Does it really matter? Niel ruined Uncharted 4 and gave us Lost Legacy. The two worst games in the franchise. Doesn't matter if 3 wasn't as good as 2 when both are objectively better than the trash fire that was 4 and LL.
Well yes, if people are arguing that something is "woke", generally they will tend towards making note of the inclusion of demographics that have largely been underrepresented/marginalized in media. The factor that differentiates woke from not is not the inclusion of said demographics, it's the motivation behind including them, which is typically exemplified by the execution. You can easily see this difference by looking at Left Behind's revelation as opposed to the TLoU 2 trailers.
Few took issue with the revelation of Ellie's sexual orientation in Left Behind because it was used as a means to her and Riley's development. To demonstrate her feelings towards a friend she loved and didn't want to lose. Her orientation was utilized to show that, but it wasn't made the focal point. Contrast this to the E3 trailer that opens with Ellie kissing a girl, a stranger given no development whatsoever. This is done to do nothing but pull into focus her sexual orientation for ideological capital and representation points. Personally, I'm alright with that first trailer. I had my suspicions an agenda was at play, but the fact is, Ellie's relationship with Dina is a necessary groundwork to lay impetus for the narrative. However, the next trailer they release, not twenty seconds in, the very first words spoken were, "So.....on a scale of 1-10......how would you rate our kiss last night?". Something that immediately pulled focus onto the orientation, held no relevance towards anything subsequent in that trailer whatsoever, nor that informed the audience of anything they didn't already know.
Only done to say, "Hey, remember? Ellie and Dina kissed in the last trailer! She's a lesbian, and don't you forget it!"
Can you not see the difference between handling one's orientation in a respectful and meaningful manner to lend weight to narrative and character development (such as Left Behind did), as opposed to using one's orientation in its most superficial and meaningless of metrics simply to make point of the fact that that is their orientation to mark off a check box of inclusion, diversity, and equality? That's the difference, and that's what bothers people. And again, I'm alright with the first kiss, but then Neil comes out with the second trailer and couldn't help but bust his agenda nut all over the place like a two pump chump on prom night. It was explicit and unashamed agenda pushing.
And ultimately, it accomplishes nothing so well as to create an immediate push back against inclusion and diversity due to the hamfisted manner of its implementation by a rampant ideologue like Druckmann, who further harms his own cause by foolishly aligning himself with the likes of Sarkeesian who represents the absolute worst of "progressive" ideals and whose execution has actively harmed the ideal both her and Neil wish to further. You'd think this dope would get a fucking clue, but no, apparently it is all of us who are bigots and sexists living in our basements. His lack of self-awareness is almost admirable, I must admit.
The execution is something we can only currently guess at.
Plenty took exception to Ellie being gay in that early E3 trailer for TLOU 2, despite it being revealed in the Left Behind DLC.
I thought the trailer was clearly showing Ellie had something to lose, that that something is another woman is pre-determined by the prior DLC you mentioned.
So it followed up on the prior trailer... so? No relevance? It's showing you they went beyond just a kiss and are still in relationship talks, the relationship is part of the story.
Maybe you're too offended by people being lesbians because reminding me they kissed and showing they are still talking was fine by me.
I can see you're judging something you played vs trailers for something you haven't played. What's Neil's agenda? To remind you gays exist? Oooo, spooky.
If people want to push back against diversity and inclusion simply because they're reminded diversity and inclusion exist it says more about them than the game doesn't it?
Anita's influence, according to Neil, influenced the FIRST TLOU game, so... not really worried.
Also, the latest trailer has no lesbian stuff in it, shouldn't you be happy?
It´s funny how some people preach about the values and importance of a creators vision, that it should be maintained and not subjected to any form of censorship, that they should be free to create whatever they want without scrutiny, but when a creator has a vision about a lesbian couple, diversity, feminist themes or what not that don´t gel with these very same people they often seem to stand up and scream "AGENDA!" as loud as they can. How is that?
Without Neil? What are you guys talking about? He was a designer and writer of Uncharted 2.
Uncharted 4 is a great game, perhaps the best entry.
The execution is something we can only currently guess at.
Plenty took exception to Ellie being gay in that early E3 trailer for TLOU 2, despite it being revealed in the Left Behind DLC.
I thought the trailer was clearly showing Ellie had something to lose, that that something is another woman is pre-determined by the prior DLC you mentioned.
So it followed up on the prior trailer... so? No relevance? It's showing you they went beyond just a kiss and are still in relationship talks, the relationship is part of the story.
Maybe you're too offended by people being lesbians because reminding me they kissed and showing they are still talking was fine by me.
I can see you're judging something you played vs trailers for something you haven't played. What's Neil's agenda? To remind you gays exist? Oooo, spooky.
If people want to push back against diversity and inclusion simply because they're reminded diversity and inclusion exist it says more about them than the game doesn't it?
Anita's influence, according to Neil, influenced the FIRST TLOU game, so... not really worried.
Also, the latest trailer has no lesbian stuff in it, shouldn't you be happy?
Most games which try to do a serious ‘story’ are god awful. I’ve asked people before to name games with decent stories and the best they can come up with is a few quest lines in Witcher 3.
Mind you, films are identical and being dumbed down for an increasingly stupid audience. I watched the Ipcress File the other day and the intro, wow... I can’t imagine that being made today as there was little to no hand holding dialogue for a good 15minutes.
All this said, from what I’ve seen of TLOU2 so far, it seems a half decent attempt at a story so I’m not really seeing what people are complaining about.
It’s not gameplay driven like a title like Bayonetta, it’s a story / movie like game and we all knew it would be after the first one...
