Support NeoGAF

[fantomena]

Despite this being a long thread, there's not many users who posts here, seems like it's usually the same users who's here posting. Just my (wrong?) observation.

I guess most people are like me, they don't give a shit and just wait till the game is out and hopefully it's a good game (which I assume it is cause ND games have always been fantastic imo). I mean, there's a reason "Naughty Gods" have become a meme and a lot of Xbox owners wants MS to found their own Naughy Dog.

 

[oagboghi2]

"If you’re so socially and culturally inept that the option to play a video game as a female gets you all worked up in a frothy nerdrage: "

Are you one of those people? If not, why do you take offense to what he said? He's not talking about you.

Do you think any criticism of a game is "frothy nerdrage"? Do you believe that type of rhetoric is above criticism and discussion?

 

[Barsinister]

But games shouldn't be made just for people to have fun. What a waste of possibilities of the media that would be. There is a lot more to TV than fun entertainment, there is education, news, etc.
We already have EA, Activision and Ubi focusing on "fun", I'm sure we can have some developers focusing on making games THEY want to make, instead of just games OTHERS want to play. If games were made just for fun and nothing else , they would all use the same templates and never take any risk.
I seriously doubt that Sony is wasting millions on a game to allow a writer just to "push an agenda". There is way too much overthinking about this going on.
A lesbian girl grew older and, as all girls her age, is now interested in romance. That's just it.

Games are systemic puzzles to be solved. That is what makes them games. In order to make the game compelling, developers of games will add art, sound, and sometimes stories. Without the puzzle, though, what is left? Games can educate, yes. My daughter played "Sesame Street Big Bird Apple Counter" when she was little.

It is easy to slap a strong theme onto something to have it seem like it is deeper than it actually is. "The Last of Us" had a theme that resonated with, I would argue, men especially. Fatherhood. The story though, it was cliche. We have seen every part of "The Last of Us" story many times before. Most of these developers seem like they are having children at this time, look at the new "God of War", and they are injecting a theme that they are new to into their product.

"The Last of Us" has the novelty of being a game, that deals with a theme that is not usual for games. Now the theme will be about what? I have no clue at this point. The director wants to be on the right side of history, so he is making statements that make me think that the themes will be of a more "progressive" variety. This is unfortunate to me. I would hope the themes will be more universal, because like I wrote earlier, I enjoyed the feelings I got when I played the first game.

 

[HarryKS]

Does some lead designer at Naughty Dog have a fetish for freckles?

 

[NahaNago]

Despite this being a long thread, there's not many users who posts here, seems like it's usually the same users who's here posting. Just my (wrong?) observation.

I guess most people are like me, they don't give a shit and just wait till the game is out and hopefully it's a good game (which I assume it is cause ND games have always been fantastic imo). I mean, there's a reason "Naughty Gods" have become a meme and a lot of Xbox owners wants MS to found their own Naughy Dog.

Most folks here I believe think that it will be a good game. They just are noting a trend/agenda surrounding Naughty Dog and possibly debating if they will support Naughty Dog in the future if the company decides to go crazy with these agendas. I'd say for most folks to wait until the next game from Naughty Dog comes out to decide if you will continue supporting them since I believe the next game from them will be a new IP and will ultimately solidify the direction that Naughty Dog is going in.

 

[Enosh]

I always love seeing devs post "diversity matters" and then every enemy in the last of us 2 trailer was a bald white guy or a white woman
truly diverse

 

[MrHeisenbird]

Robin has a point with his video.

The agenda is to push women and minorities like the LGBTQ+ community. The problem is not the agenda itself (although Neil Druckman liking Anita Sarkeesian is a huge red flag), but if executing it becomes a detriment to the game itself. Ellie being a woman and lesbian isn't the problem - these traits have been known since the first game. The problem is how her sexuality is being romanticized and shown off more than any other character in ND games - during E3 at that. None of the Uncharted demos include Nate and Elena having an intimate moment. Should they have included one? No, because we want to see gameplay. Only a small minority of people who may not even play games want to see more than that.

I don't know if The Last of Us II story is in trouble or not, but I just hope there's more to this story of hate than revenge and identity politics sprinkled throughout.

 

[Barsinister]

Diversity, diversity, diversity.......

When a group of diverse individuals come together to create a product the outcome can be something new and refreshing.

When a group decides that the product should be diverse, the outcome will seem forced, trite, and underwhelming.

For all the atheists I see on here, they sure love being preached to.

 

[Enygger_Tzu]

I played and loved TLoU (from a story and design standpoint, I found the gameplay to be simplistic) but really, I knew this would come to be more prominent in TLoU 2. (And the ammount it had sold there was BOUND to be a 2nd part, no matter how perfect the 1st ending was).

What really was off-putting to me, however, was that ND decided to have Ellie explored her sexuality while she was still 14....I don't know, it did never sit well with me.

 

[Cosmogony]

So, Witcher 3 and Kingdom Come would have suffered how?

I was not among the crowd who was shouting for minorities in KC and actually left you know where over the whole Vavra/thought-policing debacle.

That said, black people in KC or TW3 would not have hurt the story for me, so I reject those examples. They're up there with #notmybattlefield afaic.

The fact you don't see a problem with violating historical accuracy in a game whose core creative tenet was abiding by historical accuracy and the fact you don't see a problem with violating established lore in a game who went to painstaking lengths to respect it show the degree to which you have become desensitized and would willingly have developer's creative integrity encroached upon.

But don't let me stop you from branding yourself as the epitome of reasonableness.

 

[Cosmogony]

That could very well be the case. It does look like that's the case. But given the never-ending cascade of ideologically charged rhetoric from people in a position to effect the exact opposite of what seems to be happening at the moment, I just cannot be sure.

