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

Forums - Politics Discussion - (POSSIBLE SPOILERS INSIDE) The agenda and political discussion of Naughty Dog

 

Have politics damaged the quality of ND games

No 39 41.94%
 
Yes 54 58.06%
 
Total:93
EnricoPallazzo said:

ND for me is a good representation of why the left destroys everything it touches. There is a strong need in not create something new, but always destroy what is already established and people love so from the ashes of it something "better" can flourish. If TLOU2 is the direction modern games are going, then unfortunately I believe it's not for me, thank God we still have Japan and I still have a huge backlog of games to play.

Snipped the part with spoiler, please put that inside spoiler tag.



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

When most reviews are about how progressive the narrative is, and how little they talk about actual gameplay, I'd say there is a problem. 
I will say this. (IN MY OPINION) Identity politics have zero place in pop culture. There is a time and place for everything. Considering how divided everybody already is, injecting politics into games or movies for no real reason only takes away a possible common ground between all of us. No matter who you are, what you believe in, we should all be able to enjoy movies and games. Yes artists can do as they please, but people should also be able to not purchase it or be a fan of it without being called _phobic or _ist.



1doesnotsimply

shikamaru317 said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

ND for me is a good representation of why the left destroys everything it touches. There is a strong need in not create something new, but always destroy what is already established and people love so from the ashes of it something "better" can flourish. If TLOU2 is the direction modern games are going, then unfortunately I believe it's not for me, thank God we still have Japan and I still have a huge backlog of games to play.


Since U4 ND has been showing why people hate forced diversity in games, starting with Nadine, then the girl power in Lost Legacy and now the climax with TLOU2.

Spoiler!
The sex scene of Abby which was basically gross. I dont even know if she is really a woman anymore since its clear she has no boobs, maybe those scenes with her as a kid she was a boy, just as Lev was a girl. So that scene would be basically anal sex.

But it's all right, it's a left leaning game so they have a free pass to do whatever they want. And everything in the game is forced and it's all against the evil white male. I'm black btw. Well, half black.


I wont play or buy this game, and probably won't be playing Naughty Dog games anymore as it is clear the same route will be used also in future uncharted games and their future IP's. Creating a great a fun game is not important anymore, the political message must come first.
And you know what? If most people think this is alright and like it, so be it.

Yeah, that scene bothers the heck out of me too. Saw this on Twitter last night, and I 100% agree with it:

Spoiler!

Why is it that a realistic graphics, nude anal sex scene between a man and what seems to be a trans woman is acceptable to Sony, but Sony is censoring sexual content in Japanese games that isn't full nudity to begin with, even though the rating agencies like ESRB, CERO, and PEGI are totally ok with that content being in those games? 

I would be fine if Sony censored it only in the west. The amount of political correctness in the west is bullshit and pretty much a waste of time to deal with. But to apply the same standard in Japan was fucking stupid. Thank god we have the switch for these things which is ironic considering Nintendo had a different stance back then.

Also that Druckmann thing made me laugh. Won't be surprised if that was his actual intention. The guy has his head so far up his ass.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 19 June 2020

What is forced diversity?



There needs to justification to have a non white character?



Around the Network

gets a 10/10 from me

Spoiler!


 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

shikamaru317 said:
Xxain said:
There needs to justification to have a non white character?

Depending on the setting, yes. For instance, when Kingdom Come Deliverance released a few years ago, the woke crowd on ResetEra and such was criticizing the game for having an all-white cast, even though it made absolute sense for a game set in 1400's Bohemia to have an all-white cast, die to the fact that there is no historical evidence of people of color living in 1400's Bohemia in significant numbers. If they had caved into the Era crowd and put a darker skinned character in the game, they would have needed to give a darn good justification for that characters presence in Bohemia.

Diversity is not a bad thing, but forced diversity sucks. I have no problem with diversity when it is done right. For instance, I'm a big Star Trek fan, and my favorite of the Star Trek series is Star Trek Voyager. Voyager was well known for having one of the most diverse casts of any tv series back in the 90's, it had a white female captain (the first major female captain in a Star Trek series), a native-American first officer, a black Vulcan security officer, an Asian-American Ops officer, and a Klingon Chief Engineer who was played by a Latina actress, plus a few other white characters. But it never felt forced or in your face, like "we have a diverse cast, we're better than every other show out there because we're diverse". It felt natural and made absolute sense for the show's setting. 

