Support NeoGAF

[cosmicspooks]

Honestly though, how is Polygon's youtube channel so so good while their actual website is....not so so good. It's like the website is a different company or something.

 

[Kamui079]

I feel like they're getting to the point where some segment of the writing staff is going to leave to do their own blog where they can push this as far as they'd like, and Polygon proper can get back to writing about games in a way that doesn't alienate a huge swath of readers.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

Way to fuck up a reply to a perfectly reasonable post.

That's amazing news. The more I hear about the game the better I feel, but they did an absolutely awful job of communicating any of it in their reveal trailer. The majority of consumers will investigate this reveal as much as I did - watch the official reveal trailer and base assumptions off that. It was an all-white American led group supported by explosions and helmet-meets-face smashing. I was very worried.



What the...

No-one wants an American-only, white-male only, portrayal of WW2. Equally no-one wants to see race and gender diversity in a "fantasy" manner. A lot of people want to see the kind of shit that racial segregation led to, experience the war through the eyes of non-white Americans and Europeans, and play through a story that highlights the commitments that everyone made, not just the commitments that white males made. There's a lot of room between the two extremes you're painting.

Altering what history? My black grandfather's fought in WWII.

Maybe you all misread what I meant/wrote - I'm on everyone's side - but against Polygon.

The whole "white-washing" label and saying that Sledgehammer Games is trying to portray one side and not the other is what is bothering me - that and the implication that history should not be historically accurate, lest it should offend someone. That's my point of contention.

The fact that Sledgehammer Games is trying to include every ethnicity, gender and creed into the narrative of this new Call Of Duty is a good thing - I support it as long as it is historically accurate.

No one's going to say that "it's a fact" that an Alien from Jupiter wandered onto Omaha Beach on June 6th, 1944 and won the war for the Allies because he just stood there - all stoic like.

That never happened.

That small, goofy analogy is my whole point.

If actual history and the portrayal of it in interactive media offends certain people; then maybe they should just stick to the present.

 

[Vice]

Maybe you all misread what I meant/wrote - I'm on everyone's side - but against Polygon.

The whole "white-washing" label and saying that Sledgehammer Games is trying to portray one side and not the other is what is bothering me - that and the implication that history should not be historically accurate, lest it should offend someone. That's my point of contention.

The fact that Sledgehammer Games is trying to include every ethnicity, gender and creed into the narrative of this new Call Of Duty is a good thing - I support it as long as it is historically accurate.

No one's going to say that "it's a fact" that an Alien from Jupiter wandered onto Omaha Beach on June 6th, 1944 and won the war for the Allies because he just stood there - all stoic like.

That never happened.

That small, goofy analogy is my whole point.

If actual history and the portrayal of it in interactive media offends certain people; then maybe they should just stick to the present.

White washing history is altering it though and often times media around WWII ignores the work and struggles of women and POC during the time. Such as the lack of black european and gay victims of the holocaust, the various atrocities commited to Asian countries during the war, the role of people of color in the armed forces and resistance forces. , etc.

 

[Militant17]

Does anyone else see the irony in this article? I mean they are accusing Sledgehammer of using diversity as bullet points to sell games while themselves using the subject of diversity to get article hits and revenue.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

This sounds a lot like a certain subset of Star Wars complaints... Just a stone's throw from this to "It's bad that it's diverse because I say it's diverse so they can say it's diverse".

 

[LewieP]

"Here is some criticisms of a game that I have not played but have an idea of in my head".

 

[chillybright]

From SolidSnakex in the other thread:

Simply epic.

So not only it's click bait, it is also fake news.

 

[Deckard Chapel]

"Here is some criticisms of a game that I have not played but have an idea of in my head".

 

[Cipherr]

That is absolutely not what you should be taking away from this.