Now, if you don’t *like* the sound of the story, don’t watch / buy it... Same as any book or movie that doesn’t gel with you. But to still want it’s existence yet be completely changed to your liking is the exact same SJW argument in reverse, it’s madness.
Difference is movies have the cultural advantage and education to be accepted by the critics, producers, distributors and audience. Imagine if a game like Irreversible was created. Game would be banned and developers would be ostracised.
I think Druckman is responsible for some of my favorite games ever made, so I support his activity as a creator. I think Anita is awful, she's a bad spokesperson for her cause in the same sense Al Gore was a bad spokesperson for global warming. Sex negative feminists are pretty much in general bad spokes people but she goes beyond that into full hypocrisy territory nevermind making it impossible to hit her sweet spot for a female character, out of one corner of her mouth she wants female chars to not simply be men with a gender swap, out of the other she wants all feminine characteristics downplayed due to their stereotypical nature. She also isn't a true gamer as we've exposed before, uses bullshit examples sans the context that matters and hasn't even fulfilled all her goals despite raking in the money. She's a scam artist and full of shit.
Druckman let her turn grown-up Ellie into looking more like Norman Reedus than Ellen Paige... that's stupid but not enough to make me dismiss the game. He made another character ridiculously big, especially for the setting... it's silly but not enough to make me dismiss the game. Anita has done plenty to make me dismiss her entirely and in Druckman's speech about her he admits there are problems with how she presents her message, he just feels the core idea (females could use better representation) is true. Basically he doesn't mind if the messenger is flawed if he agrees with the message. I think it's a shame his idea of better female representation means ignoring what makes a female... a female... but so long as it isn't the focus of the game and is instead just a small part of the overall experience I'm really not worried about it. Personally I'd argue I value females more than either of them, because to be a true feminist, I'd argue, is to value a woman's strength at the same level you do a man's, not you think women can do everything men can just as well. Equality doesn't mean we all are able to do the same things, it means we value each other's strengths to the same amount. I've never cared for people who attack the "male gaze" or sexualization of females, especially considering the absolute hypocrisy of it when the male action hero has changed so drastically since the '80s to suit the female gaze. Ask any woman if they'd rather sleep with the action hero of today or the one from the '80s and you know the answer. Conversely ask a man if he'd rather sleep with the females of that time's movies or now and you'd also get an unsurprising answer (with big caveats like ScarJo or MEW), the Hollywood of today wants women who look weird, not traditional beauty but a "look" while the men largely look the way women want them to. Things weren't equal in the '80s and now they're lopsided in the other direction.
The weird thing is how often they claim they need female protagonists because that's half their audience... it factually isn't. Just look at action movies, when they make an action movie for females it always does worse, why? Because females only see films like that on dates with their boyfriends mostly, but the goal of third wave feminism is to ignore biological realities. Some of the only female-lead action flicks that do well feature attractive females that men want to see even if some think it's silly watching them knock guys 3 times their size around. Even in the realm of comedies people don't recognize women want different types of humor than men, women loved Bridesmaids because it was true to the female experience, no one loved female Ghostbusters because they hijacked a franchise and ruined it by turning it into boring ad-libbed SNL sketches. Them being female was just a gimmick and added zero to the film, they were telling juvenile Seth Rogen level jokes the whole film (for the record when Ghostbusters 3 was originally going to be with people like Rogen and Jonah Hill I said 'fuck that, I don't want a Ghostbusters movie full of weed and sex jokes').
It's all kinda funny, too because we've all argued for a long time that you don't need to play as your sexuality/race/gender in a game to relate to the characters, yet people are freaking out you don't get to play as Joel in TLOU II. It feels mildly hypocritical but it could be a time to admit that a lot of people DO want to play as their sexuality/race/gender in games. I'll always support creative freedom but if things are done for business decisions the best business decisions are to note spite the majority of your audience. I don't think Druckman necessarily is doing that. In TLOU people fell in love with Ellie and Joel, and they're back! Their stories are continued and if you could fall in love with them once maybe you can fall in love with them 10 years later in the game's story line? Judging if he did a good job on leaks ND didn't intend for you to see is kinda unfair. Just imagine if going into playing TLOU you knew the entire time that
Ellie wouldn't actually provide a cure to save humanity, that Joel would stop it.
Would you judge the game fairly if you went in knowing this ahead of time?
Anyways, I feel Druckman's decisions might be agenda-fueled but I haven't gotten the idea that the game is about shoving that agenda in your face. Yes, there will be a lesbian romance, yes you play as Ellie but what's the actual story about? What's the actual plot? In the grand scheme aren't these just minor details in a story that most likely isn't trying to change your mind about the world at large in a strictly political sense? Druckman has said it's a game about hatred and hatred is a theme that's more universal than SJW agendas. Think to the pioneering director for feminism in the '80s... James Cameron, his movies had strong female leads but their messages weren't about that, the film's had morals and plots that didn't require female leads, it's just a choice he made, what if this is the same? We've seen no evidence to the contrary, yes including in the spoiler thread.
Well yes, if people are arguing that something is "woke", generally they will tend towards making note of the inclusion of demographics that have largely been underrepresented/marginalized in media. The factor that differentiates woke from not is not the inclusion of said demographics, it's the motivation behind including them, which is typically exemplified by the execution. You can easily see this difference by looking at Left Behind's revelation as opposed to the TLoU 2 trailers.
