Support NeoGAF

[InterMusketeer]

Just out of curiosity: Did you play the Max Payne Series and if, did you like it?

No, I have not played those games.

 

[Damien Crowley]

No, I have not played those games.

Ok, because of the addictions of the main character?

 

[NahaNago]

I agree. To me playing as gay character is no different than playing as female or male and gay character expressing his/her love is no different than what you see normal couple expressing their love in movies and games. We are 19 pages to this thread I still don't really understand whats big deal about Ellie being gay? Some people say the game wont "appeal" to them because they are not gay....so does that mean I shouldn't like games that has female lead just because I'm not female myself? What is logic to that? Shouldn't we care more about the actual character is good or not rather than their gender and sexuality?

The issue is not that she is gay or female it is more exploring the studio's possible motives/agenda than Ellie. If you want a simpler break down it is has Naughty Dog gone full social justice company.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Ok, because of the addictions of the main character?

I was never really interested in Max Payne, so I don't know much about those games. I wasn't aware the main character has an addicition.

 

[Damien Crowley]

I was never really interested in Max Payne, so I don't know much about those games. I wasn't aware the main character has an addicition.

I think the games are old enough to not see this as a spoiler, but yes, Max Payne is heavily drinking and popping painkillers (oh, the irony).

 

[mckmas8808]

The issue is not that she is gay or female it is more exploring the studio's possible motives/agenda than Ellie. If you want a simpler break down it is has Naughty Dog gone full social justice company.

People need to understand that just using the words "Social Justice" does not equal a bad thing. But due to people being silly an always wanting to fight a culture war now equality is considered a terrible thing. God forbid......

 

[Dunki]

People need to understand that just using the words "Social Justice" does not equal a bad thing. But due to people being silly an always wanting to fight a culture war now equality is considered a terrible thing. God forbid......

Thats why SJW was invented which sadly is today also been overused just like sexist racist, nazi etc.

 

[mckmas8808]

Thats why SJW was invented which sadly is today also been overused just like sexist racist, nazi etc.

I've come to understand that yes, ALL of these words are overused. By the left and the right equally. This is the downside to the internet. It's so "relatively" cheap now that most people have access to it and have been able to voice their opinions to the world regardless if they have studied or read about the topic of conversation.

The average person has trash opinions about big news item #1 of the day. Just read Youtube, Twitter, or News Website "A" comments. 4 out of 5 comments are just pure trash. Like objectively. And if any kind of oversite happens and some mod or admin tries to clean out the trash comments that site, blog, or social media tool will be called out on being teh bias.

 

[NahaNago]

People need to understand that just using the words "Social Justice" does not equal a bad thing. But due to people being silly an always wanting to fight a culture war now equality is considered a terrible thing. God forbid......

I don't think Social Justice is a bad thing. I'm usually impressed by the passion folks who pursue it even if I don't agree a lot of the times. It is simply a thing. Some times I agree with folks who push it and some times I think folks are idiots.

 

[Cosmogony]

It seems the thread can't let go of real-life politics.
Let's tackle this head-on then.

People need to understand that just using the words "Social Justice" does not equal a bad thing. But due to people being silly an always wanting to fight a culture war now equality is considered a terrible thing. God forbid......

"People" need to udnerstand that your position is right?
With this comment alone you betray your inability to understand the political spectrum. First off, no one needs to understand anything until you can demonstrate it, i. e., make a compelling rational case for it. Can you make such a case, one that withstands rational scrutiny? I highly doubt it.

Secondly - and only because you seem to be completely oblivious to the following platitude - Social Justice and Equity in the mouths of people of use the terms in apologetic fashion usually translate to "equality of outcome". And there's a great number of thinkers that, having thought this through, believe that equality of outcome is a sinister, insidious and deeply unfair goal. These people oppose "Social Justice" and "Equality" not because the terms have somehow been spuriously tainted by the far-right, but because they oppose the actual political program these terms were design to windowdress in the first place.

I've come to understand that yes, ALL of these words are overused. By the left and the right equally. This is the downside to the internet. It's so "relatively" cheap now that most people have access to it and have been able to voice their opinions to the world regardless if they have studied or read about the topic of conversation.

The average person has trash opinions about big news item #1 of the day. Just read Youtube, Twitter, or News Website "A" comments. 4 out of 5 comments are just pure trash. Like objectively. And if any kind of oversite happens and some mod or admin tries to clean out the trash comments that site, blog, or social media tool will be called out on being teh bias.

