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
Immersiveunreality on 27 June 2020
Hiku said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Bolded :I thought it can be possible they thought it would be accentuated a bit more on such a bodytype and that Sony recently has been censoring others games.

I don't know what that means?
When a game company censors something, they tend to be consistent, right? If they censor one pair of boobs, they're going to censor another from a similar angle.

Every other woman has a normal body build in TLOU2. They're even shown off semi naked. So what exactly are you suggesting they may be censoring?

Immersiveunreality said:

And yes i also know how bodybuilding works as i have done it in the past,lots of pain and sweat and just frequency and eating the needed nutrients.So how Abby found all the time and energy needed in a postapocalyptic world to achieve that kind of mass is a bit unrealistic but it also is not that important.

Maybe it is. Though not as unrealistic as one single person having the only known immunity and cure to a zombie apocalypse, right?
Because that's something we've never seen before in reality. While in reality we have women buffer than Abby, that makes her look almost scrawny in comparison:



And they got that big even though they don't live in a world where everything is trying to kill you.
I think everyone's suspension of disbelief was at the level that 'videogames will do videogame scenarios' after the first game.

First bolded:Naked more better recognizeable boobs that look like they are on top of the chest,possible avoidance of that could be seen as some sort of censoring.I never said they DID censor anything just questioning choices they made and how that could have a possible connection to censoring.

Sec bolded: But that is much less in the face and suits the story of the game,that is a big difference.

Third bolded: Yes,killing zombies does not give the muscle mass Abby has but the woman above her you showed has all the time in the world to train with weights,its her work and her life.

But i still have no real issue with her bodytype,it was just an interesting though(at first,now i'm sick of it)



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality on 27 June 2020
J31D said:

I find it hilarious when a developer is embracing inclusivity and representation in its projects is considered political and is attacked and hated for it. When instead we should be applauding them.

I for one am very proud of being a Naughty Dog fan and welcome the "direction they're heading" as it more realistic and believable than having only white wise cracking males with buff bodies dominant the industry. There's more to this world than white guys and sexy vixen women. I would love to be able to see a multitude of different characters being covered in video games. We should have more diversity and I hope we get to see it during the next generation.

I also find it more funny that a minority character needs to be explained into the story and need to "make sense" ad it's not realistic enough for some, and their existence need to be scrutinized and put under a microscope. I see people here questioning U4's Naidine while turning a blind eye to the biggest plot hole in the history of ND... SAM. And for those questioning Abby's body... Women come in different shapes and sizes... And colours... Some are flat chested and have no waist... Some look more masculine... Nature is complicated... GET OVER IT!

I think it should be considered just normal.



J31D on 27 June 2020

It should be, but given the status quo of the industry right now, this was a ballsy move on their behalf and should be applauded.



DonFerrari on 27 June 2020
John2290 said:
Runa216 said:

yeah, that's basically it. and to 'some people', that's an affront to their comfortable existence and find it offensive. However, people know that it's not okay to say 'the existence of lesbian/diverse/butch characters is offensive', so they wiggle around to find other excuses to hate things that have these characters. 

Oftentimes, the people don't even realize they're doing it. 

You're doing a diservice to these social issues when you use them as a shield against real criticism, don't do that. You only cause resentment instead of acceptance because it's so snake like and deceptive. 

I have real criticisms of the game but I liked Lev and Abby however I hated Dina to an entreme and though she was a terrible character, badly written and given no real chance to develop.

Now, you can say I'm using Lev and Abby to sheild against my hate for lesbians, which I don't have, see how that works? I hate Dina for how she is written and crafted, what she does and the lack of what she does, I hate her character not her sexuality. 

Since Lev is transex would be hard to say you hate lesbian while liking her.



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 on 27 June 2020
Xxain said:
Were still over assessing Abby's body?

Lets ask again: We have a trained black woman beat up Nate and Sam and that is considered to be unrealistic, in a series that has one guy kill entire entire militias on top of having supernatural elements. In this game we have Ellie, who is a twig (Even with the little muscle mass she has, she would still struggle with men 30 pounds her size) manage to bring down and restrain grown men, but for some reason Nadine and Abby are the subject unrealism?

With Abby I have 0 problem. But with nadine that is exactly the problem, Natan have killed whole armies, have beaten supernatural enemy but get schooled by Nadine even with the help of his brother and can't even touch her... I understand why that is done and can overcome it, it is something common in game to show the level of the challenge, but felt very unnatural (and not only because she was a woman that wasn't muscle head, because we know that most of the top fighters in our world aren't really that big on muscles).