 

[Cosmogony]

But games shouldn't be made just for people to have fun.

Understand I am not making the opposite case, but since you're affirming this, please present a rational case that all games ought to be more than just entertainment.

What a waste of possibilities of the media that would be

.

It's up to each dev to determine that.

There is a lot more to TV than fun entertainment, there is education, news, etc.
We already have EA, Activision and Ubi focusing on "fun", I'm sure we can have some developers focusing on making games THEY want to make, instead of just games OTHERS want to play

.

Interesting. You're simultaneously calling for devs to make the games they want to make whilst claiming all games ought to be more than entertainment. I'd like you to try to square those two statements.

If games were made just for fun and nothing else , they would all use the same templates and never take any risk.

Demonstrably false. Suffice to look at self-proclaimed pure entertainment to see that is not the case. Unless you'd be making the argument that there's no such thing as pure entertainment, in which case I'd have to ask for an argument and the accompanying evidence.

I seriously doubt that Sony is wasting millions on a game to allow a writer just to "push an agenda". There is way too much overthinking about this going on.

I would assume that, as a non-dysfunctional business, Sony does not micro-manages game development. As long as the IP delivers on the financial front, they award creative freedom to the team, or I'd assume.

A lesbian girl grew older and, as all girls her age, is now interested in romance. That's just it.

That could be the case. It does look like that's the case. But given the never-ending cascade of ideologically charged rhetoric from people who are in a position to effect the exact polar opposite of what seems to be happening, I just cannot be sure.

 

[Redshirt]

The fact you don't see a problem with violating historical accuracy in a game whose core creative tenet was abiding by historical accuracy and the fact you don't see a problem with violating established lore in a game who went to painstaking lengths to respect it show the degree to which you have become desensitized and would willingly have developer's creative integrity encroached upon.

But don't let me stop you from branding yourself as the epitome of reasonableness.

Not what I said, but don't let that get in the way of whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[Cosmogony]

For all the atheists I see on here, they sure love being preached to.

Just a side note. Being an atheist only entails lacking belief in a deity. There on, everything else is up for grabs. There are atheists who are Satanists (laVeyan branch), creationists (adopters of Raëlism), Trotskyists (a specific strand of Marxists), Buddhists (some sects are atheistic), Taoists and even Hinduist (some fringe branches are in fact atheistic). As you can see from this list, there is nothing common to all these belief systems besides a disbelief in God. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Understand I am not making the opposite case, but since you're affirming this, please present a rational case that all games ought to be more than just entertainment.

.

It's up to each dev to determine that.

.

Interesting. You're simultaneously calling for devs to make the games they want to make whilst claiming all games ought to be more than entertainment. I'd like you to try to square those two statements.




Demonstrably false. Suffice to look at self-proclaimed pure entertainment to see that is not the case. Unless you'd be making the argument that there's no such thing as pure entertainment, in which case I'd have to ask for an argument and the accompanying evidence.



I would assume that, as a non-dysfunctional business, Sony does not micro-manages game development. As long as the IP delivers on the financial front, they award creative freedom to the team, or I'd assume.



That could be the case. It does look like that's the case. But given the never-ending cascade of ideologically charged rhetoric from people who are in a position to effect the exact polar opposite of what seems to be happening, I just cannot be sure.

"fun" (in the sense I'm using the word) =/= enjoyment
Example : I enjoyed playing Bound or Valiant Hearts, but they weren't games about having fun playing them. Their stories were rather depressing.

 

[Cosmogony]

"fun" (in the sense I'm using the word) =/= enjoyment
Example : I enjoyed playing Bound or Valiant Hearts, but they weren't games about having fun playing them. Their stories were rather depressing.

That doesn't change the inherently contradictory nature of what you were saying.

If you grant devs should be able to develop the games they want to develop, then you have to allow them to make a game which doesn't conform to your expectations or prescriptions, namely one which revolves solely around fun, enjoyment or whatever the term you prefer, should they want to.

And if you're going to make an absolute claim that all games should have property X - being more than mere fun, for example -, you better have a robust rational argument with which to back that proposition up. Otherwise it can be readily dismissed as just another opinion, with no more intrinsic value than its polar opposite.

 

[Ar¢tos]

That doesn't change the inherently contradictory nature of what you were saying.

If you grant devs should be able to develop the games they want to develop, then you have to allow them to make a game which doesn't conform to your expectations or prescriptions, namely one which revolves solely around fun, enjoyment or whatever the term you prefer, should they want to.

And if you're going to make an absolute claim that all games should have property X - being more than mere fun, for example -, you better have a robust rational argument with which to back that proposition up. Otherwise it can be readily dismissed as just another opinion, with no more intrinsic value than its polar opposite.

Not all devs are necessarily making the games they really want to make. EA studios make what EA forces them to do. Some MS studios seem to be forced to make sequel after sequel of the same game.
I don't want devs to make just the games I want, I like variety and I understand that not everyone likes the same genres.

 

[Cosmogony]

Not all devs are necessarily making the games they really want to make. EA studios make what EA forces them to do. Some MS studios seem to be forced to make sequel after sequel of the same game.
I don't want devs to make just the games I want, I like variety and I understand that not everyone likes the same genres.

I would have to take a look at evidence suggesting EA or Microsoft are pressuring devs into making the sort of games they do not wish to make. As recently as two weeks ago, give or take, Ninja Theory published a video relaying how the whole acquisition by Microsoft went, a process apparently preceded by a tour of first party studios where NT was able to ask questions at will regarding creative independence. Apparently, like the rest of the constellation, NT has carte blanche to keep on making the games they want to make.

So I would really need to review hard evidence to the contrary. But that is beside the point.

The point is that if you grant devs freedom to make the games they want, you have got to account for the possibility of them wanting to make a game which violates this golden absolute principle you have come up with. And then something will have to give. Either they make the game they want to make or they comply with this absolute principle of yours.

