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

Forums - Politics Discussion - What if Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony went political and catered to SJW ?

dx11332sega said:
Qwark said:

If Sony would accuse (directly or between the lines) all gamers who dislike things about their games as sexists, xenophobes I would buy a PC. Since that would mean Sony thinks they have a superior moral and that can never be good for the writing on which Sony games lean pretty heavily. For instance if Arteus becomes a girl next game because reasons I would probably not buy that game.

What If Sony made another character but you main her and shes bossing kratos like hes doesn't know what hes doing and kratos accepts women superiority?

Then it should not be called God of War, but goddess of a puppet of war. Doubt I would be into that. Especially if you played previous GOW's the man that became a god slayed a lot of gods is the dad of boy.

Which suddenly gets bossed around, is brain less and takes shit from anyone (would not be better if it was a male) brakes the illusion of GOW so badly I will skip it. Though it will probably get a really high MC. 

Last edited by Qwark - on 06 September 2018

Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network

I'm a Sony guy, but it's hard to say what it would take for me to jump ship. It would have to be pretty bad, like if the quality of the games would suffer noticeably. And by quality I mean storytelling and writing characters and such, I'm sure the technical aspects would be fine still.
As a Japanese company, Sony is somewhat protected since over there the SJW nonsense doesn't exist and they actually kind of mock the crap that we are going through in the west right now. But most of their major studios are western based, so I guess they can get infected nonetheless. Naughty Dog is already somewhat affected, I hope they grow out of it before they get hit with the reality of "get woke, go broke".



This thread is obviously headed for a shit-show, but it's quite obvious with such a buzz-wordy, idiotic premise.

This can be clearly seen in how nobody can seem to agree on what it actually means to go SJW, or whether the companies already have or not.
Is it writing "unmasculine" characters in the next GoW? The company's marketing calling people sexists!?
How out of touch with reality do you have to be to realize these things would ever happen??

You can go out and believe whatever you want, but be aware when you're being paddled horseshit.
It wasn't too long ago we had a thread accusing ND of having a "secret agenda" because... they posted people liking their trailer on Twitter...
"SJWs" once again proves to be a meaningless term.

"What if these companies catered to SJWs?" I'd tell you to go bother someone else with your conspiracy nonsense



I think this discussion is going way out of hand. Games transported always a political agenda, as humans (and game makers are such last I checked) are political beings, and their opinions and views on the world influence their work, especially their artwork. Even if they don't intend it, that happen unconsciously. There were always lots of historical games, did the game makers side with one side of the conflict? Think about World War games, did games like say Wolfenstein side with the Nazis? Isn't that already a political agenda? Naturally it is, but as Nazis lost few people are on their side and are in result upset about such a game. Think further. Do you know games, in which you fight against islamic terrorists or russian spies? Politics right there. Even games that have nothing to do with the real world reflect often aspects of the our world and take sides. In many games you fight for the good against evil. And the game devs decides which side is the good one and which one the evil one.

So, games are political, so what is new? The difference today is, that some (and I say some) game devs use that more conscious and make their game design decision more conscious about politics. Also they often include now political themes that are more polarising than the examples I brought above. Most people can agree Nazis are evil, but not all are on board with the depiction of say homosexual relationships in their games. I think it is a good thing per se, if games are able to reflect more current discussions. All artforms are part of current discussions in society, and it is good if game makers realize that and seek actively to participate. Result can be a game like 'This war of Mine', which shows war from the side of non-combattants and can move your viewpoint on things you thought you knew your stance.

So can it be bad? Sure it can. As always there are good artists and bad ones. And the bad ones are often less subtle about their message than they should be. A good art message makes you think, it does not say: this is the right stance and you have to accept it. So it is not about political or unpolitical games, it basically is a discussion about good or bad games. And yes, if MS/Sony/Nintendo put out bad games it will influence their success.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Any of them making it in high scales will lose sales at large.

And if Sony got to that point of being pushing an agenda heavily I would go to reading more manga or perhaps pirating their content without a care.



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."

Around the Network
Tulipanzo said:

"SJWs" once again proves to be a meaningless term.

