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

Forums - Politics Discussion - Concord is Sony's biggest failure in gaming history.

curl-6 said:

Houseflies live longer than Concord did

A virgin on prom night lasts longer than concord.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
IcaroRibeiro said:
JuliusHackebeil said:

I am afraid this is an assertion without proof, or even argument.

Yes, many words have grammatical genders. It is the same in my mother language (german) too. But the question is not if they have one. It is if that grammatical gender is directed and dictated by a social construct – our modern understanding of gender – or by sex. And gender as we understand it is so young, that it could not possibly have played a role in forming the decisions of what person gets what pronoun.

And I get that social roles can be old. But a man not conforming to social roles, or in fact exclusively practicing female social roles, would still be a man for all the understanding we had on this topic until five minutes ago.

Also, please consider this: gender, as modernity dictates, is a spectrum. So how come we only now get a spectrum of gendered pronouns and up until recently only had he/she – a binary? Because it is in direct relation to and consequence of another binary – sex. It is also an extremely modern mindset, that gender is everything and sex says rather little about an individual.

 

“The pronouns are just to identify what is the gender of the character. It’s just that.”

“The pronouns are just a way to make the player understand what are the gender of the robots and non-human characters”

A lot of people like the idea and theory of gender. But please note that it is just that, a theory. Set up in a way so it can never be proven or disproven. Unintelligible, non-empirical. My opinion, as I actually argued (above) is, that pronouns are not a way to identify what gender a character has, but what sex.

Now a robot does not have a sex. But it can be programmed to come across as if it had. And if alien reproduction turns out not to work like it does with the human binary sex, then perhaps different pronouns, like “it” could be in order. But I cannot imagine the concord devs thought so deeply about it.

But since pronoun choices also apply (presumably in concord too) to humans (and not just to robots and aliens) your point is moot again. Also, why choose pronouns at all, if they are dictated by how the fictional characters would feel inside or what social roles they take on? This at least should not be your choice but the characters. But since it is your choice, it is about you, not about humans, robots, aliens or anything else. This is just for the player. And this is also a common thread in the gender discourse – self-obsession – a downright recipe for unhappiness.

And please don’t call people deranged or having brain rot, just because they do not believe in this unproven gender theory and think that pronouns work differently than you do.

Your entire premise is based on the assumption you can select characters pronouns/gender. It's a false premise. 

You're not brainroted for not believing in gender theory, you're at worst uninformed. You're brainroted if you are one of those chronically online people who choose to fight with an inexistent enemy

Guys for some reason decided this game is woke and are creating narratives to get angry for no reason. This is typical deranged political minions behavior. If you're like that, you're deranged 

My brother in Christ.. out of a 16 characters roster, they had 10 female characters, 1 Trans character, and only 4 males characters; and not only that, but it is pretty obvious that they went out of their way to strip away any trace of sexappeal from those ladies. Are you really gonna say with a straight face that you think none of that was intentional?



god this is just pathetic

I said this wasn't Sony's biggest failure because the Vita and the PS3 exists, but even then, these are two are loved by millions of people, but Concord? Not only it failed badly but it's not loved by anyone. Everybody don't care or just hates this game, I never seen something like that lmao

It is indeed a case to studied and Sony's biggest failure. There's just nothing good to be saved here like the PS3 or the Vita.



Top one is 4 minutes and quickly drastically redesigns a character. Second is a professional explaining why the designs don't work. No agenda.

Last edited by Leynos - on 04 September 2024

Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

IcaroRibeiro said:
JuliusHackebeil said:

I am afraid this is an assertion without proof, or even argument.

Yes, many words have grammatical genders. It is the same in my mother language (german) too. But the question is not if they have one. It is if that grammatical gender is directed and dictated by a social construct – our modern understanding of gender – or by sex. And gender as we understand it is so young, that it could not possibly have played a role in forming the decisions of what person gets what pronoun.

