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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are you OK with games becoming more Politically Correct?

Tagged games:

 

Is PC ruining gaming?

Yes 19 31.67%
 
No, you're just being silly! Ah 41 68.33%
 
Total:60

I'm okay with games thinking outside of their original, narrow scope of slash, slash, pew, pew. I don't think any art needs to concern itself with being "PC", but all of it is responsible for the message it conveys. Gaming has grown up, but "how much" varies from company to company, and even game to game.



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

Around the Network

I'm of the belief that everyone who uses the term "politically correct" is automatically wrong.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!
my top 50 games

Nautilus said:
sundin13 said:

I mean, first of all, sexual assault and mistreatment of women are both pretty big problems in Japan, but even if they weren't the issue isn't that someone might get raped in real life. The issue is two-fold: One is the propagation of attitudes towards rape and sexual assault, and the second is the in universe effects of generally weakening the characters and being a moment which may take readers out of the story because of poor characterization and poor attempts at humor.

As for my question, again, the issue is not the fact that the game portrayed something, the issue is how it was portrayed. You continue to exclusively speak about what is being portrayed, but that entirely misses the point.

I would also like to bring up something you said to someone else in this thread:

"Any kind of story that you want to tell, ANY kind, will end up hurting someone feeling.The difference is how many people you might end up insulting, and that's what matters in the end, in terms of backlash and whatnot."

I don't think this is anywhere close to being true. I don't think there is any CEO who plays FF7 and is personally offended because Shinra is evil...

Bolded: That's just bad story telling.Whether they "charachterize" someone bad or not, bad story telling is bad story telling, no matter what politics or opinion one might have.

About your last sentence: Then why should someone be offended by something done in a game then?That my problem! You dont see a CEO being offended by Shinra being evil because you dont care about what the CEO thinks.But when it comes to something you care about, for example how hamburguers are displayed on the screen, then you start caring.

The same way that some people simply have issue with woman having big boobs and being sexy in games, but having nothing to say about the men in the same game being super muscular, viril and handsome. You won't bat an eye on a topic that dosen't offend you.That's my point.

What I mean, in the end, is that all this nonsense about my group or my subject not being well represented in games is that I dont want it to influence the game quality in the end.I dont care if the protagonist is male, female, trans, gay, a dog, a cat or an alien, as long as the developer cares about telling a good story more than he cares about passing his own agenda.Im assuming people are smart enough to understand the difference between reality and fiction.

Im not a fan of the censor they did in Persona 5 Royal, but at the same time is something so minor that it won't even come close to stopping myself from recommending what seems to be the better version of the game.It's just that I don't and will never approve this sort of thing just because someone dosen't like how someone was portrayed.

And about the how: Like I already answered you before, I don't have an issue, because that already happened with me before.I found it quite funny actually.So in my view, it's not like they were lying.And it's fiction, not that I would be insulted by that even if it wasn't realistic.

"Bolded: That's just bad story telling.Whether they "charachterize" someone bad or not, bad story telling is bad story telling, no matter what politics or opinion one might have."

That is exactly my point though. Bad storytelling is bad storytelling. Defending bad storytelling against censorship simply doesn't make any sense whether it involves a minority or not. It isn't censorship or PC culture when bad storytelling is fixed or removed, just like it isn't censorship when a bad scene is removed from a movie in editing.

As for my point about Shinra, when a big corporation is portrayed as evil, it is a criticism based upon agency. It is not stating that all corporations are evil, it is stating that through the actions and agency of the individuals involved, evil decisions were made. On the other hand, LOL GAY PEOPLE is not a criticism based upon agency, nor is it a criticism of bad or evil decisions/actions. There is a very clear and well defined line between the two things. Conflating the two shows a fundamental lack of understanding about where the criticism comes from and what it means.



I just looked up the Persona 5 Royal censorship thing cause I didn't know what it's about.

...I'm now having a hard time believing people are actually serious about this.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!
my top 50 games

sundin13 said:
Nautilus said:

Bolded: That's just bad story telling.Whether they "charachterize" someone bad or not, bad story telling is bad story telling, no matter what politics or opinion one might have.