Few took issue with the revelation of Ellie's sexual orientation in Left Behind because it was used as a means to her and Riley's development. To demonstrate her feelings towards a friend she loved and didn't want to lose. Her orientation was utilized to show that, but it wasn't made the focal point. Contrast this to the E3 trailer that opens with Ellie kissing a girl, a stranger given no development whatsoever. This is done to do nothing but pull into focus her sexual orientation for ideological capital and representation points. Personally, I'm alright with that first trailer. I had my suspicions an agenda was at play, but the fact is, Ellie's relationship with Dina is a necessary groundwork to lay impetus for the narrative. However, the next trailer they release, not twenty seconds in, the very first words spoken were, "So.....on a scale of 1-10......how would you rate our kiss last night?". Something that immediately pulled focus onto the orientation, held no relevance towards anything subsequent in that trailer whatsoever, nor that informed the audience of anything they didn't already know.
Only done to say, "Hey, remember? Ellie and Dina kissed in the last trailer! She's a lesbian, and don't you forget it!"
Can you not see the difference between handling one's orientation in a respectful and meaningful manner to lend weight to narrative and character development (such as Left Behind did), as opposed to using one's orientation in its most superficial and meaningless of metrics simply to make point of the fact that that is their orientation to mark off a check box of inclusion, diversity, and equality? That's the difference, and that's what bothers people. And again, I'm alright with the first kiss, but then Neil comes out with the second trailer and couldn't help but bust his agenda nut all over the place like a two pump chump on prom night. It was explicit and unashamed agenda pushing.
And ultimately, it accomplishes nothing so well as to create an immediate push back against inclusion and diversity due to the hamfisted manner of its implementation by a rampant ideologue like Druckmann, who further harms his own cause by foolishly aligning himself with the likes of Sarkeesian who represents the absolute worst of "progressive" ideals and whose execution has actively harmed the ideal both her and Neil wish to further. You'd think this dope would get a fucking clue, but no, apparently it is all of us who are bigots and sexists living in our basements. His lack of self-awareness is almost admirable, I must admit.
To put it succinctly, there is a massive difference between focusing on the characters and focusing on character traits.
That is why yesterday's trailer was very good (without the context of the leaks, btw). Because it focused on the relationship between Ellie and Joel (character interactions), and Ellie's descent into madness (character development). This is also why the trailer where Ellie and Dina kissed failed to promote TLOU2 in any meaningful way because it only focused on the character traits, i.e. it only focused on Ellie's homosexuality. The trailer did nothing to explain who Dina is and why the audience should care about her.
This is part of the problem. When you listen to this it seems to be coming from another world. I guess when she says there's a hunger for diversity, she's excluding the other 80% if the population that are clearly bigots. Diversity has always been there, as the ensuing conversation shows.
considering how subtle it was in the first game if it didn’t have significance to you then you wouldnt be finding “agendas” or get worked up by “pandering” (discussion of retcon in dlc also must have missed bill) The supposedly legitimate concern on other forums I read about this is almost always driven by people who open with “I don’t care that she is gay but” then share crypto conservative views about culture being degraded or ruined by the presence of things that conservatives complain about, in every thread. I mean, it’s fine that people have conservative opinions but being honest about that might reveal the subjective quality of those observations. So the authors of the game using their creative freedom to write the story they want to write gets spun as hyper pregressive pandering from people who get to pretend they have a view from nowhere that totally-isn’t -conservative, but also conservative-opinion-about-heteronormativity, trans-people-having-mental-illness, don’t-care-but-also-perpetually-offended
That you see this from my post is more telling about you than me. That you think I’m a conservative is quite precious.
I’m also not suggesting they not make the game they want. I’m just implying they are cowards about how they got to fund it. By all means bring all the queer and queer adjacent content into the world. That is the beauty of the western world.
To put it succinctly, there is a massive difference between focusing on the characters and focusing on character traits.
That is why yesterday's trailer was very good (without the context of the leaks, btw). Because it focused on the relationship between Ellie and Joel (character interactions), and Ellie's descent into madness (character development). This is also why the trailer where Ellie and Dina kissed failed to promote TLOU2 in any meaningful way because it only focused on the character traits, i.e. it only focused on Ellie's homosexuality. The trailer did nothing to explain who Dina is and why the audience should care about her.
That would follow if you made a coherent demaration and demonstrated how it's harmful to the narrative in some way. To me it seems like a tortured and arbitrary way to interpret a standard narrative setup that's like every other action movie.
That would follow if you made a coherent demaration and demonstrated how it's harmful to the narrative in some way. To me it seems like a tortured and arbitrary way to interpret a standard narrative setup that's like every other action movie.
Ah, moving the goalposts to needing to demonstrate how it's "harmful" when I said that the kiss did not promote the game in any meaningful way. In other words, there was no net gain in terms of learning about the character (not the character traits). Did the trailer further divulge on Dina's character other than that she's Ellie's lesbian partner? No. Did the trailer further expand on Ellie's character other than that she's homosexual? No.
That you see this from my post is more telling about you than me. That you think I’m a conservative is quite precious.
I’m also not suggesting they not make the game they want. I’m just implying they are cowards about how they got to fund it. By all means bring all the queer and queer adjacent content into the world. That is the beauty of the western world.
I'll be waiting for your penetrating insights about the universality of human nature between being totally not bothered by a gay character and also that they should apologize for violating heteronormativity.
I'll be waiting for your penetrating insights about the universality of human nature between being totally not bothered by a gay character and also that they should apologize for violating heteronormativity.