This is the real danger with trash articles like this. It's going to get a bunch of people who are on edge waiting for the exception to the rule to come out and use it as justification for the wrong attitudes about these subjects. Case in point:

This is exactly why devs can't win anymore when it comes to creating a story in a game. It's a lose/lose scenario at this point. You're including women in the game? Not good enough. Better make it a game starring a woman or we're pissed off. You're featuring African American soldiers in the game? Nope, not good enough for us. Better somehow create a story for the entire campaign that can focus on them or prepare for nasty comments about your game. Instead of being happy that those things are even included in the game in some form for the players, they'll bitch that it's not enough or they'll say the devs only included it to appease people.

It's just stupid at this point. You can't please everyone. You'll always have people bitching and crying that games aren't diverse enough. Just make a good game, that's all I ask.

This is the absolute wrong thing to take from this article. First of all, it pretends that this trash ass article is the norm. And that's its more than Just Polygon doing this, and it also pretends that everyone isn't calling Polygon out for the garbage. Acting as if Devs looking to make moves in diversity are being attacked from all angles after their attempts and that's absolutely not true.

But this one article comes along and *BAM* suddenly this is some supposed regular thing that happens all the time, and devs are 'trapped'.

No. This is a sole case of a single outlet making a dumb ass non-story. That's all. Plenty of studios have made inroads on diversity in their games and NOT had a bunch of writers pull the equivalent of "I think this thing sucks, so here's an article, and we will SEE if Im right about it sucking when the game comes out lololo111".

 

[Woo-Fu]

Stuff like this would make a lot more sense if Polygon's logo was a circle. They're the unintentional Onion of videogame journalism.

 

[Daffy Duck]

What a trash tier article.

It's a shame they aren't Polygone.

 

[Always-honest]

That's some grade-a gaming journalism right there

Exactly.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Fuck this site and everything it stands for.

 

[CryptiK]

Fucking lmao, what a trash article. Gotta cash in on that click bait early I guess..

 

[red731]

 

[ghostjoke]

What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces. There was segregation, there was persecution, there were horrible atrocities committed by the Germans upon the Jewish community - there's no need to alter history into some kind of fantasy-level nonsense - it is what it was and it was what it is - we all learned about it in grade school.

Are some individuals really expecting Sledgehammer Games to just scratch the whole COD: WWII project and add-in everything that's currently acceptable as far as diversity/inclusion is concerned - at the cost of altering history??

This is simply an interactive historically-accurate game; Polygon is as always, a flushed toilet.

Treat both as such.

You realise you're doing something akin to Polygon here? There's a point in there, but it's wrapped up in and all-or-nothing attitude. That said, not all of this is directed at you. It kind of expanded out as I internally debate the line of historical accuracy:inclusive storytelling.

There's a difference between writing about an atrocity and depicting it. Writing requires you to present facts as accurately as research will allow in a digestible format to inform people. Depicting and examining it in media requires a lot of tact, something COD is likely not capable of in a WWII setting with how the average COD campaign works.

COD already ventures into fantasy lands in combat to avoid the realistic hellscapes of war. Even outside of the gameplay contrivances, it's beyond any form of realism, just nested tangentially. I'd imagine if they were to tackle the internal conflicts that bled into the external war, they would have to take some liberties for it to fit into the standard fast-linear-shooter campaigns. Of course, this runs the risk of downplaying the plights suffered there, but COD has always trivialised war for the sake of fun outside of a few tender human moments. Some contrivances are going to be needed in order to complete a character/story/gameplay arc.

The no holds barred thing can be extremely off-putting. There were two albums (for example) released this year, Mount Eerie's A Crow Looked at Me (the death of his wife) and Lil Ugly Mane's project under the alias Bedwetter (mental illness?), which are both really good albums but very much a one-listen-and-done-never-to-return for how brutally honest they are. They were personal tales (literally, one person a-piece) for the sake of expunging/coping with their inner demons. Call of Duty has never been that level of grittiness, nor will with that level of of an auteur's input. They are big budget dumb action games for the most part (not a bad thing) and giving even a small amount of time to a particular side of the war (in terms of rawness), especially when you consider they're dealing with fractions of a 6ish hour campaign, is really all they can do. They're little gateways and don't need to adhere fully to history if it would undermine getting a player invested. It should be taken with care and knowledge of history, of course, and definitely more research than Polygon and their first-to-press while the trailer is in vogue ever gives. It's a tough line, one I'm happy to never have to deal with. Gaming example here would be That Dragon Cancer, but I, like many, haven't played it because of the subject matter and the brutal honesty it is given.