 

[Barsinister]

Just a side note. Being an atheist only entails lacking belief in a deity. There on, everything else is up for grabs. There are atheists who are Satanists (laVeyan branch), creationists (adopters of Raëlism), Trotskyists (a specific strand of Marxists), Buddhists (some sects are atheistic), Taoists and even Hinduist (some fringe branches are in fact atheistic). As you can see from this list, there is nothing common to all these belief systems besides a disbelief in God. Absolutely nothing.

Hello Perfesser! Thank you for the lesson. I was merely trying to make a joke. You see, a man named Karl Marx a long time ago called religion, "The opiate of the masses." I was taking what he said and conflating it with the idea that progressives were dyed-in-the-wool Marxists. It was a sad attempt a humor, I know. I am sorry. I'll try better next time.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hello Perfesser! Thank you for the lesson. I was merely trying to make a joke. You see, a man named Karl Marx a long time ago called religion, "The opiate of the masses." I was taking what he said and conflating it with the idea that progressives were dyed-in-the-wool Marxists. It was a sad attempt a humor, I know. I am sorry. I'll try better next time.

The twisted part is, Karl Marx in the end claimed he himself was not even a "Marxist", yet here we are, proof those with short attention spans brought up on 8 second Vine videos, 140 character news hot takes, and click bait article titles never read all the way to the end. Hell, some don't even get past the frst page.

He and Che (another they idolize) were the equivalent of a modern bored and privileged trust fund child. Wait, I am seeing a pattern here.

 

[Cosmogony]

Hello Perfesser! Thank you for the lesson. I was merely trying to make a joke. You see, a man named Karl Marx a long time ago called religion, "The opiate of the masses." I was taking what he said and conflating it with the idea that progressives were dyed-in-the-wool Marxists. It was a sad attempt a humor, I know. I am sorry. I'll try better next time.

I wasn't trying to lecture you, though, in retrospect, I may have come off along those lines. It just rubs me the wrong way to have the same old misrepresentation repeated without rebuttal. And, in keeping with today's lesson on religion, Marx's full quote reads as follows

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people

A bit more nuanced than the Reader's Digest version.

As someone has said, though establishing the foundation for a political movement that resulted in the death of millions and millions of people, Marxism is nonetheless am intellectually serious albeit demonstrably false way to look at the world. Do not conflate Marxism with the ideology and praxis of intersectional feminism, Antifa, let alone the run-of-the-mill SJW.

And excuse me in advance if I sound pedantic.

 

[Barsinister]

The twisted part is, Karl Marx in the end claimed he himself was not even a "Marxist", yet here we are, proof those with short attention spans brought up on 8 second Vine videos, 140 character news hot takes, and click bait article titles never read all the way to the end. Hell, some don't even get past the frst page.

He and Che (another they idolize) were the equivalent of a modern bored and privileged trust fund child. Wait, I am seeing a pattern here.

None of that bothers me as much as how they try to camouflage it in other things. To combat racism, we need to bring down capitalism. They tear us down in order to rebuild us in their image. A glorious revolutionary forever dedicated to the State.

 

[Barsinister]

I wasn't trying to lecture you, though, in retrospect, I may have come off along those lines. It just rubs me the wrong way to have the same old misrepresentation repeated without rebuttal. And, in keeping with today's lesson on religion, Marx's full quote reads as follows


A bit more nuanced than the Reader's Digest version.

As someone has said, though establishing the foundation for a political movement that resulted in the death of millions and millions of people, Marxism is nonetheless am intellectually serious albeit demonstrably false way to look at the world. Do not conflate Marxism with the ideology and praxis of intersectional feminism, Antifa, let alone the run-of-the-mill SJW.

And excuse me in advance if I sound pedantic.

Would you like to swing on a star?

 

[Cosmogony]

Would you like to swing on a star?

I plead ignorance. I don't have the faintest what that idiom would mean in this context. It's now time for you to lecture me.

Seriously, don't pin Marxism on spoiled brats. It's reputing them a substance they lack.

 

[Grinchy]

I always love seeing devs post "diversity matters" and then every enemy in the last of us 2 trailer was a bald white guy or a white woman
truly diverse

Reminds me of when HuffPos were patting themselves on the back for the "diversity" in their editor staff

 

[Barsinister]

I plead ignorance. I don't have the faintest what that idiom would mean in this context. It's now time for you to lecture me.

Seriously, don't pin Marxism on spoiled brats. It's reputing them a substance they lack.

Don't take it personal. It's just another little joke I enjoy. Look back a few pages and you'll see I asked the same to someone else.

I'll be honest, at this point I don't have you figured out yet. We've never interacted before that I can remember. You seem a bit pedantic. Let's be friends.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Reminds me of when HuffPos were patting themselves on the back for the "diversity" in their editor staff

Holy shit, lol.

This right here in one tweet is basically 3rd wave feminism in the West claiming it's not about power or control for the gender/sex, but "equality".

If that is the truth, then it is time to join the ranks of egalitarianism, now innit?

Hello? Anyone? Where did they all go?

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Sorry dude, but feminism isn't women. I love women and feminism is cancer. I understand you are accustomed to have people banned for being "misogynists" after they dare to criticize feminism, but that doesn't happen here anymore.

And this is the reason why people left and the party is now happening over at Era.
If people want to heard shitty uninformed opinions they might as well read Youtube comments or go to some demented subreddits.

I understand this point of not wanting to ban people from participating, but you should also understand that not all opinions are equally valid and filtering out the bad ones often does a lot for the quality of discussions.

Like I said before, its not by chance that you found lots of industry figures on old Gaf, is not by chance that you now find them on Era, and its not by chance that you don't find them here anymore. This is not a reasonable place.