The notion that, at this particular point in history, both ends of the political spectrum are equally pernicious, mere mirror images of each other, seems to be peddled by people who can't be bothered to check the facts. Evidently, this could change in the future, for indeed there was a point in the past where the most egregious threats to basic freedoms used to come from the right, particularly the Evangelical branch, and earlier still, like Hitchens used to say, from the open alliance between fascism and Roman Catholicism.

But to pretend that something similar is what's happening now would be an acute form of intelectual laziness.

For example, the Heterodox Academy, which monitors intelectual freedom on campuses across the nation, estimates that of all the attempts to silence speakers,

90% came from left-wing groups.
10% came from right-wing groups.

I don't know in which galaxy a 9 to 1 ratio translates to both sides being equally wrong, but it isn't ours. What anyone with a semblance of impartiality can observe all around is that the far-left is the most sectarian, the most cliquish, the most violent, the most authoritarian faction. No question about it. Which side is calling for speakers to be de-platformed? Which side is violently protesting, trying to violently prevent others from exercising their freedom of assembly - and with their faces covered, as they insist on announcing to the world just how brave they are? Which side is smashing windows and generally destroying private property of unrelated third-parties? Whose discourse could be summed up as a never ending string of insults, "racist dog", "nazi scum", "homophobic", "transphobic", "bigot" and it would nevertheless be a decent summary because that is generally the extent of their capacity to make a case?

Overwhelmingly, the far-left.

But, of course, the cosiest position to hold is to not engage with reality and pretend both ends of the spectrum currently are equally bad, giving one the ability to promptly dismiss the case as argued. I suppose that stance does clear more free time to play videogames. I'll give you that.

 

[mckmas8808]

It seems the thread can't let go of real-life politics.
Let's tackle this head-on then.



"People" need to udnerstand that your position is right?
With this comment alone you betray your inability to understand the political spectrum. First off, no one needs to understand anything until you can demonstrate it, i. e., make a compelling rational case for it. Can you make such a case, one that withstands rational scrutiny? I highly doubt it.

Secondly - and only because you seem to be completely oblivious to the following platitude - Social Justice and Equity in the mouths of people of use the terms in apologetic fashion usually translate to "equality of outcome". And there's a great number of thinkers that, having thought this through, believe that equality of outcome is a sinister, insidious and deeply unfair goal. These people oppose "Social Justice" and "Equality" not because the terms have somehow been spuriously tainted by the far-right, but because they oppose the actual political program these terms were design to windowdress in the first place.



The notion that, at this particular point in history, both ends of the political spectrum are equally pernicious, mere mirror images of each other, seems to be peddled by people who can't be bothered to check the facts. Evidently, this could change in the future, for indeed there was a point in the past where the most egregious threats to basic freedoms used to come from the right, particularly the Evangelical branch, and earlier still, like Hitchens used to say, from the open alliance between fascism and Roman Catholicism.

But to pretend that something similar is what's happening now would be an acute form of intelectual laziness.

For example, the Heterodox Academy, which monitors intelectual freedom on campuses across the nation, estimates that of all the attempts to silence speakers,

90% came from left-wing groups.
10% came from right-wing groups.

I don't know in which galaxy a 9 to 1 ratio translates to both sides being equally wrong, but it isn't ours. What anyone with a semblance of impartiality can observe all around is that the far-left is the most sectarian, the most cliquish, the most violent, the most authoritarian faction. No question about it. Which side is calling for speakers to be de-platformed? Which side is violently protesting, trying to violently prevent others from exercising their freedom of assembly - and with their faces covered, as they insist on announcing to the world just how brave they are? Which side is smashing windows and generally destroying private property of unrelated third-parties? Whose discourse could be summed up as a never ending string of insults, "racist dog", "nazi scum", "homophobic", "transphobic", "bigot" and it would nevertheless be a decent summary because that is generally the extent of their capacity to make a case?

Overwhelmingly, the far-left.

But, of course, the cosiest position to hold is to not engage with reality and pretend both ends of the spectrum currently are equally bad, giving one the ability to promptly dismiss the case as argued. I suppose that stance does clear more free time to play videogames. I'll give you that.

So you want me to explain how the term "social justice" is a good thing? Really bro? Just because there are some bad actors that go too far with it, all of a sudden the whole belief of justice within a society is bad now? Most people that I speak with and listen to within the media want "equality of opportunity" not "equality of outcome".