Not to get too off-topic (not that Polygon put forth a topic), but I see a lot of it stemming from gaming's fear to have morally questionable characters outside of villains; not just conflicted but characters who you kind of want to strangle at times (she's no Hitler, but there's a reason I have Mae as an avatar). Most playable characters of low moral fibre are cartoonishly evil or played for comedic effect. Majority of the characters in past COD WWII games would have abhorrent views by today's liberal standards, so it's easier to stick to the heroic aspect of going off to defend your country from a great evil - people most people aren't going to defend Nazi-Germany. It's easy pickings. It's the ultimate evil, but just because you're fighting the ultimate evil, doesn't mean you're without fault. It is one aspect compared to other mediums that really feels like it's holding gaming back in storytelling and a lot of it does seems to stem from developers/publishers being wary of seeming to promote certain beliefs/attitudes because a major character holds them in a linear story. Even in open ended games, the evil path is often cartoonishly evil and not as much effort is given as with the good path. It's a weird quirk of interactive media, there's a lot more weight on a character's action if you control them.

Should point out, I dropped out of COD a while back, but I haven't heard anything beyond "that was a good/average/bad COD campaign", so I suspect they haven't made strives in complexity to their stories to be worth of mention.

 

[valkyre]

This isnt new...

The norm, the trend the -whatever you want to call it- nowadays with diversity and LGBTQ is 90% nothing but ticking boxes, just so you can "fill the obligation".

Movies do the same, series do the same, and ofc games do the same. People throw LGBTQ characters everywhere these days but most of the time, they feel like nothing but an afterthought, a cosmetic addition just to be politically correct.

Same thing with diversity. They dont care about making sense out of these things, just for them to be there, one way or another to cover all the social bulletpoints.

Of course and there are exceptions to this, but it kinda is the common practice.

 

[Kinyou]

Polygon always working hard to keep up their reputation

 

[BossDarkseid]

This isnt new...

The norm, the trend the -whatever you want to call it- nowadays with diversity and LGBTQ is 90% nothing but ticking boxes, just so you can "fill the obligation".

Movies do the same, series do the same, and ofc games do the same. People throw LGBTQ characters everywhere these days but most of the time, they feel like nothing but an afterthought, a cosmetic addition just to be politically correct.

Same thing with diversity. They dont care about making sense out of these things, just for them to be there, one way or another to cover all the social bulletpoints.

Of course and there are exceptions to this, but it kinda is the common practice.

Like, are there particular examples you have in mind? Because isn't the whole point about diversity and representation that these things are normal etc? I mean you say they don't care about it but you literally have no proof of that : /

Something like Overwatch wasn't created as "Let's be super diverse" but more of a "So, we have many different nationalities, genders and sexualities among the dev team at Blizz and the game is set on Earth so...why don't we reflect that?".

 

[valkyre]

Like, are there particular examples you have in mind? Because isn't the whole point about diversity and representation that these things are normal etc? I mean you say they don't care about it but you literally have no proof of that : /

Something like Overwatch wasn't created as "Let's be super diverse" but more of a "So, we have many different nationalities, genders and sexualities among the dev team at Blizz and the game is set on Earth so...why don't we reflect that?".

I was not talking about giving the option to have playable characters like these of course, but more so when they incorporate such characters into a story.

 

[ZeoVGM]

that is why i warned the guy from using it?

Right. Unfortunately, I don't think a warning is necessary in this case. Will PM as to not derail the thread.

 

[FutureLarking]

What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces.

Maybe not so much with the US involvement side, but certainly with the other forces there were numerous non-white combatants. Plenty of Turks, Indians, general Muslim and African fighters amongst plenty of others. Wasn't called "World War 2" for giggles.