Its impossible for me to convey my perspective on many of the opinions expressed on here. So my best attempt would be an analogy.
I think most of the stuff I read here is as worthless as a flat earthers input on geophysics.
And the same way I won't reach any of you, none of the round earthers will reach through with reason to the flat earthers.

Since the US elected an idiot as president many think stupid shit has now been normalized.
But I am fairly confident in saying that stupidity will never prevail, it can't be constructive nor productive.

 

[prag16]

And this is the reason why people left and the party is now happening over at Era.
If people want to heard shitty uninformed opinions they might as well read Youtube comments or go to some demented subreddits.

I understand this point of not wanting to ban people from participating, but you should also understand that not all opinions are equally valid and filtering out the bad ones often does a lot for the quality of discussions.

Like I said before, its not by chance that you found lots of industry figures on old Gaf, is not by chance that you now find them on Era, and its not by chance that you don't find them here anymore. This is not a reasonable place.

Its impossible for me to convey my perspective on many of the opinions expressed on here. So my best attempt would be an analogy.
I think most of the stuff I read here is as worthless as a flat earthers input on geophysics.
And the same way I won't reach any of you, none of the round earthers will reach through with reason to the flat earthers.

Since the US elected an idiot as president many think stupid shit has now been normalized.
But I am fairly confident in saying that stupidity will never prevail, it can't be constructive nor productive.

No, that's not why people left and went to Era. People left and went to Era because many of the same people that are now on Era, were here porn bombing and shitting this place up like crazy over shower-gate. At that point the OT was probably about to drive itself over a cliff anyway with some of the 'scandals' involving moderation. And then this forum was down for awhile, and it's future was in doubt after it came back up with no OT section.

Sure not all opinions are created equal, but "filtering out the bad ones" is a very very poor and biased characterization of what Era moderation is doing.

Current Era is nowhere close to old (pre 2015, or even 2012) gaf in terms of industry figures actively participating. Because, like how gaf became, and how Era is now, the environment is extremely toxic. It is likely worse than gaf ever got, even without anything as singularly blatant as bishoptl's antics (and he is now a poster in good standing over at era). The 2018 midterm elections are going to be a shit show.

In short, your post is absurd bullshit, and if you truly feel that way and believe all that nonsense, you're probably better off over in erasylum with its crazed inmates.

 

[Cosmogony]

And this is the reason why people left and the party is now happening over at Era.

What a peculiar statement. Not a single word condemning the overt blatantly partial ands authoritarian moderation that has moved on to and now characterizes Resetera. I suppose I now have an excellent grasp of just how precious freedom of speech is to you.

If people want to heard shitty uninformed opinions they might as well read Youtube comments or go to some demented subreddits.

I've now read quite a number of posts by you. I can judge, compare the two. I'd stick with YT comment section any day. both for style and substance.

I understand this point of not wanting to ban people from participating, but you should also understand that not all opinions are equally valid

Absolutely. Unsubstantiated opinions like the ones you too frequently feel at ease to post can be neglected without significant loss.

and filtering out the bad ones often does a lot for the quality of discussions.

Which is what the North Korean Government does, in their minds at least. They filter out what they deem "bad" opinions. It produces excellent results, in the sense that once rooted out, the "bad" opinions can no longer influence precious fragile infantilized minds.
Give me a break.

Like I said before, its not by chance that you found lots of industry figures on old Gaf, is not by chance that you now find them on Era, and its not by chance that you don't find them here anymore. This is not a reasonable place.

Don't let the door hit you. But of course leaving would mean being congruent with your opinion. And yet still here you are.

Its impossible for me to convey my perspective on many of the opinions expressed on here

The impossibility can only result from your eventual ineptitude.

So my best attempt would be an analogy.
I think most of the stuff I read here is as worthless as a flat earthers input on geophysics.

And yet you lack the courage of your propelled convictions to leave. Will you look at that.

And the same way I won't reach any of you, none of the round earthers will reach through with reason to the flat earthers.

The drool of self-congratulatory arrogance and condescendence in the above quote cannot be ignored.

Since the US elected an idiot as president many think stupid shit has now been normalized.

One might certainly be inclined to think so, if one were to judge by the quality of your posts.

But I am fairly confident in saying that stupidity will never prevail, it can't be constructive nor productive.

Work starts at home, pal. Work starts at home.

 

[Skyn3t]

I understand this point of not wanting to ban people from participating, but you should also understand that not all opinions are equally valid and filtering out the bad ones often does a lot for the quality of discussions.

And who are you to judge? Era is a cespool and will drown in its own shit. As for those industry people, well, if they also view calling women females offensive and other bullshit, they're fucked in the head. Wait a moment, are they high profile players like Phil Spencer or some hipster indie devs who erased their testosterone with soy latte? Thought so.

 

[DeepEnigma]

No, that's not why people left and went to Era. People left and went to Era because many of the same people that are now on Era, were here porn bombing and shitting this place up like crazy over shower-gate. At that point the OT was probably about to drive itself over a cliff anyway with some of the 'scandals' involving moderation. And then this forum was down for awhile, and it's future was in doubt after it came back up with no OT section.

Sure not all opinions are created equal, but "filtering out the bad ones" is a very very poor and biased characterization of what Era moderation is doing.

Current Era is nowhere close to old (pre 2015, or even 2012) gaf in terms of industry figures actively participating. Because, like how gaf became, and how Era is now, the environment is extremely toxic. It is likely worse than gaf ever got, even without anything as singularly blatant as bishoptl's antics (and he is now a poster in good standing over at era). The 2018 midterm elections are going to be a shit show.

In short, your post is absurd bullshit, and if you truly feel that way and believe all that nonsense, you're probably better off over in erasylum with its crazed inmates.