You can make the historical argument in the first case, but what reason is there that a black person couldn't be a storm trooper? There was a black person in the original trilogy so it's not like Star Wars was a cosmic white enthostate before Flin. 



...

shikamaru317 said:
Xxain said:
There needs to justification to have a non white character?

Depending on the setting, yes. For instance, when Kingdom Come Deliverance released a few years ago, the woke crowd on ResetEra and such was criticizing the game for having an all-white cast, even though it made absolute sense for a game set in 1400's Bohemia to have an all-white cast, due to the fact that there is no historical evidence of people of color living in 1400's Bohemia in significant numbers. If they had caved in to the Era crowd and put a darker skinned character in the game, they would have needed to give a darn good justification for that characters presence in Bohemia.

Diversity is not a bad thing, it is a great thing in fact, but forced diversity sucks. I have no problem with diversity in media when it is done right. For instance, I'm a big Star Trek fan, and my favorite of the Star Trek series is Star Trek Voyager. Voyager was well known for having one of the most diverse casts of any tv series back in the 90's, it had a white female captain (the first major female captain in a Star Trek series), a native-American first officer, a black Vulcan security officer, an Asian-American Ops officer, and a Klingon Chief Engineer who was played by a Latina actress, plus a few other white characters. But it never felt forced or in your face, like "we have a diverse cast, we're better than every other show out there because we're diverse". It felt natural and made absolute sense for the show's setting. 

Another great example of forced diversity is the recent Witcher tv series on Netflix, where they changed the races of several characters from the books just so that they could have a more diverse cast for the show. Not reasoning was given for this, it was clearly just there so that the woke crowd wouldn't riot because the show had an all-white main cast.

I was specifically responding to you second sentence. The historic answer does not apply there.



shikamaru317 said:
Torillian said:

You can make the historical argument in the first case, but what reason is there that a black person couldn't be a storm trooper? There was a black person in the original trilogy so it's not like Star Wars was a cosmic white enthostate before Flin. 

The problem wasn't that he was black, but that he was a black stormtrooper. George Lucas based the Empire on Nazi Germany, they were intended to be white supremacists, that is why we saw very few Aliens or humans of color as Imperial Officers in the original trilogy and subsequent expanded universe works. The First Order was an off-shoot of the Empire, so if the Empire was mostly white, it didn't make much sense for Finn, as a stormtrooper, to be black.

But what bothers me far more than the lore discrepancy there, is that Finn largely felt like a throwaway character that had little part to play in the overall storyline of the trilogy. He was put in for brownie points with the woke crowd, and then got crappy character development, with the Rey-Finn shippers being ignored in favor of catering to the rather cringey Rey-Kylo shippers. If Fin had actually been a good character with good character development, people would have forgotten their issues with a Black Stormtrooper real quick.

What does that have to do with being black? Seems like a badly written character, as if we haven't seen plenty of those in video games and other movie. Why is color important in this case? 



shikamaru317 said:
Torillian said:

You can make the historical argument in the first case, but what reason is there that a black person couldn't be a storm trooper? There was a black person in the original trilogy so it's not like Star Wars was a cosmic white enthostate before Flin. 

The problem wasn't that he was black, but that he was a black stormtrooper. George Lucas based the Empire on Nazi Germany, they were intended to be white supremacists, that is why we saw very few Aliens or humans of color as Imperial Officers in the original trilogy and subsequent expanded universe works. The First Order was an off-shoot of the Empire, so if the Empire was mostly white, it didn't make much sense for Finn, as a stormtrooper, to be black.

But what bothers me far more than the lore discrepancy there, is that Finn largely felt like a throwaway character that had little part to play in the overall storyline of the trilogy. He was put in for brownie points with the woke crowd, and then got crappy character development, with the Rey-Finn shippers being ignored in favor of catering to the rather cringey Rey-Kylo shippers. If Fin had actually been a good character with good character development, people would have forgotten their issues with a Black Stormtrooper real quick.

Can a bad black character ever just be that? Is a bad character that's a minority by definition someone shoved in for "woke points"?

Also just wanted to point out if you say the empire was mostly white then it is totally reasonable for any single person to be black. For Finn to not make sense the Empire needs to be entirely white, not mostly white. 



...