Snoorlax said:
No, they aren't asking for a better written story they just don't like Homosexuals to be portrayed in a slightly negative tone even if it was meant as a joke not meant to hurt anybody. Would you tell a stand up comedian that he can't make race related jokes? Or only if it's about White people? While criticism is valid, expecting the game to change it's content because you feel like it, is PC culture running rampant.
Oh really? Yeah let's take a look at Mk11's metacritic user score a 3.3 doesn't sound very positive now does it? It's filled with microtransactions and pc'd MK something which fans have never asked for in their MK game. Here you can read the comments where fans complain about the politics in Mk11 Resident Evil 5 came out during a time were the WOKE warriors had not taken over the western gaming industry yet, even so RE 5 is considered among the weaker RE games you'd know this if you're familiar with the series. Luckily, Capcom is Japanese and managed to avoid some of the wokeness with some of their latest games. |
Often, it being meant as a joke is the problem. For example, blackface is meant as a joke (referring to the classic vaudeville blackface, not simply wearing dark make up). However, it uses harmful stereotypes and caricatures which has a negative impact. When you portray something serious as a joke, or a character as a stereotype or caricature, that can be harmful and that is also typically poor writing.
As for MK11, review bombing happens all the time. Remember that comment about a very loud minority? Yeah... User scores are not and likely never will be indicative of anything, especially with how triggered certain sections of the gaming community get.
DonFerrari said:
It is just impossible to say or do things without hurting people. I have seem some here do personal attacks, intently trying to harm others, but none of the PC defenders stood up against it. So it is always something of trying to make collective responsibility on the back of others to nullify personal responsibility. If you read the other posts I done you`ll see that I have no issues with stories that focus on left wing ideals or the like. But when you have a dominated field pushing for that you really aren`t benefiting the market. And many people take offense on changing the IPs to what they don`t want, but these people have to accept it because "they want to have fun while hurting others"? |
Are you really trying to compare a video game to an argument on a forum? That's a bit....silly. To say the least.
But to your point, I understand what you are saying about how you can't account for all harm done. I get that. I disagree that "it is impossible to do things without hurting people" but I get the overall point. But that is just when a modicum of thinking comes into the equation. Yes, these things are not objective, however they can still be handled in a reasonable way. That is the standard that I usually try to uphold. The standard of reasonable-ness is good enough for the courtroom, so I think it is good enough here.
When pleading self-defense, you don't just have to prove that an individual feared for their safety, you have to prove that a reasonable individual would have feared for their safety in that situation. If someone is vehemently racist, to the extent that they are terrified by black people and shoots a black person out of fear despite them doing nothing, you could say that in their mind they were acting in self defense, however, it wouldn't meet the standard of reasonableness.
The same concept applies here. Someone might have a fear of butterflies, but a reasonable person wouldn't find any harm in including butterflies in a work of art.
That is largely why the concept of political correctness does not apply to individual harm or harm directed towards an individual making poor decisions (say, someone who commits murder). It is based around a more widely understood concept of how harm is known to be done based on non-actionable factors.
Does that make sense?
sales2099 said:
The history comment is interesting, I do agree that different weapons are tolerated but women amputees on the frontlines are complained about. In that case it comes down to practicality. If weapons were true to the era (especially WW1) it just wouldn’t be as fun from a gameplay perspective. Guns didn’t fire fast and that just isn’t fun. But the women thing for many would take you out of the immersion in the period. Im all for women in gaming, Hellblade is my favourite new IP of the gen, and that’s about a female warrior in historical 8th century Ireland. But they made it work with amazing storytelling, not shoehorning her in because “reasons”. We are both pushing agendas here. But at least I like to maintain a stance to leave history as intact as reasonably possible and leave time tested IPs politically neutral. While we both agree the past has a lot of right wing censorship. But you honestly can’t tell me left wing people don’t police speech. “Micro aggression” and “trigger warning” are not right wing terms and the subsequent outrage (Twitter mobs) and shaming when instances do happen. The pendulum is merely swinging in the other direction now. |
I don't think women should take you out of the immersion more than technology. I believe the reason it sometimes does, is because of a fascination with identity politics. Whether they like it or not, many individuals who disagree with leftist political stances, are completely consumed by them. While an average person may not make much of the inclusion of a woman in a WW1 game, someone who is entrenched (heh) in this political back and forth would likely notice that detail and be upset by it.
There are several cognitive biases which center around the idea that once you have something in your head, you begin to notice it. If you are predisposed with identity politics, your brain will grab onto things which can fit into that sphere and interpret them through that lens.
You may have an issue with women in your historical games, because you have an issue with PC culture, and not the other way around. This was the common theme with most of the points I was making (including the next one).
As for "adapt or die", I think that was largely my point. I believe it applies to the game as a whole, and any number of factors can contribute to adaptation (sometimes a game may maintain gameplay but revolutionize the story and sometimes the opposite). However, if "change" is truly the issue, it shouldn't matter which aspect is changing (and I would argue that gameplay changes are far more important to most games than story changes). So why do we take such issue with some of these story changes? Again, I believe that our cognitive biases influence us to have an issue with these changes because we have an issue with PC culture, and not the other way around.
As for modern censorship, I wouldn't say that the left doesn't police speech, but I also wouldn't say that the modern right doesn't police speech. I do believe concepts such as microaggressions and trigger warnings are laughably blown out of proportion by the right, but there are certainly instances of the left attacking certain speech. But if you look up, you will find the same from the right. MK11 did something with the story that can be interpreted as political? Angry mob now review bombs the game, yelling "You can't say/do that!".
By the way, I appreciate this post. Too often I talk to people who are either brain dead or completely unwilling to engage so I appreciate the effort and the honesty in this discussion, even though we disagree.
Currently Online 