I still believe there is some truth to the mass bannings they did before the mod exodus, to push most of the Gaffers that were banned to their new site when it launched. You can see it in the wording of their initial posts when ResetEra went up. Basically throwing out the bait to get the numbers to that site. "We will be just like GAF, but a "reset", none of the BS that happened there, no judging on your past, come one come all!"

And now a lot are coming back here (after getting either banned or fed up with the mental gymnastics and total TOS/Mission Statement lies), getting reinstated, clearly, since the bans on people being reinstated were found to have no actual merit in the first place (here).

 

[DynamiteCop!]

No, that's not why people left and went to Era. People left and went to Era because many of the same people that are now on Era, were here porn bombing and shitting this place up like crazy over shower-gate. At that point the OT was probably about to drive itself over a cliff anyway with some of the 'scandals' involving moderation. And then this forum was down for awhile, and it's future was in doubt after it came back up with no OT section.

Sure not all opinions are created equal, but "filtering out the bad ones" is a very very poor and biased characterization of what Era moderation is doing.

Current Era is nowhere close to old (pre 2015, or even 2012) gaf in terms of industry figures actively participating. Because, like how gaf became, and how Era is now, the environment is extremely toxic. It is likely worse than gaf ever got, even without anything as singularly blatant as bishoptl's antics (and he is now a poster in good standing over at era). The 2018 midterm elections are going to be a shit show.

In short, your post is absurd bullshit, and if you truly feel that way and believe all that nonsense, you're probably better off over in erasylum with its crazed inmates.

I got banned on Era over the Subnautica thing, I seriously just said that people needed to calm down and try to view things from all perspectives before damning people and trying to get them fired.

For just saying that I was banned for "Defending transphobic and racist behaviour". Era is a psychotic leftist cesspool that has no interest in anything other than hearing their own voices and thoughts forever echoing into the well of delusion.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

And this is the reason why people left and the party is now happening over at Era.
If people want to heard shitty uninformed opinions they might as well read Youtube comments or go to some demented subreddits.

People left because the "listen and believe" mentality that was brewing in GAF finally bursted. Those that still adhered to that mentality left for ERA. In fact, the guilty until proven innocent sentiments still run strong in that forum. The community's response to the allegations made against Quantic Dream is a great example of this.

I understand this point of not wanting to ban people from participating, but you should also understand that not all opinions are equally valid and filtering out the bad ones often does a lot for the quality of discussions.

Bad opinions are filtered out because people debate those opinions, not forcibly forbidding the expression of them.

Like I said before, its not by chance that you found lots of industry figures on old Gaf, is not by chance that you now find them on Era, and its not by chance that you don't find them here anymore. This is not a reasonable place.

Completely irrelevant to what Jon Neu was arguing.

Its impossible for me to convey my perspective on many of the opinions expressed on here. So my best attempt would be an analogy.
I think most of the stuff I read here is as worthless as a flat earthers input on geophysics.
And the same way I won't reach any of you, none of the round earthers will reach through with reason to the flat earthers.

No, it is impossible for you convey your perspective and be molly coddled.

And your comparison to the comments you read to flat earthers' input on geophysics is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. It sounds that you have grown too comfortable not having your opinions opposed to this degree and as a result, have not been challenged enough to propose substantial arguments.

Since the US elected an idiot as president many think stupid shit has now been normalized.
But I am fairly confident in saying that stupidity will never prevail, it can't be constructive nor productive.

Again, completely irrelevant to what Jon Neu is saying. This "anything I disagree with is a Nazi, Trumpite, or *name whatever -ist here*" habit not only has grown old, but it contributes nothing argumentatively.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I got banned on Era over the Subnautica thing, I seriously just said that people needed to calm down and try to view things from all perspectives before damning people and trying to get them fired.

For just saying that I was banned for "Defending transphobic and racist behaviour". Era is a psychotic leftist cesspool that has no interest in anything other than hearing their own voices and thoughts forever echoing into the well of delusion.

I am of the strong opinion that a good portion of the most volatile one's do not even play games, or anything on a mass scale. They just want to inject their conditioned ideologies into another medium that their asses can have a voice and a stage on. Since anything in a more professional political stage, they would be ignored.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Bad opinions are filtered out because people debate those opinions, not forcibly forbidding the expression of them.

If that mechanism would work, the Republican party in its current form wouldn't exist, Trump wouldn't be president and Brexit wouldn't happen.

The very nature of the internet is such that bad opinions never stop coming. You can spend an indefinite amount of time debating 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail believers, climate change deniers and idiots of all varieties... they'll just keep coming.
For two reasons:
1. The people are, usually, too dumb to realize when they've been wrong. Or in the case of conspiracy theorists, they just label any evidence that contradicts their views as part of the conspiracy and therefore "fake".
2. Once a position has been "debunked", there will just be another flood of people who lack that kind of knowledge and will repeat the debunked claims again.

And then there is the issue of normalizing certain opinions.
For example, many scientists refuse to have debates with climate change deniers, because its create a false equivalence between a scientifically sound position and a wrong position. The simple act of having the debate makes it appear as if the issue hasn't been settled and both sides have points.

I don't think its smart to tolerate intolerance or intellectually entertain ignorance.

 

[Cactuarman]

But games shouldn't be made just for people to have fun. What a waste of possibilities of the media that would be. There is a lot more to TV than fun entertainment, there is education, news, etc.
We already have EA, Activision and Ubi focusing on "fun", I'm sure we can have some developers focusing on making games THEY want to make, instead of just games OTHERS want to play. If games were made just for fun and nothing else , they would all use the same templates and never take any risk.
I seriously doubt that Sony is wasting millions on a game to allow a writer just to "push an agenda". There is way too much overthinking about this going on.
A lesbian girl grew older and, as all girls her age, is now interested in romance. That's just it.

