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
GoldenHand80 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Your comment is the fruit of youtube drama,i do not like the story either but your reasoning is uninformed.

And the story about him and Amy Hennig is not factual,the writer of that story at IGN said he was forced to include that in his article by his piece of shit bosses at that time that got fired some time after for abusing the staff.

I actually avoided all the leaks and spoilers. Played 12 hours of the game and just couldn't complete it, it is the most uninteresting and boring story and gameplay. The only good thing about it is graphics but just good graphics dont make a game good. I saw all the youtube drama after I played the game and they were not wrong at all and I wish I saw all of that before I played this rolling pile of crap. It is not a good game, it is a product of someone who is ultra obsessed with socio-political crap.

Speaking of Amy Hennig, she actually left or was asked to leave Naughty Dog after being confronted by Neil Druckmann that he doesn't like the the direction of the story of Uncharted 4 because it needs more and stronger female presence. There is nothing wrong in that, there are many great games with female protagonists and characters. But it gets quite annoying when it is so blatantly obvious that your trying to force stuff like that and alter the vision of a writer and/or creative director just for the sake of forcing your views to everyone else. The last good game Naughty Dog made was The last of us. Everything else came after that game was a joke.

Considering the lies you're pushing here about ND and Amy Hennig, I don't believe for a second that you played TLOU Part 2. 

Now, I have two questions for you: What do you consider "socio-political crap" in TLOU Part 2?

And what did you think of TLOU 1 if you played it.



Around the Network
John2290 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Strong women have always existed.  Has nothing to do with " mashing up genders at the core chemical level. "  

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/21/14/10092116-6729349-Charmion_pictured_posing_with_her_bicep_raised_in_1897-m-17_1550758714263.jpg

You're forgetting we are talking about what Neil thinks here and wants to see in the future and in media, not what already exists.

You have demonstrated time and again that you don't know what Neil thinks.

Heck, I'm not even sure you know what you think.



John2290 said:
the-pi-guy said:

Strong women have always existed.  Has nothing to do with " mashing up genders at the core chemical level. "  

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/02/21/14/10092116-6729349-Charmion_pictured_posing_with_her_bicep_raised_in_1897-m-17_1550758714263.jpg

You're forgetting we are talking about what Neil thinks here and wants to see in the future and in media, not what already exists.

I just skimmed the last 10 pages or so of this thread (What a goddamn mess that was) and I have to say...dude, you should probably stop. IT's clear the one with the agenda here is YOU, not Neil or anyone else. YOU are the one clearly intending to disrupt what you perceive as slights against traditional gender roles. It's YOU who seems to have a problem with counterbalancing in the medium (by including more women to make up for the relative lack of women in the past). YOU are the one pushing an agenda, and it's kinda gross, to be honest. 



the-pi-guy said:

I just want to preface this first. This isn't directed at any one in this thread, it was more of a response to some reddit threads that I read following the game. And if you feel that some of my criticisms are pointed at things you posted in this thread, I hope that instead of getting bothered, that you'll put some real thought into what I've said, why you actually feel the way you do about the game.

Spoiler!

The only thing I knew about the game going into it was that there was a transgender character, and that there was some outrage over a scene.  

So I played through, clocked about 22 hours of the game wondering what kind of scene would trigger the outrage.  I got to the end and was incredibly confused. The whole time I was basically waiting for some kind of scene where a character gets a sex change right on screen, instead I thought it was the biggest nothing to ever get outraged against. I had been avoiding all spoilers, because I wanted to experience the entire game.  I did not even watch most of the trailer that were put out.  I only watched the ones shown at E3.  And I quickly played through the game to join the conversation about the game.  

And the conversation has been ridiculously disappointing.  The game has a lot of flaws.  It's weirdly the best incredibly flawed game I've ever played. Some of my favorite games, I have a really hard time thinking of any real flaws with them.  Not that they're perfect, but to me they're so darn close, they might as well be perfect games.  Bloodborne, Uncharted 2, the original Last of Us, there's nothing I'd change about those games.  This game on the other hand to me feels like it has a lot of flaws, and yet I'd rate it almost as highly as those games.  Which is crazy.  

It was overly long I felt.  And it was a bit jarring to go back between very long flashbacks, and very long present day gameplay.  I think the game would have felt better by cutting out a day for both characters.  I think it would have felt better if some of the flashbacks were replaced by more shorter lighter hearted moments in the game.  

There are other problems that weren't as big of a deal to me, but some brought it up.  Basically the game makes you feel bad for things that weren't your fault.  