Ah, moving the goalposts to needing to demonstrate how it's "harmful" when I said that the kiss did not promote the game in any meaningful way. In other words, there was no net gain in terms of learning about the character (not the character traits). Did the trailer further divulge on Dina's character other than that she's Ellie's lesbian partner? No. Did the trailer further expand on Ellie's character other than that she's homosexual? No.
you're projecting a criteria of what's acceptable through a muddled concept of "what serves the narrative" like they need your permission or approval to include a gay character. this "concern" then takes the form of a pincer move in discussions where one group says if a gay character is unexceptional its forced ("like why make them gay?" it doesn't add anything) while the other claims a specifically gay theme is forced (trying to force lgbtq themes on people who just want to play games); therefore any gay or lgbtq presence in any game is an agenda that proves a narrative that never questions it's own assumptions
Ah, moving the goalposts to needing to demonstrate how it's "harmful" when I said that the kiss did not promote the game in any meaningful way. In other words, there was no net gain in terms of learning about the character (not the character traits). Did the trailer further divulge on Dina's character other than that she's Ellie's lesbian partner? No. Did the trailer further expand on Ellie's character other than that she's homosexual? No.
Oh, there was so much in that scene in terms of writing. Explaining what that is is what got me banned for a month on 'the other' forum. It's that very scene that put me on edge and made me worry the 'agenda' may well be too overt.
Whhh? I disagree. Thats like saying "it's a shame his idea of better black representation means ignoring what makes a black person... a black person" lol You FIRST need to even argue that such a thing doesn't happen to then argue its some sort of misrepresentation.
Its like saying someone is misrepresenting a cloud cause its dark. To argue its ignoring what makes it a reference ofs something, you FIRST need to argue CLOUDS CAN'T BE DARK, ie you need to even prove thats not a real thing to then question its existence in a work like this. Rule of thumb for me on stuff like this is, if we can find someone in REAL LIFE that behaves as such, its fair game.
So a female liking other females happens in real life right now, thus being in a game isn't ignoring that such a thing exist. Fat women exist, skinny women exist, buff women exist, butch women exist etc If it exist in real life, its 100% fair game. I don't believe this should have ever even gotten this far to have folks even debating stuff like this. I don't even see his choice of how he made the character "his idea of better female representation" my god, its HIS IDEA OF HOW HE IS MAKING ELLIE! Not "female representation" IN GENERAL. That type of thing is going to muddy up the waters and its a strange exaggeration to even make. So she doesn't represent all females any more then Nathan Drake represents all guys or Kratos represents all guys etc.
because to be a true feminist, I'd argue, is to value a woman's strength at the same level you do a man's, not you think women can do everything men can just as well.
To respect what women can do and push for equality means to except they are free to do what a man can do, even if they can't to the same level as I'd argue some females do things men do, to a higher level and vice versa. So I think men and women can do many things better then each other on many different areas, but to argue a point like "not you think women can do everything men can just as well" is just crazy bud. Like....very, very crazy and a bit much. To respect equality, means to except women need to be free to do the same shit men can do, regardless if you think they can or not or who might be better then it or not etc.
I support creative freedom 100%... as in, they are free to do what they want with their game. I'd argue the WORST route to go is we are doing this because "the majority of our audience". Art needs to be created unapologetically. Not by the numbers.
I don't want to read the book that is being written based on some number of the demographic reading the book, I want to read the fucking book that the author truly, 100%, wants to create without any influence of sales or who is reading it etc. Making a game like that it would be like "Since the United states has majority males called Micheal, we will lead with that, higher percentage of the eye color green, that will be his eyes 64% said they support our troops, so he will be in the army" /s. My dude, they making a game or a fucking United States Census survey?
I disagree. Promoted it good enough for me. Her character is blooming, she is coming into her own and the kiss shows this person is very important to her. You just exaggerate too much man.
??? It expanded her character enough to show she has a love interest that she passionately loves to kiss out in the open like that...
Thats like saying a straight character kissing someone didn't do anything to expand the story, simply "Did the trailer further expand on Darklor's character other than that he's straight? No." I mean...my god, you are basically saying nothing else happening must be important and the person being gay must be the only thing being shown here.
Not that the character is grown, in a serious relationship etc
Whhh? I disagree. Thats like saying "it's a shame his idea of better black representation means ignoring what makes a black person... a black person" lol You FIRST need to even argue that such a thing doesn't happen to then argue its some sort of misrepresentation.
Its like saying someone is misrepresenting a cloud cause its dark. To argue its ignoring what makes it a reference ofs something, you FIRST need to argue CLOUDS CAN'T BE DARK, ie you need to even prove thats not a real thing to then question its existence in a work like this. Rule of thumb for me on stuff like this is, if we can find someone in REAL LIFE that behaves as such, its fair game.
So a female liking other females happens in real life right now, thus being in a game isn't ignoring that such a thing exist. Fat women exist, skinny women exist, buff women exist, butch women exist etc If it exist in real life, its 100% fair game. I don't believe this should have ever even gotten this far to have folks even debating stuff like this. I don't even see his choice of how he made the character "his idea of better female representation" my god, its HIS IDEA OF HOW HE IS MAKING ELLIE! Not "female representation" IN GENERAL. That type of thing is going to muddy up the waters and its a strange exaggeration to even make. So she doesn't represent all females any more then Nathan Drake represents all guys or Kratos represents all guys etc.
? nah bud.
To respect what women can do and push for equality means to except they are free to do what a man can do, even if they can't to the same level as I'd argue some females do things men do, to a higher level and vice versa. So I think men and women can do many things better then each other on many different areas, but to argue a point like "not you think women can do everything men can just as well" is just crazy bud. Like....very, very crazy and a bit much. To respect equality, means to except women need to be free to do the same shit men can do, regardless if you think they can or not or who might be better then it or not etc.
No buts.
I support creative freedom 100%... as in, they are free to do what they want with their game. I'd argue the WORST route to go is we are doing this because "the majority of our audience". Art needs to be created unapologetically. Not by the numbers.