And why are you only looking at college campuses when it comes to what you consider " silencing of speakers"? This isn't about politics most of the time. Not directly anyways. Maybe indirectly it is, but most of the time it's about the average everyday person feeling a certain type of way about something and then groups of people tend to turn it into politics. It's very obvious that you only pay attention to what one side is doing. Yet I don't care about the petty BULLCRAP politics that you are playing.

You only care about what's happening on college campuses to silience people, yet many right wing groups (thinkers and indiviudals) have done the same thing when it came to the NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Yet you don't care about that. They did the same thing when they've attacked unions all across the country over the last 35 years, yet you don't care about that. The same anger was seen on the right when Obama said conservatives stick to their Bible and Guns when job loses hit small town America.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

People on the right crushed him when he said this quote. So why act like only the left gets upset when somebody says something that they don't like?

 

[Danjin44]

The issue is not that she is gay or female it is more exploring the studio's possible motives/agenda than Ellie. If you want a simpler break down it is has Naughty Dog gone full social justice company.

So what is their so called "possible motives or agenda"? If it is stop people from freaking out every time we have gay person as main character then I'm all for it. I mean for fuck sake this entire thread exist because Ellie kissed a girl.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I mean for fuck sake this entire thread exist because Ellie kissed a girl.

No it didn't. Please watch the full video in the OP, the basis of this entire thread.

 

[Cosmogony]

So you want me to explain how the term "social justice" is a good thing?

I gather that to you it is. Please just don't pretend it is self-evidently a good thing. The appeal to the allegedly self-evident virtuous nature of Social Justice is usually made by those who can't make a rational case for it. It is an attempt tio disguise their ineptitude.

Really bro? Just because there are some bad actors that go too far with it, all of a sudden the whole belief of justice within a society is bad now? Most people that I speak with and listen to within the media want "equality of opportunity" not "equality of outcome".

The reason why the self-contained term"Justice" has been predicated by "Social" is precisely because, not satisfied with ordinary Justice, Social Justice seeks equality of outcome, as any cursory review of the politics it endorses will reveal.

And why are you only looking at college campuses when it comes to what you consider " silencing of speakers"

?

Because a) there's hard data available, as provided by the Heterodox Academy and b) is exemplifies a trend at large. Notably it's a case study in terms of SJW demographics. A brief note of the SJW epitome. You will note most, but not all, far-left activists will not shy away from the SJW label. By contrast, those the far left deems nazi, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., often repudiate both the label and the content.

This isn't about politics most of the time. Not directly anyways. Maybe indirectly it is, but most of the time it's about the average everyday person feeling a certain type of way about something and then groups of people tend to turn it into politics. It's very obvious that you only pay attention to what one side is doing. Yet I don't care about the petty BULLCRAP politics that you are playing.

It most definitely is about politics. Human beings are fighting over power over other human beings . This is as political as it gets. The problem arises when the methods are not legitimate.

You only care about what's happening on college campuses to silience people,

And here I see a misrepresentation. The fact I provided an example involving campuses does by no mean signify I only care about campuses. It should have been obvious to you and yet it wasn't.

yet many right wing groups (thinkers and indiviudals) have done the same thing when it came to the NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Yet you don't care about that.

And how would you know that?
My post contains explicit mentions of the far-right, which you seem to have overlooked. You overlooking them isn't surprising.

They did the same thing when they've attacked unions all across the country over the last 35 years, yet you don't care about that.

So the meat of your post is going to be bogus assertion after bogus assertion?
Roger.

The same anger was seen on the right when Obama said conservatives stick to their Bible and Guns when job loses hit small town America

.

Compeletely irrelevant and undue parallel.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

How is this even remotely connected to the issues at hand? I'm happy to go on a small detour to address your points when they somehow connect with the OP, even if on a tangent , but this is taking it too far. By all means, head to the Off-topic section.

People on the right crushed him when he said this quote. So why act like only the left gets upset when somebody says something that they don't like?

Since you seem to have missed my point by a mile, let me clarify it you:

1. Freedom of speech is paramount.
2. Whoever seeks to curtail the freedom of speech of others is in the wrong, be it the left, the right, the centre, the non-affiliated. etc.
3. Currently, the overwhelming majority of attacks, but not all of the attacks, on freedom of speech, notably violent attacks, come from the far-left.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

But, of course, the cosiest position to hold is to not engage with reality and pretend both ends of the spectrum currently are equally bad, giving one the ability to promptly dismiss the case as argued. I suppose that stance does clear more free time to play videogames. I'll give you that.