About your last sentence: Then why should someone be offended by something done in a game then?That my problem! You dont see a CEO being offended by Shinra being evil because you dont care about what the CEO thinks.But when it comes to something you care about, for example how hamburguers are displayed on the screen, then you start caring.

The same way that some people simply have issue with woman having big boobs and being sexy in games, but having nothing to say about the men in the same game being super muscular, viril and handsome. You won't bat an eye on a topic that dosen't offend you.That's my point.

What I mean, in the end, is that all this nonsense about my group or my subject not being well represented in games is that I dont want it to influence the game quality in the end.I dont care if the protagonist is male, female, trans, gay, a dog, a cat or an alien, as long as the developer cares about telling a good story more than he cares about passing his own agenda.Im assuming people are smart enough to understand the difference between reality and fiction.

Im not a fan of the censor they did in Persona 5 Royal, but at the same time is something so minor that it won't even come close to stopping myself from recommending what seems to be the better version of the game.It's just that I don't and will never approve this sort of thing just because someone dosen't like how someone was portrayed.

And about the how: Like I already answered you before, I don't have an issue, because that already happened with me before.I found it quite funny actually.So in my view, it's not like they were lying.And it's fiction, not that I would be insulted by that even if it wasn't realistic.

"Bolded: That's just bad story telling.Whether they "charachterize" someone bad or not, bad story telling is bad story telling, no matter what politics or opinion one might have."

That is exactly my point though. Bad storytelling is bad storytelling. Defending bad storytelling against censorship simply doesn't make any sense whether it involves a minority or not. It isn't censorship or PC culture when bad storytelling is fixed or removed, just like it isn't censorship when a bad scene is removed from a movie in editing.

As for my point about Shinra, when a big corporation is portrayed as evil, it is a criticism based upon agency. It is not stating that all corporations are evil, it is stating that through the actions and agency of the individuals involved, evil decisions were made. On the other hand, LOL GAY PEOPLE is not a criticism based upon agency, nor is it a criticism of bad or evil decisions/actions. There is a very clear and well defined line between the two things. Conflating the two shows a fundamental lack of understanding about where the criticism comes from and what it means.

But I don't think that's bad storytelling.I think we can safely say that scene, at the very least, is a matter of personal taste then.

"Lack of understanding"? or you mean "I don't see or cheer the same things, and thus you don't understand"?Companies can be bad simply because, as you said, people can be evil or simply make bad decisions.The same can be said that gays can behave innappropriately, just like any human being.That dosen't make them free from the criticism, when someone wants to make it.Gay people are also human beings, and thus prone to errors.Just because you don't like seeing people portraying them badly dosen't mean people can't portray them badly.

How can you say, in that specific Persona 5 scene, that those persons hitting on young people, while not evil, is not appropriate?As I said, from my personal experience(and I bet Im not the only one), that happens.Why can't a developer portray a reality that happens?The same way that harrasment is portrayed in other situation/places?



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Mnementh said:
JRPGfan said:



We can accept "super human" beings, with un-imaginable powers.... because its just fantasy.
But buff people? nah thats unrealistic and doesnt reflect something humanly possible.

In this screenshot you providing: "This is a parody."
So, apparently you are unfunny.

I know that its ment to be a parody.
It proves my point though (hence why I used it).

Im not buying a fat batman comic.



Chazore said:
JRPGfan said:


We can accept "super human" beings, with un-imaginable powers.... because its just fantasy.
But buff people? nah thats unrealistic and doesnt reflect something humanly possible.

These are fictional characters, why wouldnt they be buff or sexy?

People that read the comics probably enjoy that aspect.
I bet a "fat batman" comic series, wouldnt sell as much (also suddenly, his inhuman and seemingly unending endurance, and him jumping around on buildings, and flying up them with a grappling hook, makes much less sense).

You ever see any of those parcour jumping people?
Their all thin, muscular people, because you just cant be a fat ass and do that sort of stuff.
Also if your some "fantastical fighter" muscles play a part..... theres no way around it, usually the bigger more musular person wins a fight (in the real world). Why would a comic be differnt?