To me this about sums it up.

The director wants to be on the right side of history, so he is making statements that make me think that the themes will be of a more "progressive" variety. This is unfortunate to me. I would hope the themes will be more universal, because like I wrote earlier, I enjoyed the feelings I got when I played the first game.

I mean, to be fair, I would find it weird if someone said "I want to be on the wrong side of history". I do like your point though because it seems like you're saying that you are afraid you may not connect with the themes of this story. Which is perfectly fine. I don't connect with every story I read/watch. Totally cool. This game may not be for you. To me that's not a bad thing. It suggests variety.

That doesn't change the inherently contradictory nature of what you were saying.

If you grant devs should be able to develop the games they want to develop, then you have to allow them to make a game which doesn't conform to your expectations or prescriptions, namely one which revolves solely around fun, enjoyment or whatever the term you prefer, should they want to.

And if you're going to make an absolute claim that all games should have property X - being more than mere fun, for example -, you better have a robust rational argument with which to back that proposition up. Otherwise it can be readily dismissed as just another opinion, with no more intrinsic value than its polar opposite.

Maybe I misread but wasn't Ar¢tos 's statement that games didn't have to be fun in the traditional sense? Doesn't that imply variety that devs don't need to stick to an absolute? Games can be "systemic puzzles" or a vehicle to tell a story, and I'd argue that a story needs to be compelling. That Dragon Cancer wasn't a "fun" game but it was certainly compelling. And even then, like any story, maybe you weren't one of the ones interested in the story. Appreciate the skepticism of an opinion, but if that game resonated with a group of people didn't it do what basically all art should do: mean something?

 

[prag16]

If that mechanism would work, the Republican party in its current form wouldn't exist, Trump wouldn't be president and Brexit wouldn't happen.

The very nature of the internet is such that bad opinions never stop coming. You can spend an indefinite amount of time debating 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail believers, climate change deniers and idiots of all varieties... they'll just keep coming.
For two reasons:
1. The people are, usually, too dumb to realize when they've been wrong. Or in the case of conspiracy theorists, they just label any evidence that contradicts their views as part of the conspiracy and therefore "fake".
2. Once a position has been "debunked", there will just be another flood of people who lack that kind of knowledge and will repeat the debunked claims again.

And then there is the issue of normalizing certain opinions.
For example, many scientists refuse to have debates with climate change deniers, because its create a false equivalence between a scientifically sound position and a wrong position. The simple act of having the debate makes it appear as if the issue hasn't been settled and both sides have points.

I don't think its smart to tolerate intolerance or intellectually entertain ignorance.

This is dangerous for obvious reasons. You are too partisan/biased to see it, apparently, along with most of the vocal portion of Era.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

If that mechanism would work, the Republican party in its current form wouldn't exist, Trump wouldn't be president and Brexit wouldn't happen.

Not true. Trump got elected for a variety of reasons, which include, but not limited to the following:

• The anti-Trump sentiment devolved into "You're a *insert*-ist if you vote for Trump!"
• There were also wild accusations of "If you don't vote for Hillary, then you're a misogynist!"
• The mainstream media could not differentiate between taking Trump seriously vs. taking Trump literally.
• Hillary's infamous 'alt-speech' left people scratching their heads and her website's claim that Pepe is a white supremacist symbol made them scratch their heads even more.
• During the last few weeks before the general election, Trump went all out at campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan while Hillary hardly did anything in those states.

Similarly, some of the Remain arguments, if you even want to call them arguments, weren't convincing. Saying "If you vote Leave, then you're a racist!" is a wild accusation.

The very nature of the internet is such that bad opinions never stop coming. You can spend an indefinite amount of time debating 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail believers, climate change deniers and idiots of all varieties... they'll just keep coming.
For two reasons:
1. The people are, usually, too dumb to realize when they've been wrong. Or in the case of conspiracy theorists, they just label any evidence that contradicts their views as part of the conspiracy and therefore "fake".
2. Once a position has been "debunked", there will just be another flood of people who lack that kind of knowledge and will repeat the debunked claims again.

Bad opinions will never stop coming whether you go full North Korea or not. In addition, you do not fully understand what the goals of a debate are. Ideally, yes, you would like to be able to change the mind of an anti-vaxxer or a climate change denier. However, the landscape is not a dichotomy. There are also people who sit on the fence. The main goal of debating is to convince the fence sitters to support your side of the argument.

This is anecdotal, but most of the people I've seen who try to convince others that climate change is real do a really terrible job at it. The video that John Oliver made on climate change is largely an appeal to authority fallacy, for example. Yes, 97% of scientific literature conclude that anthropogenic climate change exists. However, even though they are more qualified than the average Joe, it is still important to know how and why they made that conclusion. I have seen a lot of people who are on the fence who get shouted away by the "climate change is real" crowd because they dared to be skeptical.

And then there is the issue of normalizing certain opinions.
For example, many scientists refuse to have debates with climate change deniers, because its create a false equivalence between a scientifically sound position and a wrong position. The simple act of having the debate makes it appear as if the issue hasn't been settled and both sides have points.

I don't think its smart to tolerate intolerance or intellectually entertain ignorance.

See my previous paragraph above.

 

[Cosmogony]

I am not the author of the quoted line, but somehow my nick made its way to your headline.

If that mechanism would work, the Republican party in its current form wouldn't exist, Trump wouldn't be president and Brexit wouldn't happen.

That's the nature of democracy, to which all other alternatives are inferior. People assessed arguments and have decided against your best opinion. You can change tactic and start trying to reason with them and offer rational arguments.

The very nature of the internet is such that bad opinions never stop coming. You can spend an indefinite amount of time debating 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, chemtrail believers, climate change deniers and idiots of all varieties... they'll just keep coming.