The right and far-right in the US are largely anti-science, which would explain at least some of the negative feelings that pop up when they want to speak at Universities.

I am not entirely sure how the academic platform is interpreted in the US, but in Europe is considered a platform for science, meaning that things that are not science have no place there.

So when Jordan Peterson wants to talk about his scientific work, he'd be welcome at a European University, but if he wants to talk about his opinions on gender roles and give out some self help tips, he would be abusing the platform.
If people like Ben Shapiro like to play the right wingers concept of a witty guy on the internet, he can do that, but his economic and socio-political opinion are so far disconnected from the scientific status quo in these fields that they are about as misplaced in an academic setting as the ramblings of an Astrologist or Homeopathist or climate change denier.

Science is our only way of determining truth. Truth devalues opinion ultimately, but for some reason we see a recent trend that undermines that concept. Bad science, fake science or no science at all try to occupy academic platforms to abuse the legitimization its gives to them, only to then hide under the cover of opinion and not engage in actual scientific debate.

The problem I see isn't that garbage opinions aren't welcome at Universities, the problem is rather that the decisions as to what is and what isn't a garbage opinion, at least in the US, are often up to a rather irrational hate mob.
This hate mob usually just attacks the positions of a person or the person directly, not based on a evaluation and rejection of the arguments, but rather just an us vs. them mentality.
So they know that they hate Ben Shapiro, but they can't tell you why, they don't know why he is wrong or what exactly he is wrong about.


And this is also my problem with the inflationary use of terms like "Nazi". Neither the people who use the term easily, nor the people who complain about the term being used in that way, know what specific meaning the term actually carries.
Nazis have become a cartoonish form of evil. The fact that there is insane amounts of ideology behind that evil and this ideology had to be carefully dissected to distinguish the harmful from the normal parts is lost on most people.
To the point where people like Dinesh D'Souza can actually write a book where they argue that Nazis were actually left wing because they called themselves "National Sozialisten".
In any serious academic setting someone like him would be laughed off the stage and forgotten, but in the US he gets to speak not only at Universities but also on national TV. His opinion is being presented as if it wasn't wrong, as if it was up for debate or as if his perspective is of any actual value to any debate.
This is a problem, because it shows that opinion can trump truth. And if that becomes widespread we are flying blind, which, given our technological capabilities, is a very, very bad idea.
We can't really afford to be wrong, especially not when we know the right answer.
The most prominent example here is the climate change debate in the US, where the media creates a false equivalency between actual science and the talking points of PR people paid by the fossil fuel industry in order to protect their profits.

 

[Danjin44]

No it didn't. Please watch the full video in the OP, the basis of this entire thread.

I watched video even before this thread and still think people making big deal out of nothing. I will start freaking out once their games suffered because of their "agenda".

 

[mckmas8808]

We aren't having an actual discussion. You are trying to continue a cultural war that I'm not trying to participate in. It's just not true that 90% of all so-called freedom of speech stoppers are on the far left.

 

[Cosmogony]

The right and far-right in the US are largely anti-science, which would explain at least some of the negative feelings that pop up when they want to speak at Universities.

Complete misrepresentation. The reasons they are violently protested against have nothing to do with science-denial. This is entirely fictional, a poor excuse to cover-up for illegitimate. sometimes criminal, activity.

You don't want to criticize people who smash windows, violently prevent others from attending lectures, people who block, insult, throw water at others, and sometime with their faces covered?

Let it be on record here.

I am not entirely sure how the academic platform is interpreted in the US, but in Europe is considered a platform for science, meaning that things that are not science have no place there.

That's open for debate. It is certainly not uniform across all countries and especially not across all scientific domains. Social sciences seems to rank the worse when it comes to heterodoxy.

There would be irony in a self-proclaimed political scientist advocating for an essentially ani-scientific stance, such as the attempt to silence points of view he happens to disagree with.

And please don't presume to be able to speak for the whole of Europe. You just don't know the interlocutor you're dealing with. He might know the European academic world as thoroughly, if not better than you.

So when Jordan Peterson wants to talk about his scientific work, he'd be welcome at a European University, but if he wants to talk about his opinions on gender roles and give out some self help tips, he would be abusing the platform.

You don't get to decide what constitutes "abuse" of the academic platform, especially since Peterson can and does substantiate his case with facts, research, peer-reviewed papers, data. In short, he supplies evidence.