I don't want to read the book that is being written based on some number of the demographic reading the book, I want to read the fucking book that the author truly, 100%, wants to create without any influence of sales or who is reading it etc. Making a game like that it would be like "Since the United states has majority males called Micheal, we will lead with that, higher percentage of the eye color green, that will be his eyes 64% said they support our troops, so he will be in the army" /s. My dude, they making a game or a fucking United States Census survey?
I disagree. Promoted it good enough for me. Her character is blooming, she is coming into her own and the kiss shows this person is very important to her. You just exaggerate too much man.
??? It expanded her character enough to show she has a love interest that she passionately loves to kiss out in the open like that...
Thats like saying a straight character kissing someone didn't do anything to expand the story, simply "Did the trailer further expand on Darklor's character other than that he's straight? No." I mean...my god, you are basically saying nothing else happening must be important and the person being gay must be the only thing being shown here.
Not that the character is grown, in a serious relationship etc
Well, first of all, Ellie wasn't gay in TLOU until the DLC, that's when they introduced that to her character, but anyway, a good place to start would be to write her as a woman, lesbian or not. In all the material released, Ellie acts, speaks, has the manerisms of a dude and has the strength of one.
That's where I would start, I'd write a girl to act as a girl, I would expect her to beat people with traps and guns, not hilarious chokes and physical confrontations, it just looks silly.
I think Druckman is responsible for some of my favorite games ever made, so I support his activity as a creator. I think Anita is awful, she's a bad spokesperson for her cause in the same sense Al Gore was a bad spokesperson for global warming. Sex negative feminists are pretty much in general bad spokes people but she goes beyond that into full hypocrisy territory nevermind making it impossible to hit her sweet spot for a female character, out of one corner of her mouth she wants female chars to not simply be men with a gender swap, out of the other she wants all feminine characteristics downplayed due to their stereotypical nature. She also isn't a true gamer as we've exposed before, uses bullshit examples sans the context that matters and hasn't even fulfilled all her goals despite raking in the money. She's a scam artist and full of shit.
Druckman let her turn grown-up Ellie into looking more like Norman Reedus than Ellen Paige... that's stupid but not enough to make me dismiss the game. He made another character ridiculously big, especially for the setting... it's silly but not enough to make me dismiss the game. Anita has done plenty to make me dismiss her entirely and in Druckman's speech about her he admits there are problems with how she presents her message, he just feels the core idea (females could use better representation) is true. Basically he doesn't mind if the messenger is flawed if he agrees with the message. I think it's a shame his idea of better female representation means ignoring what makes a female... a female... but so long as it isn't the focus of the game and is instead just a small part of the overall experience I'm really not worried about it. Personally I'd argue I value females more than either of them, because to be a true feminist, I'd argue, is to value a woman's strength at the same level you do a man's, not you think women can do everything men can just as well. Equality doesn't mean we all are able to do the same things, it means we value each other's strengths to the same amount. I've never cared for people who attack the "male gaze" or sexualization of females, especially considering the absolute hypocrisy of it when the male action hero has changed so drastically since the '80s to suit the female gaze. Ask any woman if they'd rather sleep with the action hero of today or the one from the '80s and you know the answer. Conversely ask a man if he'd rather sleep with the females of that time's movies or now and you'd also get an unsurprising answer (with big caveats like ScarJo or MEW), the Hollywood of today wants women who look weird, not traditional beauty but a "look" while the men largely look the way women want them to. Things weren't equal in the '80s and now they're lopsided in the other direction.
The weird thing is how often they claim they need female protagonists because that's half their audience... it factually isn't. Just look at action movies, when they make an action movie for females it always does worse, why? Because females only see films like that on dates with their boyfriends mostly, but the goal of third wave feminism is to ignore biological realities. Some of the only female-lead action flicks that do well feature attractive females that men want to see even if some think it's silly watching them knock guys 3 times their size around. Even in the realm of comedies people don't recognize women want different types of humor than men, women loved Bridesmaids because it was true to the female experience, no one loved female Ghostbusters because they hijacked a franchise and ruined it by turning it into boring ad-libbed SNL sketches. Them being female was just a gimmick and added zero to the film, they were telling juvenile Seth Rogen level jokes the whole film (for the record when Ghostbusters 3 was originally going to be with people like Rogen and Jonah Hill I said 'fuck that, I don't want a Ghostbusters movie full of weed and sex jokes').
It's all kinda funny, too because we've all argued for a long time that you don't need to play as your sexuality/race/gender in a game to relate to the characters, yet people are freaking out you don't get to play as Joel in TLOU II. It feels mildly hypocritical but it could be a time to admit that a lot of people DO want to play as their sexuality/race/gender in games. I'll always support creative freedom but if things are done for business decisions the best business decisions are to note spite the majority of your audience. I don't think Druckman necessarily is doing that. In TLOU people fell in love with Ellie and Joel, and they're back! Their stories are continued and if you could fall in love with them once maybe you can fall in love with them 10 years later in the game's story line? Judging if he did a good job on leaks ND didn't intend for you to see is kinda unfair. Just imagine if going into playing TLOU you knew the entire time that
Ellie wouldn't actually provide a cure to save humanity, that Joel would stop it.
Would you judge the game fairly if you went in knowing this ahead of time?
Anyways, I feel Druckman's decisions might be agenda-fueled but I haven't gotten the idea that the game is about shoving that agenda in your face. Yes, there will be a lesbian romance, yes you play as Ellie but what's the actual story about? What's the actual plot? In the grand scheme aren't these just minor details in a story that most likely isn't trying to change your mind about the world at large in a strictly political sense? Druckman has said it's a game about hatred and hatred is a theme that's more universal than SJW agendas. Think to the pioneering director for feminism in the '80s... James Cameron, his movies had strong female leads but their messages weren't about that, the film's had morals and plots that didn't require female leads, it's just a choice he made, what if this is the same? We've seen no evidence to the contrary, yes including in the spoiler thread.
