On the HZD, there have been a lot of matriarchal societies in the past of humanity so it is possible that there would be one in a distopia future. So anyone complaining on that on total sci-fi setting is just complain because they are silly people.

I have never had any problem playing with any type of char, or related more, or though of the char as myself. The only game that came closer to it would be TLOU because of the father thing. Other games I just want my char to be as powerful as it can get but I see myself as god regardless of the char =p



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."

DreadPirateRoberts said:
Kirin_gaming said:

Dude Dragon Age is a fantasy world, FANTASY.

Does the game having 8 kinds of humanoids apart from humans also irk you?

Yeah, I have to agree with this.  Inventing a fantasy world styled on some historical point in time in the real world does not lock anyone into specific demographics for the invented world itself.  To be blunt, criticizing DA:I in this fashion simply screams someone looking for reasons to be offended.

If there is a desert right next to a rainforest, with no rainshadow etc. between them, I'll be intrigued if the developer has any idea of what he's doing. Same if there were bananas and palm trees growing in the tundra, cactuses in swamps, or there are lizards and amphibians strolling in the snow. That would just scream of laziness and incompetence. If you are OK with it and think I'm "locking" developers  instead, well, I'm just reply you have a low threshold for idiocy then, and we'll settle it right there.

Fantasy does not give one a carte blanche to do any of this. Those worlds have all apparently the same laws of physics as ours, so I'm judging based on what I know is logical and makes sense. Most of them, indeed, do not even bother to set air density, gravity, axial tilt, day length etc. any different from Earth whatsoever, and it's not just about physical attributes, since social institutions, technological development etc. all often follow the same damn path as ours.

For instance, Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea, for some reason, has light-skinned and blonde people living east of the same archipelago, the only land in the planet, as the dark-skinned protagonists. I'm bothered by their existence, since there's no reason whatsoever for both groups to be that different given the role of pigmentation on humans. Although, unlike Dragon Age: Inquisition, Le Guin actually created a good work of fiction, and did not have Google or Wikipedia to research in a few minutes information she might have ignored.

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

Kirin_gaming said:
haxxiy said:

Dragon Age: Inquisition had more or less the demographic profile of the modern United States despite being set on a medieval copy of Great Britain and France, and inexplicably had modern atittutes towards transsexuality etc. as well.

Of course, the writers are free to make up a world emotionally appealing to their political views (since I believe indulging in idiosyncracies make fantasy more unique) but don't expect it to be free of criticism, specially if it looks dumb and strains suspension of disbelief.

That's the sort of thing that irks me, when it's absolutely forced and silly.

Dude Dragon Age is a fantasy world, FANTASY.

Does the game having 8 kinds of humanoids apart from humans also irk you?

Given the Dragon Age races are...

* Jews-gypsies with long ears;

* Socialist muslims with horns;

* A cheaper knockoff of Tolkien's dwarves;

... yes, I'm terribly irked by it. The whole idea is so poor and misconceived you might have had a hand on it, "dude".

As for the "fantasy" argument, see the other post.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
Errorist76 said:
This whole catch phrase is just a way of ignorant, insecure and narrow minded people to distance themselves from what they don’t understand. It’s in the same league as libtard, leftist, or other meaningless catch words to discribe modern, non-Neanderthal people.

Yep, because there's no way that someone could use the phrase "Social Justice Warrior" to describe someone and their actions and still have a deep, educated understanding of the matter. Is this yet another example of your mindset that anyone who disagrees with your point of view has to be ignorant?



I do think my favorite thing about the outrage is people who complain about games based on who their developers talk to (i.e. Sarkeesian), or too many women in the game, or too much gay/trans content, are being every bit the reactive "SJWs" they rail against.



Intel i7-8086k @ 5.1 GHz | Asus Maximus X Hero | 32GB Ballistix Sport LT 2400Mhz RAM | Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti

DonFerrari said:
DreadPirateRoberts said:

Thanks, but I was hoping for a story with the director's actual quotes, not a 13 minute video featuring a dreadfully boring guy talking about stuff.  There's no way in hell I'm sitting through that.  