If people like Ben Shapiro like to play the right wingers concept of a witty guy on the internet, he can do that, but his economic and socio-political opinion are so far disconnected from the scientific status quo

No, they are not. You are the one so disconnected from the academic debate as to believe your own point of view has been vindicated by science and stands as the scientific consensus -as if such as thing were even possible with regard to politics. The result of your delusion is that you want any contrarian views de-platformed.

And I say this as someone who has strong disagreements with Shapiro.

in these fields that they are about as misplaced in an academic setting as the ramblings of an Astrologist or Homeopathist or climate change denier.

Clearly, you lack the bare minimum of impartiality.

Science is our only way of determining truth.

I agree. But even though you fill your mouth with the word Science, you despise its goals, methods and ethics. Especially when applied to politics, where you're so entrenched in your biases that you cannot see your own obtuse partiality,

Truth devalues opinion ultimately,

I agree.

To the point where people like Dinesh D'Souza can actually write a book where they argue that Nazis were actually left wing because they called themselves "National Sozialisten".

I'm sorry. This is where I have trouble believing you are a Political Scientist. Anyone with a bare minimum of political erudition would know that the accusation has been around for many decades. One of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century, Karl Popper, identified communism and Nazism as enemies of fee open societies and that's, essentially, the point of D'Souza, I believe. Yet you somehow seem to be a stranger to all this. It's puzzling.

In any serious academic setting someone like him would be laughed off the stage and forgotten, but in the US he gets to speak not only at Universities but also on national TV. His opinion is being presented as if it wasn't wrong, as if it was up for debate or as if his perspective is of any actual value to any debate.
This is a problem, because it shows that opinion can trump truth. And if that becomes widespread we are flying blind, which, given our technological capabilities, is a very, very bad idea.

See above.

We can't really afford to be wrong, especially not when we know the right answer.
The most prominent example here is the climate change debate in the US, where the media creates a false equivalency between actual science and the talking points of PR people paid by the fossil fuel industry in order to protect their profits.

I agree. The solutiuon, though, isn't to silence the hillbillies.

 

[Cosmogony]

We aren't having an actual discussion. You are trying to continue a cultural war that I'm not trying to participate in. It's just not true that 90% of all so-called freedom of speech stoppers are on the far left.

This is a public forum. You post, I can reply. It's a simple concept.

I'm debastated that reality, the facts, as collected by the Heterodox Academy, don't tickle your fancy. When you have facts to counter - as opposed to wishful thinking - do present them.

 

[mckmas8808]

This is a public forum. You post, I can reply. It's a simple concept.

I'm debastated that reality, the facts, as collected by the Heterodox Academy, don't tickle your fancy. When you have facts to counter - as opposed to wishful thinking - do present them.

The Heterodox Academy clearly isn't looking at all instances outside of college campuses. This much is clear! And if they are only going to focus on college campuses, I'm not sure why you even brought that up here.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I watched video even before this thread and still think people making big deal out of nothing. I will start freaking out once their games suffered because of their "agenda".

You're welcome to think what you like.
However, if you've watched the full video then you know it's simply not accurate to say:

..this entire thread exist because Ellie kissed a girl.

And, whilst I'm here and will raise the topic again:
Naughty Dog are shown to hand-pick a proud bigot to work on and represent their product.

We're nearly 1,000 comments into this thread.
Nobody - especially those downplaying the concerns expressed and substantiated in the video in the OP - has seen fit to address that.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I will start freaking out once their games suffered because of their "agenda".

That's interesting, because that's exactly what the guy in the video says.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's interesting, because that's exactly what the guy in the video says.

A LOT of people disagree with "how" he says the game is/could be suffering though. That's what this debate is about. There's nothing that's been shown that signals that this game will be bad now due to any videos that ND has shown.

 

[InterMusketeer]

A LOT of people disagree with "how" he says the game is/could be suffering though. That's what this debate is about. There's nothing that's been shown that signals that this game will be bad now due to any videos that ND has shown.

You don't agree that it's worrying Druckmann handpicked a heterophobic racist for one of the roles in the game?

 

[Ke0]

I don't understand why it's a big deal honestly. So what Ellie is a lesbian.

 

[Negotiator]

People need to understand that just using the words "Social Justice" does not equal a bad thing. But due to people being silly an always wanting to fight a culture war now equality is considered a terrible thing. God forbid......

Social justice is good. Regressive/radical left is bad (no need to explain why). I hope you understand the difference. There's a reason the "SJW" term was conceived. It's the equivalent of a keyboard/console warrior in the social justice context.