Gonna leave this as food for thought of what we should expect from the closest viewpoint I've crossed upon of your average consumer that doesn't play many games at all(1 or 2 a year) but still like them. A person that isn't into gaming discussions or anything like that. I've found it in my recommendations and gave it a try. I felt the honesty was really touching, and not polarising at all.
mod edit: Video containing spoilers in the recent leaks removed
Errr, You really ought to warn people that this video is full of spoilers for TLOU2.
Or at least the very particular take that certain people have based on the leaked footage.
The bottom line as per usual is this girl is talking as if she's played the game, when in fact all she's doing in parroting other people's hot takes based on the spotty bits of information in the leaks.
As soon as people start talking with certainty about the game when they by their own admission have only watched a couple of clips, seen the memes, or read another article /watched a video-essay Youtube, their opinion becomes worthless in my eyes.
That they have leapt straight to these conclusions without first-hand experience, evidence, or any sort of consideration of any other perspectives about the matter... is just ignorant. What's worse it also shows a willingness to uncritically buy into somebody elses narrative and signal boost-it despite that ignorance.
Why should I or anyone else care what the ignorant and gullible think?
I thought I’d go over why the reveal trailer had me a tad worried about Neil’s agenda. This is what got me banned from the ‘other’ forum.
First of all I need to explain a technique that’s used often in films and books for transitional sequences. It’s used in the trailer, and I’m certain of that; 100% certain of that. People need to understand that nothing is just written. Every word, every sentence and every paragraph is painstakingly crafted to maximise the desired emotional effect.
There are two similar techniques, one is ‘mirroring’ and the other is ‘echoing’. Just so you understand the differences, because it’s subtle: Mirroring would be a guy walking though a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone opening a fridge. Echoing would be a guy walking through a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone sunbathing on a beach. In this scene, Neil uses ‘mirroring’. The conversation leads us there carefully, to the word ‘terrified’. The mirror word:
Ellie: ‘Every guy in this room is staring at you right now’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re staring at YOU.’
Ellie: ‘They’re not.’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re jealous of you.’
This is quite cleverly orchestrated, leading to the switch. It’s a little short for my liking but it gets the job done adequately. Those first four lines are setting up the theme of the conversation and the theme of what’s to follow. Now we get to the switch in tone and intent. Up to now it’s been a personal conversation about the relationship but it takes a turn with use of ambiguity:
Ellie: ‘I’m just a girl. Not a threat.’
Dina: ‘Oh, Ellie, I think they should be terrified of you.’
Mirroring: We cut to a scene of Ellie stabbing a guy in the neck. Indeed, ‘they’ (men) should be terrifie of Ellie. Like I said, this is a certainty. That scene was written specifically for the purposes of switching the meaning of ‘they should be terrified’ from Dina maybe no longer being available to men literally being scared of her. It’s actually quite cheap when taken apart like that. The ‘victim’ (woman) becomes the aggressor against the ‘threat’ (men), BUT only if the agenda is at work. I swore then to wait for the full context and I’m still waiting for the full context.
The very last scene is of Ellie decapitating a man. She kills many people, some women and some men, but the opening scene (to fit the mirroring) and the last scene (to emphasise the mirroring) is of her killing men. And just to make sure the audience understood, either consciously or unconsciously, on returning to the dance floor, Dina reiterates:
Dina’: See, I told you, they should be terrified of you.’ The word 'see' there reflects the breaking of the fourth wall because it implies Dina has just experienced the gameplay herself. This is why I think this scene may not even play out like this in the finished game.
That, I believe, is what a lot of people were picking up. Maybe they didn’t quite understand what it was … it just felt off to them. It was nothing to do with the kiss.
Like I said, that is a 100% certainty. It’s exactly what was intended. That is Neil emphasising a point because the initial transition is all you need for the mirroring. The last dialogue line is making sure you got it. And that was his opening message to the fans ... mmmm ...
I thought I’d go over why the reveal trailer had me a tad worried about Neil’s agenda. This is what got me banned from the ‘other’ forum.
First of all I need to explain a technique that’s used often in films and books for transitional sequences. It’s used in the trailer, and I’m certain of that; 100% certain of that. People need to understand that nothing is just written. Every word, every sentence and every paragraph is painstakingly crafted to maximise the desired emotional effect.
There are two similar techniques, one is ‘mirroring’ and the other is ‘echoing’. Just so you understand the differences, because it’s subtle: Mirroring would be a guy walking though a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone opening a fridge. Echoing would be a guy walking through a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone sunbathing on a beach. In this scene, Neil uses ‘mirroring’. The conversation leads us there carefully, to the word ‘terrified’. The mirror word:
Ellie: ‘Every guy in this room is staring at you right now’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re staring at YOU.’
Ellie: ‘They’re not.’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re jealous of you.’
This is quite cleverly orchestrated, leading to the switch. It’s a little short for my liking but it gets the job done adequately. Those first four lines are setting up the theme of the conversation and the theme of what’s to follow. Now we get to the switch in tone and intent. Up to now it’s been a personal conversation about the relationship but it takes a turn with use of ambiguity:
Ellie: ‘I’m just a girl. Not a threat.’
Dina: ‘Oh, Ellie, I think they should be terrified of you.’