 

[Memorabilia]

I don't know what this is, but it's not journalism.

 

[Apt101]

Polygon could at least have the buddy system from the third grade where someone sitting next to you double checks your writing work before you turn it in.

 

[R aka Bon]

I mean They could have a point if the game was released and we knew whether the game lacks diversity in that regard, but it's rather odd of them to attack the game without having seen the whole thing.

For now, the tone-deaf manner in Which this all-white production checked all the diversity boxes — “women, an African-American unit and even a child”

are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

who is they? sledgehammer was not making COD games before AW. And its not really weird they are pushing for inclusiveness now. Back then, questioning social and cultural norms were not as accepted as today.

America has gotten undeniably more socially liberal and progressive.



that is why i warned the guy from using it?

They as any of them that made non-modern cod's

Spoiler

throw in EA as well

 

[veloxStrix]

If I had one wish, it might honestly be to make Killscreen and Polygon switch places on the popularity food chain. How the hell is Killscreen barely making it while this garbage exists? Rock, Paper, Shotgun is criminally underrated as well.

Nor should it be, as it's generally used by GamerGate/Trump supporters who get angry whenever the word "diversity" is even mentioned.

"Generally" being the key word. The whole word attribution nonsense that's been happening lately in American politics is stupid. People started thinking everyone in the entire world is either a far-left American progressive or a far-right American conservative at some point. Just another way to stop having to use critical thinking or try and understand other people.

 

[Patison]

At this point, without any strong arguments backing topic's thesis, it's just racism towards white people.

Great journalism.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Huh. So having diversity in a WORLD war is being historically inaccurate. You learn something new everyday.

 

[ZeoVGM]

are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.

They're referring to the developers.

The second part of that sentence states that they are aware the game has women and African-Americans.

 

[DrunkShogun]

Poor Polygon. Will say anything to get a few views since the website is becoming irrelevant for most people.

 

[13randO]

This reads a lot like that article on Lucio before Overwatch came out. Incredible, poorly justified levels of snark all over again. Never been to Polygon since until reading the article in the OP. EDIT: Huh, same writer. Colour me not surprised.

 

[Messofanego]

Deckard Chapel's posts in this thread are as bad as Polygon's article, Jesus. I don't think he even is that well-informed on the amount of non-whites/minorities who fought in WW2 while marching right in with his "IT MUST BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE!!!" chant. No forced diversity, folks! Don't alter history!

What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces. There was segregation, there was persecution, there were horrible atrocities committed by the Germans upon the Jewish community - there's no need to alter history into some kind of fantasy-level nonsense - it is what it was and it was what it is - we all learned about it in grade school.

Are some individuals really expecting Sledgehammer Games to just scratch the whole COD: WWII project and add-in everything that's currently acceptable as far as diversity/inclusion is concerned - at the cost of altering history??

This is simply an interactive historically-accurate game; Polygon is as always, a flushed toilet.

Treat both as such.

Maybe you all misread what I meant/wrote - I'm on everyone's side - but against Polygon.

The whole "white-washing" label and saying that Sledgehammer Games is trying to portray one side and not the other is what is bothering me - that and the implication that history should not be historically accurate, lest it should offend someone. That's my point of contention.

The fact that Sledgehammer Games is trying to include every ethnicity, gender and creed into the narrative of this new Call Of Duty is a good thing - I support it as long as it is historically accurate.

No one's going to say that "it's a fact" that an Alien from Jupiter wandered onto Omaha Beach on June 6th, 1944 and won the war for the Allies because he just stood there - all stoic like.

That never happened.

That small, goofy analogy is my whole point.

If actual history and the portrayal of it in interactive media offends certain people; then maybe they should just stick to the present.

Rebuttals:

Somewhere, there's an actual journalist(s) who has been researching and examining how games handle and could improve the inclusion of minorities in WWII without coming across as pandering/exploitative and where deviation are necessary without trivialising the internal tensions present from outside the war. Then Polygon burst in like the Kool-Aid Man and add a mountain for them to climb in order to be taken seriously.