I mean for fuck sake this entire thread exist because Ellie kissed a girl.

Really? Then I guess Robin should have made his video 4+ years ago.

 

[Danjin44]

That's interesting, because that's exactly what the guy in the video says.

I played most of their game and enjoyed them and I didn't felt like any of them games suffering because any "agenda" so far.

 

[InterMusketeer]

I played most of their game and enjoyed them and I didn't felt like any of them games suffering because any "agenda" so far.

Why are you quoting the video again?

 

[mckmas8808]

You don't agree that it's worrying Druckmann handpicked a heterophobic racist for one of the roles in the game?

handpicked a heterophobic racist? Where and when?

Social justice is good. Regressive/radical left is bad (no need to explain why). I hope you understand the difference. There's a reason the "SJW" term was conceived. It's the equivalent of a keyboard/console warrior in the social justice context.

.

I know the difference, but the term is terrible. And people use it so loosely that it tends to describe people that are radical and others that aren't radical at all.

 

[InterMusketeer]

handpicked a heterophobic racist? Where and when?

You really don't know what I'm refering to? Have you watched the video at all?

 

[dirthead]

This is about the best thing on the internet I've seen that summarizes the actual problem with Naughty Dog.



It isn't even a social justice thing as much as it just feels like they don't even want to make video games but low rent movies. They need to take a huge step back and actually focus on making fun games again.

 

[Dunki]

handpicked a heterophobic racist? Where and when?

It is in the video explained. They handpicked a racist and heterophobic trans actor. Which is strange since normally there is an audition for roles. On social media he often goes on how white boyfriends are trash and that he will never date one ever again. But this was even some of the more harmless things he said.

 

[NahaNago]

So what is their so called "possible motives or agenda"? If it is stop people from freaking out every time we have gay person as main character then I'm all for it. I mean for fuck sake this entire thread exist because Ellie kissed a girl.

There was a whole video about the naughty dog agenda on the first page of this thread.

 

[woigemok]

No matter how many SJW bullshits they're shoving into the game. Zelda BOTW is still the game with the most perfect scores and the highest rated game this gen.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You're welcome to think what you like.
However, if you've watched the full video then you know it's simply not accurate to say:


And, whilst I'm here and will raise the topic again:
Naughty Dog are shown to hand-pick a proud bigot to work on and represent their product.

We're nearly 1,000 comments into this thread.
Nobody - especially those downplaying the concerns expressed and substantiated in the video in the OP - has seen fit to address that.

It is in the video explained. They handpicked a racist and heterophobic trans actor. Which is strange since normally there is an audition for roles. On social media he often goes on how white boyfriends are trash and that he will never date one ever again. But this was even some of the more harmless things he said.

If ND hand selected a white straight male who was bigoted, the outrage internet culture would be calling for their heads. Funny how we do not hear a peep out of them for this. Oh, they hate the "white man", business as usual.

No matter how many SJW bullshits they're shoving into the game. Zelda BOTW is still the game with the most perfect scores and the highest rated game this gen.

 

[mckmas8808]

You really don't know what I'm refering to? Have you watched the video at all?

That guy? Is there more tweets because that stuff isn't racist nor heterophobic to me. And what's wrong with being handpicked? Do we know why he was handpicked?

This is about the best thing on the internet I've seen that summarizes the actual problem with Naughty Dog.



It isn't even a social justice thing as much as it just feels like they don't even want to make video games but low rent movies. They need to take a huge step back and actually focus on making fun games again.

Except the majority of the people on GAF would even disagree with this video. So these guys want ND to make games that look and feel like the average Activision game? Why the heck would I want that?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

This is about the best thing on the internet I've seen that summarizes the actual problem with Naughty Dog.



It isn't even a social justice thing as much as it just feels like they don't even want to make video games but low rent movies. They need to take a huge step back and actually focus on making fun games again.

I can respect that view, but totally disagree with it. My tastes skew very heavily toward cinematic, narrative-driven experience and very rarely to anything purely gameplay focused. Sony first party stuff, Telltale games, “walking sims,” visual novels, RPGs etc get most of my time and money.

To each, their own of course. I also enjoy movies and shows and books more than gaming and have most of my life so that’s a big part of it. I’m all about stories and escaping in experiences. I’m not competitive at all so PVP stuff does nothing for me and I get plenty of challenges and sense of satisfaction in my career so I’ve never enjoyed hard games for those reasons. I just want to veg out and get lost in a virtual world for a while when I game.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Is there more tweets because that stuff isn't racist nor heterophobic to me.