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
DonFerrari on 27 June 2020
Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

With Abby I have 0 problem. But with nadine that is exactly the problem, Natan have killed whole armies, have beaten supernatural enemy but get schooled by Nadine even with the help of his brother and can't even touch her... I understand why that is done and can overcome it, it is something common in game to show the level of the challenge, but felt very unnatural (and not only because she was a woman that wasn't muscle head, because we know that most of the top fighters in our world aren't really that big on muscles).

I think since Nathan is the type of character that comes out of conflicts with entire armies alive, I don't really think about how much his battles make sense any more.
Though I think with Nadine they were presenting him with the challenge of a martial arts expert, which to my recollection Nate hasn't dealt with before. He usually solves his problems with guns. So when facing trained experts in hand to hand combat, Nate is like a fish out of the water. It reminded me of how James Bond started getting beat up in humiliating ways by Jaws, after always looking like the cool guy before that.

Besides Jason Stathan didn`t he also fought some big brawlers on UC3?

And as I said I found odd when I played against Nadine, but yes leaving alive after killing 100s of enemies single handedly already put any discussion about believable scenario in check anyway. But yes I could agree that perhaps one on one against a trained martial arts would be a very different challenge than all his other battles. Still that challenged the coherency in the story and caused strangeness, and probably that was the objective anyway to challenge what you believe about the char, anyway it didn`t took a single milesimal of my enjoyment and score for the game =p

But it is undeniable that ND have going for progressive ideas, with strong woman, less sex appeal on females chars, more inclusive of LGBTQI+, still as I said they have done it so far that it looks good on the story (the way some of their employees behave on social media is a bigger problem imho) and even when they pushed more of that into TLOU2 it doesn`t get to the point of breaking the story or looking not believable inside their world.



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 on 27 June 2020
Hiku said:
DonFerrari said:

Besides Jason Stathan didn`t he also fought some big brawlers on UC3?

And as I said I found odd when I played against Nadine, but yes leaving alive after killing 100s of enemies single handedly already put any discussion about believable scenario in check anyway. But yes I could agree that perhaps one on one against a trained martial arts would be a very different challenge than all his other battles. Still that challenged the coherency in the story and caused strangeness, and probably that was the objective anyway to challenge what you believe about the char, anyway it didn`t took a single milesimal of my enjoyment and score for the game =p

But it is undeniable that ND have going for progressive ideas, with strong woman, less sex appeal on females chars, more inclusive of LGBTQI+, still as I said they have done it so far that it looks good on the story (the way some of their employees behave on social media is a bigger problem imho) and even when they pushed more of that into TLOU2 it doesn`t get to the point of breaking the story or looking not believable inside their world.

I didn't play Uncharted 3. So how did he deal with the brawlers? And was that a cutscene?

You really fought them, a lot of dodging and them hitting critical hits. Similar to how you fight with Ellie against Abby or other larger enemies, similar to how you Nadine defeated you and all.

By Jason Statham you mean Lazarovic in UC2? Didn't Nate use his gun to shoot blue crystals that exploded?

Nope, one of the cohorts of Nate on UC3 was mocked on Jason Statham. He pretends to be an enemy and you two fight out until he defeats you and fake your death.


Nate is also trying to kill him, because Lazarovic is trying to kill him. The first time he encountered Nadine it wasn't a scenario where he could have reasonably pulled a gun at her. He had to fight his way out vs someone that excels at martial arts. And that's about how I would have expected Nate to handle that.

Yep it would be just to cheap to use a gun against Nadine since it was a one on one brawl. And as you said perhaps he never fought a specialist, I didn`t think of it at the time I played, I just felt strange that me and Sam couldn`t land a hit.

I tend to think that the enemies you kill and how you kill them (since you can do it in various ways, or even avoid fighting at times) outside of story cutscenes isn't something that necessarily happened in the story. That way some scenarios can make more sense.
Though it's not something I find important in most games.

That is true. When you have 100 enemies and you kill all as player and even if you take 10 bullets that isn`t a big issue, but on cutscene against one or two enemies a small bruise cripple you. But that to me is another part of badly written plot =p.

When it comes to doing things like less sex appeal for characters, if it's done intentionally with a female character, one reason if probably because unattractive male characters are commonly accepted. A recent example is Fire Emblem: Three Houses.