Mirroring: We cut to a scene of Ellie stabbing a guy in the neck. Indeed, ‘they’ (men) should be terrifie of Ellie. Like I said, this is a certainty. That scene was written specifically for the purposes of switching the meaning of ‘they should be terrified’ from Dina maybe no longer being available to men literally being scared of her. It’s actually quite cheap when taken apart like that. The ‘victim’ (woman) becomes the aggressor against the ‘threat’ (men), BUT only if the agenda is at work. I swore then to wait for the full context and I’m still waiting for the full context.
The very last scene is of Ellie decapitating a man. She kills many people, some women and some men, but the opening scene (to fit the mirroring) and the last scene (to emphasise the mirroring) is of her killing men. And just to make sure the audience understood, either consciously or unconsciously, on returning to the dance floor, Dina reiterates:
Dina’: See, I told you, they should be terrified of you.’ The word 'see' there reflects the breaking of the fourth wall because it implies Dina has just experienced the gameplay herself. This is why I think this scene may not even play out like this in the finished game.
That, I believe, is what a lot of people were picking up. Maybe they didn’t quite understand what it was … it just felt off to them. It was nothing to do with the kiss.
Like I said, that is a 100% certainty. It’s exactly what was intended. That is Neil emphasising a point because the initial transition is all you need for the mirroring. The last dialogue line is making sure you got it.
That PSX panel. You can just see how smug Druckman is sitting there next to the voice actor he PERSONALLY hired. "Look at how progressive I am" Its basically written on his forehead.
Well, exactly. I posted that because the conversation kept centring around the kiss and I knew most of the posts (at least those I'd read) hadn't. Then I got accused of being homophobic and having a problem with two women kissing. lol. I was banned for being a bigot.
I thought I’d go over why the reveal trailer had me a tad worried about Neil’s agenda. This is what got me banned from the ‘other’ forum.
First of all I need to explain a technique that’s used often in films and books for transitional sequences. It’s used in the trailer, and I’m certain of that; 100% certain of that. People need to understand that nothing is just written. Every word, every sentence and every paragraph is painstakingly crafted to maximise the desired emotional effect.
There are two similar techniques, one is ‘mirroring’ and the other is ‘echoing’. Just so you understand the differences, because it’s subtle: Mirroring would be a guy walking though a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone opening a fridge. Echoing would be a guy walking through a cold and snowy environment, cut to someone sunbathing on a beach. In this scene, Neil uses ‘mirroring’. The conversation leads us there carefully, to the word ‘terrified’. The mirror word:
Ellie: ‘Every guy in this room is staring at you right now’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re staring at YOU.’
Ellie: ‘They’re not.’
Dina: ‘Maybe they’re jealous of you.’
This is quite cleverly orchestrated, leading to the switch. It’s a little short for my liking but it gets the job done adequately. Those first four lines are setting up the theme of the conversation and the theme of what’s to follow. Now we get to the switch in tone and intent. Up to now it’s been a personal conversation about the relationship but it takes a turn with use of ambiguity:
Ellie: ‘I’m just a girl. Not a threat.’
Dina: ‘Oh, Ellie, I think they should be terrified of you.’
Mirroring: We cut to a scene of Ellie stabbing a guy in the neck. Indeed, ‘they’ (men) should be terrifie of Ellie. Like I said, this is a certainty. That scene was written specifically for the purposes of switching the meaning of ‘they should be terrified’ from Dina maybe no longer being available to men literally being scared of her. It’s actually quite cheap when taken apart like that. The ‘victim’ (woman) becomes the aggressor against the ‘threat’ (men), BUT only if the agenda is at work. I swore then to wait for the full context and I’m still waiting for the full context.
The very last scene is of Ellie decapitating a man. She kills many people, some women and some men, but the opening scene (to fit the mirroring) and the last scene (to emphasise the mirroring) is of her killing men. And just to make sure the audience understood, either consciously or unconsciously, on returning to the dance floor, Dina reiterates:
Dina’: See, I told you, they should be terrified of you.’ The word 'see' there reflects the breaking of the fourth wall because it implies Dina has just experienced the gameplay herself. This is why I think this scene may not even play out like this in the finished game.
That, I believe, is what a lot of people were picking up. Maybe they didn’t quite understand what it was … it just felt off to them. It was nothing to do with the kiss.
Like I said, that is a 100% certainty. It’s exactly what was intended. That is Neil emphasising a point because the initial transition is all you need for the mirroring. The last dialogue line is making sure you got it. And that was his opening message to the fans ... mmmm ...
you're projecting a criteria of what's acceptable through a muddled concept of "what serves the narrative" like they need your permission or approval to include a gay character. this "concern" then takes the form of a pincer move in discussions where one group says if a gay character is unexceptional its forced ("like why make them gay?" it doesn't add anything) while the other claims a specifically gay theme is forced (trying to force lgbtq themes on people who just want to play games); therefore any gay or lgbtq presence in any game is an agenda that proves a narrative that never questions it's own assumptions
You're getting way too obsessive over homosexuality and gay characters. Dina could be a man named Dan and I would still have the same complaints with the kissing scene. Who is Dan? When the fuck did he come into Ellie's life? Why should I care about Dan? Um.... is there something else interesting about Dan other than he is this random dude that kisses Ellie?
I disagree. Promoted it good enough for me. Her character is blooming, she is coming into her own and the kiss shows this person is very important to her. You just exaggerate too much man.
All I could get from Dina from that scene is that she's a person Ellie has a relationship with. Nothing more. That doesn't give me much information on the type of character she is unless you can tell me that you can magically know much of her character from a single kiss.
??? It expanded her character enough to show she has a love interest that she passionately loves to kiss out in the open like that...