As far as the BFV comments goes, I'm going to go ahead and say I find no fault with Soderlund's comments.  I think he is right, and I think Gamerevolution's take on it is fair.  The game is fantasy, and there is nothing inherently wrong with seeking to be more inclusive of all gamers.  So, yeah, if one doesn't like that - or feels threatened by it - don't buy the game.

You hoped for the quotes just for you to disregard as you done with BFV right? So why should anyone bother to fetch then for you?

I hoped for quotes so I could decide for myself if Medisti's claim that the director said "if you don't watch it, you're sexist" is accurate or just his own spin.  I have found that accepting other people's interpretations as truth on most topics, but especially charged ones like this is foolish on my part.  That is why I prefer to get as close to the source as possible.  As far as why anyone should bother to fetch the quotes for me goes, for two reasons.  First, I failed to find them myself, so either I'm missing something, or the quote isn't accurate as presented.  And second, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. 

Also, disagreement is not the same thing as disregard. I understand where you are coming from with respect to BFV, but I disagree with it.  Ironically, you and Soderlund appear to be in agreement if you have chosen not to buy the game for these reasons.  Which you have every right to do.

Incidentally, I neither watched Ghostbusters 2016, since it simply did not look funny, nor did I pre-order BFV, since war games do not appeal to me

Last edited by DreadPirateRoberts - on 27 August 2018

haxxiy said:
DreadPirateRoberts said:

Yeah, I have to agree with this.  Inventing a fantasy world styled on some historical point in time in the real world does not lock anyone into specific demographics for the invented world itself.  To be blunt, criticizing DA:I in this fashion simply screams someone looking for reasons to be offended.

If there is a desert right next to a rainforest, with no rainshadow etc. between them, I'll be intrigued if the developer has any idea of what he's doing. Same if there were bananas and palm trees growing in the tundra, cactuses in swamps, or there are lizards and amphibians strolling in the snow. That would just scream of laziness and incompetence. If you are OK with it and think I'm "locking" developers  instead, well, I'm just reply you have a low threshold for idiocy then, and we'll settle it right there.

Fantasy does not give one a carte blanche to do any of this. Those worlds have all apparently the same laws of physics as ours, so I'm judging based on what I know is logical and makes sense. Most of them, indeed, do not even bother to set air density, gravity, axial tilt, day length etc. any different from Earth whatsoever, and it's not just about physical attributes, since social institutions, technological development etc. all often follow the same damn path as ours.

For instance, Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea, for some reason, has light-skinned and blonde people living east of the same archipelago, the only land in the planet, as the dark-skinned protagonists. I'm bothered by their existence, since there's no reason whatsoever for both groups to be that different given the role of pigmentation on humans. Although, unlike Dragon Age: Inquisition, Le Guin actually created a good work of fiction, and did not have Google or Wikipedia to research in a few minutes information she might have ignored.

I have no idea why you are introducing 'laws of physics' into a complaint about demographics.   Nor, frankly, do I understand a concern about laws of physics in a world with dragons and where drinking blood can give a Grey Warden a form of telepathic power.  If that's really the concern, then the existence of a middle ages themed world where a number of races and cultures mixed is the least of the series' flaws.



shikamaru317 said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

Why are non-optional gay romance scenes a problem? Aren't them the same as non-optional hetero romance scenes? You're either for both or against both.

I disagree. Hetero relationships are the natural norm, because they serve the biological purpose of reproduction, seeing a man and a woman kiss shouldn't offend anybody. However some people might be offended by being forced to watch a lesbian or gay kiss when playing a game, for religious reasons or maybe they're just homophobic (not that I agree with homophobia). 

You say “not that I agree with homophobia”, yet your stance and reasoning are pretty homophobic...