Scroll through this list of characters and tell me if you notice something about old male characters vs old female characters:
https://fireemblem.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_characters_in_Fire_Emblem:_Three_Houses

I count about 23 old/fat/unattractive/disfigured male characters.
And a grand total of 0 such females.
Every female character appears to have been designed to be attractive.

Yes I do agree that games in general have more attractive woman and is less concerned with putting ugly men, but also that have to do with the customer they want, most console game buyers are straight males so that makes sense. Just look for series made for woman and almost all male chars are handsome and few woman is pretty. That plays on the fantasy that they being below average can get someone a lot prettier.

The oldest woman there appears to be the instructor Manuela. And yeah, this is what she looks like.


Honestly a progressive move here would be to have 23 old/fat/unattractive women with scars across their face, etc. But the developers that add maybe one are considered progressive.
That's kind of wild.



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."

Immersiveunreality on 27 June 2020

If there is to be an TLOU3 i would like to have a game from start to end with Abby,how she copes with and tries to win people over to not see her as a monster no more and maybe her trying to stop another from going the same path she went and act as a leader that seeks peace over war.



Runa216 on 27 June 2020

Honestly, I'm shocked at the discourse this thread has taken. Seriously 'she has to be trans because she's buff' and 'her being trans is bad becuase it's political to put a trans person in the game and ND is an SJW company'? Seriously?

Alright guys. alright. First of all, no. Just no. There's nothing unreasonable about Abby's figure and it makes a tonne of sense in the context of the game - or any context, for that matter. the fact that some of you are going so far to justify your stance or opinion on the matter is outright laughable, an olympic-level bit of mental acrobatics. It's not a debate. Some of you are just wrong and being foolish and it's kinda funny that people are humouring you.

Second of all, who the fuck cares? Who cares if she's trans? Trans people exist, I imagine a post-apocalyptic wasteland is a perfect opportunity to shed your external image and just be who you are, and seriously who the fuck cares if she has a penis or not. IT's not relevant to the story, it's headcanon you made up yourself in order to justify...something. I don't even know anymore. IT's a hell of a leap of logic just to get to an unreasonable conclusion based on feelings instead of rationality with no real purpose other than to convince yourself that someone in a game you didn't make is a thing that apparently matters to you just so you can turn around and act like it doesn't matter to you? You can't go through so many hoops to justify your belief that a character is trans just to say 'but that shouldn't matter, it's the characterization I don't like!'

If you didn't care or it wasn't important to you, you wouldn't be putting so much effort into your twisted logic to justify it.

Thirdly, who the fuck cares if Naughty dog is an SJW shill or pandering? The world has been dominated by straight white males and the industry has been that way for as long as there's been an industry; why would it be such a bad thing to try something new? Who does it hurt to say 'you know what? we're a progressive company, let's make the main character to our next story a lesbian woman!'? Who does that hurt. If you don't like it, then don't play it. It's not like white male protagonists are going away. This fear of white genocide or the gay agenda or whatever 'the minorities are getting power, let's find a way to make it look like they wanna wipe us all out and replace us with fags/women/black people' objective is pathetic. IT's pathetic. It's absolutely disgraceful that some people are so insecure that they can't handle playing a woman protagonist or a person who's sexuality doesn't match up with theirs or play a game that has a political ideal that doesn't line up with your own.

The lot of you (and you know who you are) are bitching and moaning and whining about representation in your games, decrying it as propaganda...but I still don't see how representation is bad. Women have been playing games with male protagonists for as long as there have been games. Homosexual people have played games with straight protagonists for as long as there have been games.

At the worst possible outcome of all this, the majority (straight white males, presumably) just has to experience the same thing minorities have been experiencing all along. A little bit of perspective would do you some good. Stop being so selfish. Stop putting SO MUCH GODDAMN EFFORT into proving something or convincing yourself of something just for an excuse to complain about it. Stop gatekeeping who can be represented in your media. Stop acting like you're being oppressed becuase instead of representing only 95% of all gaming protagonists you only represent 87%.

Your representation isn't going anywhere just becuase some games have protagonists or characters that don't represent you.