And I get that social roles can be old. But a man not conforming to social roles, or in fact exclusively practicing female social roles, would still be a man for all the understanding we had on this topic until five minutes ago.

Also, please consider this: gender, as modernity dictates, is a spectrum. So how come we only now get a spectrum of gendered pronouns and up until recently only had he/she – a binary? Because it is in direct relation to and consequence of another binary – sex. It is also an extremely modern mindset, that gender is everything and sex says rather little about an individual.

 

“The pronouns are just to identify what is the gender of the character. It’s just that.”

“The pronouns are just a way to make the player understand what are the gender of the robots and non-human characters”

A lot of people like the idea and theory of gender. But please note that it is just that, a theory. Set up in a way so it can never be proven or disproven. Unintelligible, non-empirical. My opinion, as I actually argued (above) is, that pronouns are not a way to identify what gender a character has, but what sex.

Now a robot does not have a sex. But it can be programmed to come across as if it had. And if alien reproduction turns out not to work like it does with the human binary sex, then perhaps different pronouns, like “it” could be in order. But I cannot imagine the concord devs thought so deeply about it.

But since pronoun choices also apply (presumably in concord too) to humans (and not just to robots and aliens) your point is moot again. Also, why choose pronouns at all, if they are dictated by how the fictional characters would feel inside or what social roles they take on? This at least should not be your choice but the characters. But since it is your choice, it is about you, not about humans, robots, aliens or anything else. This is just for the player. And this is also a common thread in the gender discourse – self-obsession – a downright recipe for unhappiness.

And please don’t call people deranged or having brain rot, just because they do not believe in this unproven gender theory and think that pronouns work differently than you do.

Your entire premise is based on the assumption you can select characters pronouns/gender. It's a false premise. 

You're not brainroted for not believing in gender theory, you're at worst uninformed. You're brainroted if you are one of those chronically online people who choose to fight with an inexistent enemy

Guys for some reason decided this game is woke and are creating narratives to get angry for no reason. This is typical deranged political minions behavior. If you're like that, you're deranged 

This was hardly my "entire premise", rather one of many points I argued. But I am glad to hear that it is not a choice. Makes it somewhat more consistent at least. Honestly, thanks for clearing that up.

And I can see how the connection between Concord and its characters and pronoun inclusion on one side and authoritarian cuts to free speech on the other side seems flimsy. But rest assured, it is there. The more alternative or neo-pronouns are found in Concord, the more it becomes normal to use them. The more it becomes normal to use them, the more it becomes abnormal to speak out against them. The more it becomes abnormal/socially unaccepable to speak out against them, the more legislation we will see to protect them. We are already at a point where this becomes a vicous cycle.

You said there are people suffering from brainrot because they fight against inexistent enemies. I would argue instead of "fight" to use "speaking out against" and instead of "enemy" to use "uninformed people", "trend chasers" and "virtue signalers". Then it fits for me. The truly aweful psychos you would have to fight against. But I don't do that.

Make no mistake though, all of them do in fact exist. Hence all the horrible social practices, people who cannot function, ideas from universities, legislation, policing of thought crimes and unending list of victims to this neo-religion. 

I would strongly recommend to watch this 8 min video from the ever on point Andrew Doyle for his format "free speech nation". Really sums up many of my points quite well while pointing to some specific cases. If you don't want to watch, let me at least leave you with a quote from the video: "the basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

-Philip K. Dick

Andrew Doyle Free Speech Nation

Ps: art (like video games) is is a rather special case as a political platform. And propaganda works really well and is historically commonly used within.



Around the Network

All that effort , could have been placed on a single player experience (that has multiplayer option) but now its shuttered and will become unplayable.

Good on them refunding but sucks for those who bought the game physically.



Double post, apologies. 



JuliusHackebeil said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Your entire premise is based on the assumption you can select characters pronouns/gender. It's a false premise. 