It's been frustrating, because there's a lot to discuss with the game.  There's flaws to talk about.  There are design choices to talk about.  And yet a fair amount of dialogue is about things that didn't even happen in the game.  Like Abby isn't trans, and she's never suggested in the game to be as such.  I watched the first 10 minutes of the Angry Joe review, and he started complaining about things that never happened.  

It's been frustrating, because people are complaining about the mere existence of certain kinds of characters.  LGBT isn't a political position.  Strong women isn't a political position.  They're people.  They're just people.  Some of those people want to be represented somehow.  A lot of people just want diverse characters and stories. I honestly have no clue, how some people can basically imply that buff women are a political agenda, without face palming themselves.  

Imagine if someone said "The Last of Us 2 is pushing a conservative agenda, because it glorifies guns as a life saving tool. It also pushes out how important it is to have that right to defend yourself.  

Skyrim is pushing a conservative agenda by having a semi-capitalistic society, and represents a proud almost patriotic group of white people who are fighting off their oppressors just like us Americans did in 1776.  

The magic bit here is that if you go into any game trying to find an agenda, if you're clever enough, chances are pretty good that you'll be able to argue that the agenda you expected is actually there.  

Even more frustrating is that every time a diverse character like I talked about previously exists, people demand that their existence be justified somehow.  As if character traits have to be justified somehow.  "why is this character male, that needs to be justified"  Even more frustratingly this game literally went to lengths to justify the characters.  Lev being transgender was part of his story.  Abby being buff was part of her story.  They weren't just token characters who were just thrown into a regular story to check off some boxes.  And yet the outrage was worse than ever.  So apparently the issue wasn't that these characters weren't justified.  

And frankly even if buff women was part of some kind of liberal agenda.  Why do you think that pixels on a screen is worth getting upset over?

You could ask yourself the same question, after all the discussions about this game are also no more than pixels on a screen, so why let them frustrate you? If I see someone say something along the lines of "TLOU2 sucks because there's a trans character!" I chuckle and move on. Every character could be a straight white male and I'd hate the game all the same. It's not impossible to have actual discussions about the game, just a matter of finding the right people. This thread is titled "The agenda and political discussion of Naughty Dog" so not the best place to discuss TLOU2 itself.

I do have a question regarding this remark: "Some of those people want to be represented somehow." Are these people not human? xD



the-pi-guy said:

I just want to preface this first. This isn't directed at any one in this thread, it was more of a response to some reddit threads that I read following the game. And if you feel that some of my criticisms are pointed at things you posted in this thread, I hope that instead of getting bothered, that you'll put some real thought into what I've said, why you actually feel the way you do about the game.

Spoiler!

The only thing I knew about the game going into it was that there was a transgender character, and that there was some outrage over a scene.  

So I played through, clocked about 22 hours of the game wondering what kind of scene would trigger the outrage.  I got to the end and was incredibly confused. The whole time I was basically waiting for some kind of scene where a character gets a sex change right on screen, instead I thought it was the biggest nothing to ever get outraged against. I had been avoiding all spoilers, because I wanted to experience the entire game.  I did not even watch most of the trailer that were put out.  I only watched the ones shown at E3.  And I quickly played through the game to join the conversation about the game.  

And the conversation has been ridiculously disappointing.  The game has a lot of flaws.  It's weirdly the best incredibly flawed game I've ever played. Some of my favorite games, I have a really hard time thinking of any real flaws with them.  Not that they're perfect, but to me they're so darn close, they might as well be perfect games.  Bloodborne, Uncharted 2, the original Last of Us, there's nothing I'd change about those games.  This game on the other hand to me feels like it has a lot of flaws, and yet I'd rate it almost as highly as those games.  Which is crazy.  

It was overly long I felt.  And it was a bit jarring to go back between very long flashbacks, and very long present day gameplay.  I think the game would have felt better by cutting out a day for both characters.  I think it would have felt better if some of the flashbacks were replaced by more shorter lighter hearted moments in the game.  

There are other problems that weren't as big of a deal to me, but some brought it up.  Basically the game makes you feel bad for things that weren't your fault.  

It's been frustrating, because there's a lot to discuss with the game.  There's flaws to talk about.  There are design choices to talk about.  And yet a fair amount of dialogue is about things that didn't even happen in the game.  Like Abby isn't trans, and she's never suggested in the game to be as such.  I watched the first 10 minutes of the Angry Joe review, and he started complaining about things that never happened.  