And no, I don't believe you for a second when you say 'but it's not about that!' If it wasn't about this, you wouldn't have spent like 10 pages of this thread just debating whether or not Abby's figure was likely as a cis-female character. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't have made it matter. And the worst thing is...90% of the responses to this will STILL be variations of 'you don't get it' or 'that's not what this is about' or 'That's not what we're saying' or some variation of that stance. I've been reading this thread and others long enough to know that it's precisely about white male fragility, insecure masculinity, and whiners complaining that something doesn't represent them all while ignoring the irony that is that so many haven't felt represented for so long and now they just know how it feels to not be catered to.

This should not be an issue, yet here we are. congratulations!



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Immersiveunreality on 27 June 2020
Runa216 said:
Honestly, I'm shocked at the discourse this thread has taken. Seriously 'she has to be trans because she's buff' and 'her being trans is bad becuase it's political to put a trans person in the game and ND is an SJW company'? Seriously?

Alright guys. alright. First of all, no. Just no. There's nothing unreasonable about Abby's figure and it makes a tonne of sense in the context of the game - or any context, for that matter. the fact that some of you are going so far to justify your stance or opinion on the matter is outright laughable, an olympic-level bit of mental acrobatics. It's not a debate. Some of you are just wrong and being foolish and it's kinda funny that people are humouring you.

Second of all, who the fuck cares? Who cares if she's trans? Trans people exist, I imagine a post-apocalyptic wasteland is a perfect opportunity to shed your external image and just be who you are, and seriously who the fuck cares if she has a penis or not. IT's not relevant to the story, it's headcanon you made up yourself in order to justify...something. I don't even know anymore. IT's a hell of a leap of logic just to get to an unreasonable conclusion based on feelings instead of rationality with no real purpose other than to convince yourself that someone in a game you didn't make is a thing that apparently matters to you just so you can turn around and act like it doesn't matter to you? You can't go through so many hoops to justify your belief that a character is trans just to say 'but that shouldn't matter, it's the characterization I don't like!'

If you didn't care or it wasn't important to you, you wouldn't be putting so much effort into your twisted logic to justify it.

Thirdly, who the fuck cares if Naughty dog is an SJW shill or pandering? The world has been dominated by straight white males and the industry has been that way for as long as there's been an industry; why would it be such a bad thing to try something new? Who does it hurt to say 'you know what? we're a progressive company, let's make the main character to our next story a lesbian woman!'? Who does that hurt. If you don't like it, then don't play it. It's not like white male protagonists are going away. This fear of white genocide or the gay agenda or whatever 'the minorities are getting power, let's find a way to make it look like they wanna wipe us all out and replace us with fags/women/black people' objective is pathetic. IT's pathetic. It's absolutely disgraceful that some people are so insecure that they can't handle playing a woman protagonist or a person who's sexuality doesn't match up with theirs or play a game that has a political ideal that doesn't line up with your own.

The lot of you (and you know who you are) are bitching and moaning and whining about representation in your games, decrying it as propaganda...but I still don't see how representation is bad. Women have been playing games with male protagonists for as long as there have been games. Homosexual people have played games with straight protagonists for as long as there have been games.

At the worst possible outcome of all this, the majority (straight white males, presumably) just has to experience the same thing minorities have been experiencing all along. A little bit of perspective would do you some good. Stop being so selfish. Stop putting SO MUCH GODDAMN EFFORT into proving something or convincing yourself of something just for an excuse to complain about it. Stop gatekeeping who can be represented in your media. Stop acting like you're being oppressed becuase instead of representing only 95% of all gaming protagonists you only represent 87%.

Your representation isn't going anywhere just becuase some games have protagonists or characters that don't represent you.

And no, I don't believe you for a second when you say 'but it's not about that!' If it wasn't about this, you wouldn't have spent like 10 pages of this thread just debating whether or not Abby's figure was likely as a cis-female character. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't have made it matter. And the worst thing is...90% of the responses to this will STILL be variations of 'you don't get it' or 'that's not what this is about' or 'That's not what we're saying' or some variation of that stance. I've been reading this thread and others long enough to know that it's precisely about white male fragility, insecure masculinity, and whiners complaining that something doesn't represent them all while ignoring the irony that is that so many haven't felt represented for so long and now they just know how it feels to not be catered to.

This should not be an issue, yet here we are. congratulations!

I honestly feel sorry for you that you need to think like this,always the worst possible assumption about people and i do think you do not even have the best experience to make those assumptions.

Did you have to deal with racism and sexism or maybe do you speak out of anger and hate or guilt and reflect your own wrong thinking of the past upon others and the assumption is that others are like your past self?