You're not brainroted for not believing in gender theory, you're at worst uninformed. You're brainroted if you are one of those chronically online people who choose to fight with an inexistent enemy

Guys for some reason decided this game is woke and are creating narratives to get angry for no reason. This is typical deranged political minions behavior. If you're like that, you're deranged 

This was hardly my "entire premise", rather one of many points I argued. But I am glad to hear that it is not a choice. Makes it somewhat more consistent at least. Honestly, thanks for clearing that up.

And I can see how the connection between Concord and its characters and pronoun inclusion on one side and authoritarian cuts to free speech on the other side seems flimsy. But rest assured, it is there. The more alternative or neo-pronouns are found in Concord, the more it becomes normal to use them. The more it becomes normal to use them, the more it becomes abnormal to speak out against them. The more it becomes abnormal/socially unaccepable to speak out against them, the more legislation we will see to protect them. We are already at a point where this becomes a vicous cycle.

You said there are people suffering from brainrot because they fight against inexistent enemies. I would argue instead of "fight" to use "speaking out against" and instead of "enemy" to use "uninformed people", "trend chasers" and "virtue signalers". Then it fits for me. The truly aweful psychos you would have to fight against. But I don't do that.

Make no mistake though, all of them do in fact exist. Hence all the horrible social practices, people who cannot function, ideas from universities, legislation, policing of thought crimes and unending list of victims to this neo-religion. 

I would strongly recommend to watch this 8 min video from the ever on point Andrew Doyle for his format "free speech nation". Really sums up many of my points quite well while pointing to some specific cases. If you don't want to watch, let me at least leave you with a quote from the video: "the basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

-Philip K. Dick

Andrew Doyle Free Speech Nation

Ps: art (like video games) is is a rather special case as a political platform. And propaganda works really well and is historically commonly used within.

I’m really enjoying and appreciating your thoughtful and eloquent replies. You echo my views on the matter perfectly and far more succinctly and calmly than I can. Thank you. 



JuliusHackebeil said:

If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

-Philip K. Dick

A big issue that I have with this kind of argument, is what about the people that control the words in the other direction? 

Group A coming up with new words they want to use, and Group B wants to prevent them from using those words. Why do you view Group A exclusively as being the one controlling the words, and not Group B preventing Group A's language use?

That's a big problem with these kinds of generic statements, they're often true in both directions.

Just like that neo-nazi quote that constantly gets thrown around "simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

No body wants to be criticized and plenty of people on all parts of the political spectrum get pretty upset if they're criticized.

It just ends up being meaningless. It only sounds good to people who lack self awareness. 



the-pi-guy said:
JuliusHackebeil said:

If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."

-Philip K. Dick

A big issue that I have with this kind of argument, is what about the people that control the words in the other direction? 

Group A coming up with new words they want to use, and Group B wants to prevent them from using those words. Why do you view Group A exclusively as being the one controlling the words, and not Group B preventing Group A's language use?

That's a big problem with these kinds of generic statements, they're often true in both directions.

Just like that neo-nazi quote that constantly gets thrown around "simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"

No body wants to be criticized and plenty of people on all parts of the political spectrum get pretty upset if they're criticized.

It just ends up being meaningless. It only sounds good to people who lack self awareness. 

Because Group A wants to compel Group B to use the new words. However, let me speak from my own perspective as that’s the only one I have authority on.

I genuinely do not care what words individuals or groups use. They are free to use all the words that they like. In fact, I do not care what actions individuals or groups take, with one caveat; that these words/actions do not harm, or infringe on, the rights of others. My problem begins where compelled speech/behaviour comes into play.

I will not be compelled by any person or entity to use words that I do not wish to use and I find it egregious at the very best to be told I WILL use certain words and that if I do not use the words or language as mandated to me then I can expect one or more of many negative consequences to come my way. I can understand why it is preferable that some words are NOT used in public speech (but again, I don’t agree with it being illegal, unless it incites violence), but I refuse and find it an affront to my person to be told which words I MUST use and in which context. Let Group A use all the words they like, and let Group B use the words they like, but neither Group or Group B should be compelled to use the words as set out by the other.