Well, that's subjective.
I don't make a point of using twitter. But the video shows 3 tweets from the person, all conveying rampant bigotry. How many more are required?
The video also states that this voice actor was "the only one" to be handpicked by the company. Specifically a Vice President of a company who is also the Creative Director of their next high-profile title.

And what's wrong with being handpicked? Do we know why he was handpicked?

I don't see how that influences the information provided in the video and I think pursuing those details moves the focus away from the offenses shown.
We, like the video in the OP, can only speculate on why they were handpicked. I suspect there's only two people that know the answer to that, and they're unlikely to be neutral on the topic.

And, I happened to be catching up on some threads when I saw your contribution elsewhere (I wasn't stalking, I swear!!):

And people that disagree or don't like your tweets have the freedom of speech to speak out "against" the things that you say publically. It goes both ways. You aren't protected from the consequences of terrible tweets.

So why is this person being protected from their terrible tweets? - Both by their employers and by the implicit playing down or willful overlooking of their terrible tweets by so many observers?

 

[Negotiator]

Apparently hiring handpicking a radical leftist, anti-white racist bigot is an act of "balance" against alt-right bigots.

That's the most plausible explanation I can think of. Neil's mind must be really messed up. Listening to militant feminists and Tumblr kids. I miss the good ol' ND.

 

[mckmas8808]

Well, that's subjective.
I don't make a point of using twitter. But the video shows 3 tweets from the person, all conveying rampant bigotry. How many more are required?
The video also states that this voice actor was "the only one" to be handpicked by the company. Specifically a Vice President of a company who is also the Creative Director of their next high-profile title.

I don't see how that influences the information provided in the video and I think pursuing those details moves the focus away from the offenses shown.
We, like the video in the OP, can only speculate on why they were handpicked. I suspect there's only two people that know the answer to that, and they're unlikely to be neutral on the topic.

And, I happened to be catching up on some threads when I saw your contribution elsewhere (I wasn't stalking, I swear!!):

So why is this person being protected from their terrible tweets? - Both by their employers and by the implicit playing down or willful overlooking of their terrible tweets by so many observers?

1. To be honest, I personally didn't find those tweets to be racist at all. More a preference due to his personal expirence. I think it's a dumb thing to say and feel though. Like why limit your future choices because the white guys he's been with ended badly? I couldn't see why the same stuff wouldn't happen with someone non-white. It's a weird thing to read and clearly has to be due to a lack of maturity.

2. Are they being protected though? Like he was in one trailer for like 20 seconds in a game that's not even released. We don't really even know the character that he's playing. Is it a big role or is he playing a small role? News tends to spread faster when because at least know the person that's being focused on.

 

[DeepEnigma]

1. To be honest, I personally didn't find those tweets to be racist at all. More a preference due to his personal expirence. I think it's a dumb thing to say and feel though. Like why limit your future choices because the white guys he's been with ended badly? I couldn't see why the same stuff wouldn't happen with someone non-white. It's a weird thing to read and clearly has to be due to a lack of maturity.

Come on now. Let us not be disigneuous. If he were white, and made the same tweets about "brown people"...

I do not even need to complete that sentence. Real talk.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

How come we're suddenly talking about the content of an unreleased game?
Why are we casually sidestepping what is known and attempting to double-down on what is unknown?
In my last comment I made a very deliberate point:

I don't see how that influences the information provided in the video and I think pursuing those details moves the focus away from the offenses shown.

...

Are they being protected though?

I mentioned them being played down or being wilfully overlooked.
The latter has gone on in this thread for 900+ comments.
I've just witnessed the former.

 

[Dunki]

1. To be honest, I personally didn't find those tweets to be racist at all. More a preference due to his personal expirence. I think it's a dumb thing to say and feel though. Like why limit your future choices because the white guys he's been with ended badly? I couldn't see why the same stuff wouldn't happen with someone non-white. It's a weird thing to read and clearly has to be due to a lack of maturity.

2. Are they being protected though? Like he was in one trailer for like 20 seconds in a game that's not even released. We don't really even know the character that he's playing. Is it a big role or is he playing a small role? News tends to spread faster when because at least know the person that's being focused on.

Always question yourself if you would find it racist if you would change the race and gender or sex. If you think only one of them is racist than it is racist.