It's been frustrating, because people are complaining about the mere existence of certain kinds of characters.  LGBT isn't a political position.  Strong women isn't a political position.  They're people.  They're just people.  Some of those people want to be represented somehow.  A lot of people just want diverse characters and stories. I honestly have no clue, how some people can basically imply that buff women are a political agenda, without face palming themselves.  

Imagine if someone said "The Last of Us 2 is pushing a conservative agenda, because it glorifies guns as a life saving tool. It also pushes out how important it is to have that right to defend yourself.  

Skyrim is pushing a conservative agenda by having a semi-capitalistic society, and represents a proud almost patriotic group of white people who are fighting off their oppressors just like us Americans did in 1776.  

The magic bit here is that if you go into any game trying to find an agenda, if you're clever enough, chances are pretty good that you'll be able to argue that the agenda you expected is actually there.  

Even more frustrating is that every time a diverse character like I talked about previously exists, people demand that their existence be justified somehow.  As if character traits have to be justified somehow.  "why is this character male, that needs to be justified"  Even more frustratingly this game literally went to lengths to justify the characters.  Lev being transgender was part of his story.  Abby being buff was part of her story.  They weren't just token characters who were just thrown into a regular story to check off some boxes.  And yet the outrage was worse than ever.  So apparently the issue wasn't that these characters weren't justified.  

And frankly even if buff women was part of some kind of liberal agenda.  Why do you think that pixels on a screen is worth getting upset over?

Agree with your post. And again for me it was easy to see the changes from previous game and how this have more elements of a politically progressive oriented team, but nothing in the game really is lost, tarnished or reduced in quality because of it. For me it doesn't make sense someone would break a law in the clan to get expelled and put sister in danger because couldn't hold the urge to cut the hair, but well if chars didn't do bad choices there wouldn't be a story at all.

And I'm middle ground on the need to justify a char, most of time it isn't necessary. But if you are portraying something (with some tentative of realism) and that char is very different than what should be there, like if you wanted to have a black samurai or woman shogun, then some narrative explaining that would be good to ground us on why he is there without breaking immersion or bringing unneded questions.



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
Jumpin said:
Zoombael said:

Complete sentences?

When i write "a little fascist" i mean "a little fascist", not real fascism and national socialism, no fascist governmental apperatus. What i was actually refering to you ask...

When the NSDAP came to power they started Nazification, or the historically descriptive term, "Gleichschaltung". Translations i found include "enforced (political) conformity". Close enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung

Naturally, that included the arts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_in_Nazi_Germany

The problem isn't when the individual artist chooses to cover socialpolitical 'n stuff. The moment when guidelines and standards are enacted by companies and institutions interfering with the mechanisms of an industry, when an entire art form and the creative process is crippled to meet ideological ideals and anyone and anything to step out of line is being chastised and demonized, that's the point where it gets "a little fascist".

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-02-20-kingdom-come-deliverance-review

The Last Of US pt. II Good game.

The Last Of Us Bad game.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/arts/video-games/in-the-video-game-the-last-of-us-survival-favors-the-man.html?_r=0%7C

https://www.sciencespo.fr/en/news/news/%E2%80%9Cpropaganda-is-the-foundation-of-liberal-democracy%E2%80%9D/3992?fbclid=IwAR1qvzO55vyKB41IKa_DPWyVFW1y_XarwfcabJqCbPi7ELJjtvcraxD2gxY

No, seriously, are you actually making some attempt at satire? Or do you actually believe that absurdity that you’re writing?


Fascism is a far right ultranationalist ideology that advocates for the penalizing (usually in the form of enslavement or extermination) of those who do not fit the traditional cultural and (in the case of Nazis) genetic paradigm of the nation. It is enforced by a totalitarian government which does not tolerate any kind of opposition.

How does The Last of Us support the so-called Totalitarian ultra-nationalist US regime in their goals of eliminating minority viewpoints that aim to subvert the national identity of the US?

Not even addressing the issue i was pointing out and its full extent, makes it evident that you didn't understand a shred of what i was trying to convey. Try again or leave it be.



Hunting Season is done...

Alara317 said:
John2290 said:

You're forgetting we are talking about what Neil thinks here and wants to see in the future and in media, not what already exists.

I just skimmed the last 10 pages or so of this thread (What a goddamn mess that was) and I have to say...dude, you should probably stop. IT's clear the one with the agenda here is YOU, not Neil or anyone else. YOU are the one clearly intending to disrupt what you perceive as slights against traditional gender roles. It's YOU who seems to have a problem with counterbalancing in the medium (by including more women to make up for the relative lack of women in the past). YOU are the one pushing an agenda, and it's kinda gross, to be honest. 