But why should I care about this character? Why is she significant to Ellie? The scene didn't answer those questions.
Thats like saying a straight character kissing someone didn't do anything to expand the story, simply "Did the trailer further expand on Darklor's character other than that he's straight? No." I mean...my god, you are basically saying nothing else happening must be important and the person being gay must be the only thing being shown here.
Not that the character is grown, in a serious relationship etc
Sorry, but if the scene does nothing but to inform the audience that "Hey, Ellie is in a relationship with this character you don't know!", then that's not a good way to promote the game. It can be a gay relationship or it can be a straight relationship, but the result is still the same: useless fixation on character traits over actual character.
Fucking PLEASE! It is easily the worst entry in the entire series. Far too long of a game. Drawn out and down right boring in places. It doesn't hold a candle to the previous 3 in the series on PS3. Just speaking for myself I have played and completed the original 3 numerous times. I have played and completed part 4 just once, and towards the end I was hoping it would end as it dragged on FAR too long. I'd have preferred to see Amy's version of the game.
Fucking PLEASE! It is easily the worst entry in the entire series. Far too long of a game. Drawn out and down right boring in places. It doesn't hold a candle to the previous 3 in the series on PS3. Just speaking for myself I have played and completed the original 3 numerous times. I have played and completed part 4 just once, and towards the end I was hoping it would end as it dragged on FAR too long. I'd have preferred to see Amy's version of the game.
Fucking PLEASE! It is easily the worst entry in the entire series. Far too long of a game. Drawn out and down right boring in places. It doesn't hold a candle to the previous 3 in the series on PS3. Just speaking for myself I have played and completed the original 3 numerous times. I have played and completed part 4 just once, and towards the end I was hoping it would end as it dragged on FAR too long. I'd have preferred to see Amy's version of the game.
UC4 is the easily the worst of the series and it actually was so disheartening to play it and the game felt "okay." First time I've ever felt that way playing a ND game.
It was okay, it was decent. That is a massive step down from every ND game before imo.
UC4 is the easily the worst of the series and it actually was so disheartening to play it and the game felt "okay." First time I've ever felt that way playing a ND game.
It was okay, it was decent. That is a massive step down from every ND game before imo.
100%. I was a Naughty Dog lover before Uncharted 4. My levels of expectations were so high before this came out. I was so pumped to play it. And as I started playing something felt off. I mean yes, the characters were all there. the graphics were stunning. the music was as grand as ever. But it all just felt off. The story was no way near as good as any of the original 3. And basically that is what I play the Uncharted games for- the story. The controls were always just fine, but the story was great, in the Indiana Jones type of way. I was shattered playing Uncharted 4. And I haven't ever felt the urge to play it since... I'm currently replaying the original trilogy though again, and I'm about 3/4 the way through the original. Still as brilliant as it was the day it came out.
It´s funny how some people preach about the values and importance of a creators vision, that it should be maintained and not subjected to any form of censorship, that they should be free to create whatever they want without scrutiny, but when a creator has a vision about a lesbian couple, diversity, feminist themes or what not that don´t gel with these very same people they often seem to stand up and scream "AGENDA!" as loud as they can. How is that?
Because the vision was shaped by Anita Sarkeesian. There is a difference between art and pushing the same old NPC agenda, (orange man bad, white privilege, women can't be pretty, toxic masculinity...blah blah blah). This my friend is called towing the company line, not creating art.
You're getting way too obsessive over homosexuality and gay characters. Dina could be a man named Dan and I would still have the same complaints with the kissing scene. Who is Dan? When the fuck did he come into Ellie's life? Why should I care about Dan? Um.... is there something else interesting about Dan other than he is this random dude that kisses Ellie?
All I could get from Dina from that scene is that she's a person Ellie has a relationship with. Nothing more. That doesn't give me much information on the type of character she is unless you can tell me that you can magically know much of her character from a single kiss.
But why should I care about this character? Why is she significant to Ellie? The scene didn't answer those questions.
Sorry, but if the scene does nothing but to inform the audience that "Hey, Ellie is in a relationship with this character you don't know!", then that's not a good way to promote the game. It can be a gay relationship or it can be a straight relationship, but the result is still the same: useless fixation on character traits over actual character.
Nope. I don't think anyone needs to legit overact on a scene of 2 people kissing and then argue that the whole scene was just that and nothing more as we don't do that with games with a straight couple, I see no reason to suddenly start now making it seem as if all things are agendas if humans are involved.
Nope. I don't think anyone needs to legit overact on a scene of 2 people kissing and then argue that the whole scene was just that and nothing more as we don't do that with games with a straight couple, I see no reason to suddenly start now making it seem as if all things are agendas if humans are involved.
Your post is confusing. You don't need to overreact on the people kissing but at the same time you can see the reason/agenda behind making a character kiss. To say that kiss wasn't agenda driven is just being willfully blind.
100%. I was a Naughty Dog lover before Uncharted 4. My levels of expectations were so high before this came out. I was so pumped to play it. And as I started playing something felt off. I mean yes, the characters were all there. the graphics were stunning. the music was as grand as ever. But it all just felt off. The story was no way near as good as any of the original 3. And basically that is what I play the Uncharted games for- the story. The controls were always just fine, but the story was great, in the Indiana Jones type of way. I was shattered playing Uncharted 4. And I haven't ever felt the urge to play it since... I'm currently replaying the original trilogy though again, and I'm about 3/4 the way through the original. Still as brilliant as it was the day it came out.
There is a huge agenda going on. How can anyone ignore this. As a gay man this shit is bonkers. A lot of "minorities" being pushed in to make a cinematic game. This crap doesnt phase "me".