Yeah, that too. I mean SJW is used as an insult against people having different political opinion than yours, usually used from the 'right' to attack the 'left'. But it is in base meaningless, as everyone uses SJW as it fits his agenda. Is there a proper definition of the term, so that objectively can be decided who is SJW and who isn't? If not the term is in my opinion completely useless.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year], [1], [2], [3], [4]

If Sony did such a thing? I'd probably pull my junk backwards between my legs as far as it would go with tape, and start working on the idea for the video game I've been thinking about. A rhythm game based on the exploits of the world's greatest hero, Asia Argento.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Mnementh said:
I think this discussion is going way out of hand. Games transported always a political agenda, as humans (and game makers are such last I checked) are political beings, and their opinions and views on the world influence their work, especially their artwork. Even if they don't intend it, that happen unconsciously. There were always lots of historical games, did the game makers side with one side of the conflict? Think about World War games, did games like say Wolfenstein side with the Nazis? Isn't that already a political agenda? Naturally it is, but as Nazis lost few people are on their side and are in result upset about such a game. Think further. Do you know games, in which you fight against islamic terrorists or russian spies? Politics right there. Even games that have nothing to do with the real world reflect often aspects of the our world and take sides. In many games you fight for the good against evil. And the game devs decides which side is the good one and which one the evil one.

So, games are political, so what is new? The difference today is, that some (and I say some) game devs use that more conscious and make their game design decision more conscious about politics. Also they often include now political themes that are more polarising than the examples I brought above. Most people can agree Nazis are evil, but not all are on board with the depiction of say homosexual relationships in their games. I think it is a good thing per se, if games are able to reflect more current discussions. All artforms are part of current discussions in society, and it is good if game makers realize that and seek actively to participate. Result can be a game like 'This war of Mine', which shows war from the side of non-combattants and can move your viewpoint on things you thought you knew your stance.

So can it be bad? Sure it can. As always there are good artists and bad ones. And the bad ones are often less subtle about their message than they should be. A good art message makes you think, it does not say: this is the right stance and you have to accept it. So it is not about political or unpolitical games, it basically is a discussion about good or bad games. And yes, if MS/Sony/Nintendo put out bad games it will influence their success.

I would say that when you have balanced coverage and also tackle the subject from neutral point people tend to accept more, but when you take a stance and name everything else evil them you have problems.



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."

DonFerrari said:
Mnementh said:
I think this discussion is going way out of hand. Games transported always a political agenda, as humans (and game makers are such last I checked) are political beings, and their opinions and views on the world influence their work, especially their artwork. Even if they don't intend it, that happen unconsciously. There were always lots of historical games, did the game makers side with one side of the conflict? Think about World War games, did games like say Wolfenstein side with the Nazis? Isn't that already a political agenda? Naturally it is, but as Nazis lost few people are on their side and are in result upset about such a game. Think further. Do you know games, in which you fight against islamic terrorists or russian spies? Politics right there. Even games that have nothing to do with the real world reflect often aspects of the our world and take sides. In many games you fight for the good against evil. And the game devs decides which side is the good one and which one the evil one.

So, games are political, so what is new? The difference today is, that some (and I say some) game devs use that more conscious and make their game design decision more conscious about politics. Also they often include now political themes that are more polarising than the examples I brought above. Most people can agree Nazis are evil, but not all are on board with the depiction of say homosexual relationships in their games. I think it is a good thing per se, if games are able to reflect more current discussions. All artforms are part of current discussions in society, and it is good if game makers realize that and seek actively to participate. Result can be a game like 'This war of Mine', which shows war from the side of non-combattants and can move your viewpoint on things you thought you knew your stance.

So can it be bad? Sure it can. As always there are good artists and bad ones. And the bad ones are often less subtle about their message than they should be. A good art message makes you think, it does not say: this is the right stance and you have to accept it. So it is not about political or unpolitical games, it basically is a discussion about good or bad games. And yes, if MS/Sony/Nintendo put out bad games it will influence their success.

I would say that when you have balanced coverage and also tackle the subject from neutral point people tend to accept more, but when you take a stance and name everything else evil them you have problems.

Sooo, Wolfenstein should be neutral towards the Nazis and don't call them evil?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:
DonFerrari said:

I would say that when you have balanced coverage and also tackle the subject from neutral point people tend to accept more, but when you take a stance and name everything else evil them you have problems.

Sooo, Wolfenstein should be neutral towards the Nazis and don't call them evil?

If so they wish, probably would give them a big backlash, but you understood the point. If you choose a side as a company on a very divisive matter and push half your userbase as evil, you certainly will lose.



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."