How do two people write this and neither question what they are doing? Seriously? This sounds like an editor's note.

What the...

No-one wants an American-only, white-male only, portrayal of WW2. Equally no-one wants to see race and gender diversity in a "fantasy" manner. A lot of people want to see the kind of shit that racial segregation led to, experience the war through the eyes of non-white Americans and Europeans, and play through a story that highlights the commitments that everyone made, not just the commitments that white males made. There's a lot of room between the two extremes you're painting.

Altering what history? My black grandfather's fought in WWII.

 

[Alo0oy]

When did Polygon start hiring gamergators?

 

[Symphonia]

Polygon are true masters of trolling. Who reads them?

No-one. That's why they're crying for attention.

 

[The Boat]

Polygon keeps checking all the wrong boxes.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Guys, we should totally piss people off by making a World War II game with Asian people. That would change history and reverse whitewash, since we all know Asians weren't in WWII. Having Asians in it would freak people out so much.

 

[ZeoVGM]

When did Polygon start hiring gamergators?

Er, what?

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I don't want to give them the click, but it sounds like they're whining about something they won't actually know until the rest of us in November? It's like, the dev doesn't include diversity and they get accused of poor representation. They do include diversity and you get clickbait shit like this accusing them of making a token effort. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

EDIT -

That's some grade-a gaming journalism right there

Yep, this basically. They're clueless fucking idiots.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Huh. So having diversity in a WORLD war is being historically inaccurate. You learn something new everyday.

Right? Better not tell Polygon that the war also involved Africa or they might blow a gasket and try to give a seminar on how wrong we are.

 

[Symphonia]

I don't want to give them the click, but it sounds like they're whining about something they won't actually know until the rest of us in November? It's like, the dev doesn't include diversity and they get accused of poor representation. They do include diversity and you get clickbait shit like this accusing them of making a token effort. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Welcome to the gaming industry, friend.

 

[Spikematic]

What a shitty, shitty article. Feeling embarrassed I even bothered reading that. Someone here said it best, some Polygon content really is like The Daily Mail of gaming "journalism." Which is very disappointing considering how some of their long-form stuff is among the best available online. More recently, their massive piece on Final Fantasy 7 and a piece on Samurai Shodown were just amazing reads. Their editorial staff either needs a major overhaul or they need to quickly realize that sensationalist, badly-researched, poorly-worded and overreaching pieces such as these will continue to tarnish the site's already battered reputation.

 

[Sgt. Kabukiman]

Not that I have the utmost confidence in Activision but yeah, maybe it's a little bit early to write this kind of editorial. Polygon does have some great long-form articles once in a long while but it's becoming impossible to take them seriously.

 

[Kadayi]

I feel like they're getting to the point where some segment of the writing staff is going to leave to do their own blog where they can push this as far as they'd like, and Polygon proper can get back to writing about games in a way that doesn't alienate a huge swath of readers.

I can't recall when they've never had sticks up their arses about something tbh. I gave up giving them clicks years ago. I just catch the highlights of their latest outrage through posts like this.

 

[LeonSPBR]

are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.

The devs. Which makes the article even worse.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

Shit article.

Would be interesting if they tackled the topic of segregation in it, but I'm not expecting some hugely nuanced drama from CoD.

 

[Peroroncino]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Famassu]

That's part of the problem with having games set in historical settings. Deviating too far from history can become an issue. However, I have't played the game yet so I will reserve judgement.

Minorities & women are an often forgotten & actively ignored portion of these events. There were plenty of black people & women involved in WWII but much like in science, it's always the exceptionally exceptional white men who usually get all the spotlights while the contributions of everyone else getd ignored or even buried deliberately. "But historical context!" as an argument just maintains this image of only white men doing anything of worth when the truth is something completely different.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I thought the whole purpose of pressuring companies for more diversity in their games was... for them to do it. Not to blame them for doing it.