The nature of scepticism is such no argument should be neither accepted nor ruled out from the get go. As long as a rational case is presented, it gets a shot in the open marketplace of ideas. What a rational case isn't is a series of petty insults aimed at entire nations, condescending language towards millions and millions and millions of people. Based off on what you have presented so far, there is no good reason to trust your judgement on any of these political natters, because all you have done is appeal to emotion.

For two reasons:
1. The people are, usually, too dumb to realize when they've been wrong. Or in the case of conspiracy theorists, they just label any evidence that contradicts their views as part of the conspiracy and therefore "fake".

Is this really the level at which you debate? Unsubstantiated generalizations, insults directed at entire nations, not a single rational argument?

2. Once a position has been "debunked", there will just be another flood of people who lack that kind of knowledge and will repeat the debunked claims again.

You cannot possibly presume to know the full effects of online debates. One the reasons it is wise to engage the radicals is that the ones sitting on the fence, the moderates, will be listening and paying attention. You just might be able to win them over, even if they don't ever let you know explicitly.

But, again, you deem NeoGAF unreasonable, or worse, and the internet at large below you. So what are you doing here, exactly?

And then there is the issue of normalizing certain opinions.
For example, many scientists refuse to have debates with climate change deniers, because its create a false equivalence between a scientifically sound position and a wrong position. The simple act of having the debate makes it appear as if the issue hasn't been settled and both sides have points.

A forum is one of the worst possible places for someone who doesn't want to debate. The attempt to establish an equivalence between hard sciences and social sciences and politics is disingenuous at best.

I don't think its smart to tolerate intolerance or intellectually entertain ignorance.

This creates an obvious problem. You're deeming intolerance laudable as long as you're the one being the intolerant. When others are acting in ways you deem intolerant, it's a problem. When you yourself are acting intolerantly, then it's virtue. I'd say people well versed in philosophy, especially moral philosophy, will easily recognize this problematic double-standard.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Cosmogony]

To me this about sums it up.



I mean, to be fair, I would find it weird if someone said "I want to be on the wrong side of history". I do like your point though because it seems like you're saying that you are afraid you may not connect with the themes of this story. Which is perfectly fine. I don't connect with every story I read/watch. Totally cool. This game may not be for you. To me that's not a bad thing. It suggests variety.



Maybe I misread but wasn't Ar¢tos 's statement that games didn't have to be fun in the traditional sense? Doesn't that imply variety that devs don't need to stick to an absolute? Games can be "systemic puzzles" or a vehicle to tell a story, and I'd argue that a story needs to be compelling. That Dragon Cancer wasn't a "fun" game but it was certainly compelling. And even then, like any story, maybe you weren't one of the ones interested in the story. Appreciate the skepticism of an opinion, but if that game resonated with a group of people didn't it do what basically all art should do: mean something?

I hold controversial views on art and videogames and this is not the place to get into it. At this point, I just want to point out the difference between saying the ontology of videogames is X, versus saying all games ought to be X because of the non-ontological reason Y.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Not true. Trump got elected for a variety of reasons, which include, but not limited to the following:

That's the nature of democracy, to which all other alternatives are inferior. People assessed arguments and have decided against your best opinion. You can change tactic and start trying to reason with them and offer rational arguments.

My point was that all three things I mentioned (current GOP, Trump, Brexit) rely on people thinking things to be true that we know, through debate or science, to be false. As a rebuttal to someones point that debate weeds out bad arguments.
Climate change isn't a question of opinion, the consequences of a hard Brexit aren't a question of opinion, the main causes for the opioid crisis, the problem with the US education system and labor market, the feasibility of universal healthcare and free college in the US.
None of these should be controversial issues, because the facts speak a clear language.
The fact that they are made to be controversial issues isn't something to be celebrated, its not good or "the nature of democracy".
Its misinformation and propaganda, an abuse of democracy and free speech.

 

[prag16]

My point was that all three things I mentioned (current GOP, Trump, Brexit) rely on people thinking things to be true that we know, through debate or science, to be false. As a rebuttal to someones point that debate weeds out bad arguments.
Climate change isn't a question of opinion, the consequences of a hard Brexit aren't a question of opinion, the main causes for the opioid crisis, the problem with the US education system and labor market, the feasibility of universal healthcare and free college in the US.
None of these should be controversial issues, because the facts speak a clear language.
The fact that they are made to be controversial issues isn't something to be celebrated, its not good or "the nature of democracy".
Its misinformation and propaganda, an abuse of democracy and free speech.

In your opinion.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

My point was that all three things I mentioned (current GOP, Trump, Brexit) rely on people thinking things to be true that we know, through debate or science, to be false. As a rebuttal to someones point that debate weeds out bad arguments.

And good job not addressing a single one of my counterarguments. Like I said already, even if you go full authoritarian, these 'bad' opinions will still exist. You're not changing people's minds; you're only exiling them to the underground, which can potentially lead to even worse results.

Climate change isn't a question of opinion.

True

the consequences of a hard Brexit aren't a question of opinion

True, but the consequences of remaining in the EU are also not a question of opinion. The reason why there was a Leave vs. Remain debate is because British citizens have different opinions of whether the pros outweigh the cons for each option.

free college in the US.

I skipped the other issues because I haven't gotten myself familiar enough with those and don't want to pretend that I do. However, "free college" is definitely a question of opinion. Some, including me, have a more meritocratic stance on the accessibility of college education and not very keen on a "free college" policy (which isn't exactly free. The money has to come from somewhere).

None of these should be controversial issues, because the facts speak a clear language.
The fact that they are made to be controversial issues isn't something to be celebrated, its not good or "the nature of democracy".
Its misinformation and propaganda, an abuse of democracy and free speech.