Are you saying they'll counterbalance the lack of colored people in the future. They haven't counterbalanced up to this point, so i expect to see a lotta non-caucasian AAA single player protagonists. Man, this is going to be an epic counterbalance.



Hunting Season is done...

the-pi-guy said:

>so why let them frustrate you?

I'm not frustrated about the game, or anything in the game.  

>Are these people not human?

Why go that far?  They are alive, aren't they?

It's almost like having a head, two arms and two legs isn't enough diversity for people to be satisfied. 

I'm clearly referring to your frustration n disappointment regarding the discussions about the game, I don't see how you could have misunderstood that. Complaining about complainers isn't any less trivial than complaints about the game, to be frank it's completely useless, whereas criticism towards the game could potentially yield a better game.

Why isn't that enough? We are all human and therefore represented. Also why even care? The color of the cast has no bearing on quality, they're also just pixels on a screen.

I feel this whole demand for representation is just as petty as getting upset about games (and everything really) having attractive characters. If one is offended by such characters or the lack of, that's their problem they need to sort out. The creator is free to make his characters as diverse or not as he wants, while the consumer is free to buy it or not.



Lonely_Dolphin said:
the-pi-guy said:

>so why let them frustrate you?

I'm not frustrated about the game, or anything in the game.  

>Are these people not human?

Why go that far?  They are alive, aren't they?

It's almost like having a head, two arms and two legs isn't enough diversity for people to be satisfied. 

I'm clearly referring to your frustration n disappointment regarding the discussions about the game, I don't see how you could have misunderstood that. Complaining about complainers isn't any less trivial than complaints about the game, to be frank it's completely useless, whereas criticism towards the game could potentially yield a better game.

Why isn't that enough? We are all human and therefore represented. Also why even care? The color of the cast has no bearing on quality, they're also just pixels on a screen.

I feel this whole demand for representation is just as petty as getting upset about games (and everything really) having attractive characters. If one is offended by such characters or the lack of, that's their problem they need to sort out. The creator is free to make his characters as diverse or not as he wants, while the consumer is free to buy it or not.

As much as is petty to demand representation (I don't think it is important and like to watch a lot of thing the protagonist is quite different from me) it is also petty to complain about a game being diverse on cast physical appearance and race/gender/sexual orientation.



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."

the-pi-guy said:

>I don't see how you could have misunderstood that. 

I don't see how you could have misunderstood the difference between discussions about a game, and the actual game itself.  

>Complaining about complainers isn't any less trivial than complaints about the game, to be frank it's completely useless, 

Uh no.  Complaining about a game doesn't hurt anyone.  Complaining that there are LGBT characters in a game does hurt someone.  I know you don't understand why or how, but the point here is they aren't equivalent.  Being a racist isn't equivalent to being anti-racist, because "trivially they both dislike someone".  

>whereas criticism towards the game could potentially yield a better game.

This is a big point of my post. The game has a lot of room for criticism. The problem is, a lot of supposed criticism about the game isn't actually criticism of the game.  

>Why isn't that enough? 

People want role models. These seemingly inconsequential things have an actual impact on kids and teenagers.  

People want to see characters that they relate with somehow.  

Whether it's a character trait like someone being nerdy or whether it's a struggle people relate with. Those are the characters that stand out. 

>The creator is free to make his characters as diverse or not as he wants, while the consumer is free to buy it or not.

Exactly.  

You can claim moral superiority, but the exact topic of their complaints is irrelevant to the point that you are a pot calling a kettle black. I don't agree with your assertion that the majority of TLOU2 complaints are solely about identity politics. When you admit to only watching 1/5th of a single somewhat critical review where you say it covers things that didn't happen (Joel's death didn't happen???), it brings to question whether your representation of the criticism is fair.

Also, lol yes even legit complaints upset people. Can't tell ya how many times I've been called racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., but while I am weak, I'm not that much a snowflake to let baseless and expected insults over the internet upset me. Pretty easy to disregard when you can just tab out, a shame many don't understand this and instead choose to play victim.

Being a good role model and being relatable have little to do with appearance n sexuality, and everything to do with personality, backstory, circumstances, relationships, goals, values, and so ons as you say yourself. Good we're at least agreed on this, couldn't tell if you were the type that demands developers force in diversity.

DonFerrari said:

As much as is petty to demand representation (I don't think it is important and like to watch a lot of thing the protagonist is quite different from me) it is also petty to complain about a game being diverse on cast physical appearance and race/gender/sexual orientation.

That it is, shoulda made it more clear I meant the other way around too. The minority, keyword: minority that are adverse to diversity as just as snowflakey.