Oh that's just the tip of the safe-space iceberg:

 

In the Comic books industry, writers have gone full on insane, in regards to treating their customers with dignity and respect. It's no longer about wanting people to buy their comics, it's about realising how "bad" said customers are for not supporting their views and eating the shit they throw out.

I took to twitter to see just how bad it was and hoo boy, plenty of Marvel writers just straight up treating customers like dogshit, insulting them, telling them to fuck off and die etc. I remember when Total biscuit got shit for his cancer remark, years before he got Cancer and died, yet he got shit for it, got shit on when he died, and yet these writers are completely getting away with acting like man-children, and general pieces of shit themselves, and Disney and Marvel are doing nowt about it.

Also doesn't help that the comic book publishers are doing very little to offset the situation the retail bookstores are in. I swear that industry is going to full on collapse in the next few years, and writers/pubs have themselves to blame.

Thats right up there with the new Ghostbusters, where they role/sex swapped it.
it turned out horrible, and apparently reviewers loved it (because they where scared of feminists calling them sexist for not likeing it).

In the end it still flopped in the theatures, because movie goers, dont give two flying f***s.
A bad movie is a bad movie.

Politically Correct doesnt have to mean a bad product..... however you only really notice it, when it is?

They knew this was gonna be crap, and did x,y,z PC stuff to score brownie points with reviewers right?
Thats when you know, its typically not the "greatest work of art" ever.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 29 March 2020

melbye said:

Changing something for a minority of snowflake narcissists who think they are oppressed is fucking stupid

And I'm sure random gaming forum commentators who complain about every single political statement they disagree with are the non-narsissitic majority, right? 



Nautilus said:
sundin13 said:

"Bolded: That's just bad story telling.Whether they "charachterize" someone bad or not, bad story telling is bad story telling, no matter what politics or opinion one might have."

That is exactly my point though. Bad storytelling is bad storytelling. Defending bad storytelling against censorship simply doesn't make any sense whether it involves a minority or not. It isn't censorship or PC culture when bad storytelling is fixed or removed, just like it isn't censorship when a bad scene is removed from a movie in editing.

As for my point about Shinra, when a big corporation is portrayed as evil, it is a criticism based upon agency. It is not stating that all corporations are evil, it is stating that through the actions and agency of the individuals involved, evil decisions were made. On the other hand, LOL GAY PEOPLE is not a criticism based upon agency, nor is it a criticism of bad or evil decisions/actions. There is a very clear and well defined line between the two things. Conflating the two shows a fundamental lack of understanding about where the criticism comes from and what it means.

But I don't think that's bad storytelling.I think we can safely say that scene, at the very least, is a matter of personal taste then.

"Lack of understanding"? or you mean "I don't see or cheer the same things, and thus you don't understand"?Companies can be bad simply because, as you said, people can be evil or simply make bad decisions.The same can be said that gays can behave innappropriately, just like any human being.That dosen't make them free from the criticism, when someone wants to make it.Gay people are also human beings, and thus prone to errors.Just because you don't like seeing people portraying them badly dosen't mean people can't portray them badly.

How can you say, in that specific Persona 5 scene, that those persons hitting on young people, while not evil, is not appropriate?As I said, from my personal experience(and I bet Im not the only one), that happens.Why can't a developer portray a reality that happens?The same way that harrasment is portrayed in other situation/places?

I am not speaking about that specific Persona 5 scene, I am speaking about the issue in general terms.

But again, I am talking about how. You continue to only be talking about what. Yes, sexual assault, harassment, homosexuality and all manner of things may be portrayed, but how they are portrayed dictates whether that portrayal is well done or not. Typically, when someone objects to a story beat in a game, it is not simply "this happened", but instead "this happened in a specific manner". This is how Hiku spoke about P5 in their original post, and it is how I spoke about Princess Jellyfish in my original post, and it is what you seem to continue to be missing.

Again how, not simply what.



mZuzek said:
I'm of the belief that everyone who uses the term "politically correct" is automatically wrong.

Lol that's a good point. I feel like someone dropping the word SJW early on also tips me off that I'm about to hear a stupid opinion :D



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