Not surprising that you said this considering that you ignored my counterarguments. I will point back to my climate change example. Being on the right side of the issue isn't good enough. You need to be armed with good arguments and also, a good amount of patience. Why so many Americans do not believe in climate change is partially due to climate change believers doing a shit job arguing their cases. Now if they present their arguments the way potholer54 does, then most likely the environment of this issue would be different.

 

[Barsinister]

Whenever I see 1 1.21Gigawatts all I can think of is



You are so far off the topic that I wonder if you can see me waving. Not everybody wants your brand, my friend. Stop trying to sell it to everyone you meet.

 

[Cosmogony]

My point was that all three things I mentioned (current GOP, Trump, Brexit) rely on people thinking things to be true that we know, through debate or science, to be false.

There's no real equivalence between hard science and politics. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Also, please do not use second person plural. You represent no one but yourself, in the same way I represent no one but myself.

As a rebuttal to someones point that debate weeds out bad arguments.
Climate change isn't a question of opinion,

Indeed.

the consequences of a hard Brexit aren't a question of opinion

The two aren't remotely comparable. In the first case, there's decades-worth of detailed hard data and a model that seems to accurately predict the climate in the long run. In the second case, the process hasn't even begun and there's no reliable predictive model for long term economics. Additionally, and this is very relevant, some people may valued perceived independence and self-governance more importantly than economical growth, so that they might have been willing to sacrifice the latter to the former.

Can you not see how your biases are skewing your perspective?

, the main causes for the opioid crisis, the problem with the US education system and labor market, the feasibility of universal healthcare and free college in the US.

Are you seriously claiming that for any position you might be able to bring to the table regarding these issues I wouldn't be able to pull a different one from a respected academic with peer-reviewed papers on the matter?

If that's your position, then it betrays a complete ignorance of the academic world. There are entire schools of economic thought such as the Austrian School/Mies Institute, for example, who likely disagree with you and would be able to make a rational case. Don't pretend otherwise.

None of these should be controversial issues, because the facts speak a clear language.

They are controversial. And it's not because one side is entirely objective and the other relies on emotion. In fact, there are usually more than two sides , which all look at data differently and which value priorities differently. How you can be naïve to this extent is beyond me.

The fact that they are made to be controversial issues isn't something to be celebrated, its not good or "the nature of democracy".

I celebrate democracy. It's evident you don't cherish it and it shows in all your pronouncements.

Its misinformation and propaganda, an abuse of democracy and free speech.

Then you don't know what free speech and democracy entail. That's why your position must be opposed and denounced with all the vigour in the world. You are an anti-liberal, in the proper meaning of the term. Would I ever want anyone with your views holding office? No, a categorical no, not least because you seem incapable of presenting a rational argument.

All you do is assert your intelectual superiority over millions of people. I'm sorry. That's not a rational argument.

 

[Barsinister]

@Cosmogony , Why say it in fifteen words, when you can write a book. I like you more the more I read from you. Keep fighting the good fight. A word of advice, please. Don't let them make you stray too far off of the topic at hand. They do it to try to trap you. I am only making this public so others can see it too and be also advised. Sorry for being so forward.

 

[Cosmogony]

@Cosmogony , Why say it in fifteen words, when you can write a book. I like you more the more I read from you. Keep fighting the good fight. A word of advice, please. Don't let them make you stray too far off of the topic at hand. They do it to try to trap you. I am only making this public so others can see it to and be also advised. Sorry for being so forward.

Thanks. You're certainly right regarding straying off-topic. It's too much at this point. I'll try to keep that in mind.

 

[Cactuarman]

I hold controversial views on art and videogames and this is not the place to get into it.

Seems like that would help frame your view point but fair enough.

At this point, I just want to point out the difference between saying the ontology of videogames is X, versus saying all games ought to be X because of the non-ontological reason Y.

on·tol·o·gy
noun

1. the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
2. a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them.
   "what's new about our ontology is that it is created automatically from large datasets"

Had to check the definition here - still trying to connect this with what Ar¢tos said. Again, seemed to me like they were arguing against a framework because he/she was refuting notions of what Naughty Dog should do or what video games should be.

Interesting. You're simultaneously calling for devs to make the games they want to make whilst claiming all games ought to be more than entertainment. I'd like you to try to square those two statements.

How are these two things at all at odds given what he/she was arguing. Here I'll square it: game devs should make the games they want to make, because video games as a category should be more than simply "entertainment." I sense the response is: so how do you determine what something "should" be? Well, RobinGaming has one point of view on "should" and I have another. I would argue mine is "right" because it argues for creator autonomy and that the only "should" is freedom to create / push an agenda personal to you (like every other medium).

@Cosmogony , Why say it in fifteen words, when you can write a book. I like you more the more I read from you. Keep fighting the good fight. A word of advice, please. Don't let them make you stray too far off of the topic at hand. They do it to try to trap you. I am only making this public so others can see it too and be also advised. Sorry for being so forward.

Thanks for the warning but who is "they"? Is "they" someone who approves of Naughty Dog's agenda? Or is "they" someone who struggles, either consciously or not, to keep an argument on-track? Both? Quite a lot of this thread has gotten off track, is this some sort of general warming? Also, I'm not sure how a bad argument would ever "trap" someone. Your warning seems to be about a distraction rather than a trap.

 

[Barsinister]

Thanks for the warning but who is "they"? Is "they" someone who approves of Naughty Dog's agenda? Or is "they" someone who struggles, either consciously or not, to keep an argument on-track? Both? Quite a lot of this thread has gotten off track, is this some sort of general warming? Also, I'm not sure how a bad argument would ever "trap" someone. Your warning seems to be about a distraction rather than a trap.

I'll keep my language simple. "Progressives" When I wrote "they" I meant "progressives".