There are people who argue that you are transophobic when you do not want to date trans people. But yes let me tell you I do not like to date black people because black people are trouble and I would suggest everyone never ever to date black people.

Still not racist?

 

[mckmas8808]

Come on now. Let us not be disigneuous. If he were white, and made the same tweets about "brown people"...

I do not even need to complete that sentence. Real talk.

I'm not saying some people can't have issues with that tweet, but I'm saying I don't. I would never care if a white dude said he isn't dating black chicks anymore. Now I would be a problem for me if he said something slick like "all white boys are ugly" or something like that. Maybe he has and I haven't seen that.

But if you guys want to shine a bigger light on it, please be my guest. I wouldn't stop you. As a matter of fact, I'd like to understand what you guys didn't like about his tweets.

Always question yourself if you would find it racist if you would change the race and gender or sex. If you think only one of them is racist than it is racist.

There are people who argue that you are transophobic when you do not want to date trans people. But yes let me tell you I do not like to date black people because black people are trouble and I would suggest everyone never ever to date black people.

Still not racist?

The suggesting to other people to never date black people would probably be the issue I'd have with you. I'd question you on why you thought all black people were trouble too. I'd be very interested in your answer and go from there.

And not wanting to date a Trans person doesn't mean you are transphobic. But I've had that convo with people here on GAF in the past before the Exodus. People are allowed to have preferences.

 

[Dunki]

I'm not saying some people can't have issues with that tweet, but I'm saying I don't. I would never care if a white dude said he isn't dating black chicks anymore. Now I would be a problem for me if he said something slick like "all white boys are ugly" or something like that. Maybe he has and I haven't seen that.

But if you guys want to shine a bigger light on it, please be my guest. I wouldn't stop you. As a matter of fact, I'd like to understand what you guys didn't like about his tweets.

Generalisation of white and hetero people, derogatory language regarding white and hetero people. Even villainizing white and hetero people.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm not saying some people can't have issues with that tweet, but I'm saying I don't. I would never care if a white dude said he isn't dating black chicks anymore. Now I would be a problem for me if he said something slick like "all white boys are ugly" or something like that. Maybe he has and I haven't seen that.

But if you guys want to shine a bigger light on it, please be my guest. I wouldn't stop you. As a matter of fact, I'd like to understand what you guys didn't like about his tweets.

I gotcha, for you, I agree with that statement, I feel the same as you as well. It takes a lot to get under my skin.

I just find the hypocrisy in the "outrage culture" that these things go unchecked when it is "bash whitey", because you know damned well if it were reversed, the Twitternet would be going insane on ND and company.

 

[mckmas8808]

I gotcha, for you, I agree with that statement, I feel the same as you as well. It takes a lot to get under my skin.

I just find the hypocrisy in the "outrage culture" that these things go unchecked when it is "bash whitey", because you know damned well if it were reversed, the Twitternet would be going insane on ND and company.

But are we sure people on Twitter aren't going off about this actor? This video seems to show that somebody is talking about it. Maybe it comes back up after the game is released. This young man would be best to shut down his Twitter over the next year or so.

 

[DeepEnigma]

But are we sure people on Twitter aren't going off about this actor? This video seems to show that somebody is talking about it. Maybe it comes back up after the game is released. This young man would be best to shut down his Twitter over the next year or so.

It is quite possible, but I like to use the most unscientific litmus test. If the hive at (RE) are not talking/complaining about it, chances are it is not an outrage big enough for anyone to really notice.

However, it seems the other side is starting to fight fire with fire, so maybe it will come up from a different group all together.

 

[Ke0]

You're welcome to think what you like.
However, if you've watched the full video then you know it's simply not accurate to say:


And, whilst I'm here and will raise the topic again:
Naughty Dog are shown to hand-pick a proud bigot to work on and represent their product.

Druckmman is a bigot because he wants to expand the status quo to include LGBT and minorities? I'm confused

Generalisation of white and hetero people, derogatory language regarding white and hetero people. Even villainizing white and hetero people.

What group of people particularly in America don't go through this? I can't think of a group who aren't generalized, derogatory language used against them, or villainized.

The human condition is funny in that most people not apart of said group don't care when these negative things are aimed at other groups, only growing concern when it's their group in the spotlight. At that point it's all about "okay sure that was wrong, but this isn't how you solve it." Which one should really read as "That was fine because it was the status quo, but this isn't!"

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Druckmman is a bigot because he wants to expand the status quo to include LGBT and minorities? I'm confused

Excuse me? Where have I made this accusation?