The Sane Psycho
Banned
I will agree that Rockstar is a great example of a Western dev not pushing leftist politics in their games. Most Japanese devs are like this too.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Rockstar the one developer that hasn't been effected by progressive politics
- Thread starter Mister Apoc
- Start date
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Yup, they have been but it was never done in a forced manner and they never made a big deal out of it. They always had minorities in their games where it actually made a lot of sense or when they had a really cool story to tell like in the Ballad of Gay Tony. It never felt like a checklist to avoid getting scolded by the regressives in games journalism.
I remember last E3 where A way out, Wolfenstein 2, Mafia 3, Beyond Good and Evil 2, Uncharted Lost Legacy all basically had the exact same "super diverse and inclusive" character in their video games, a sassy black woman that doesn't take **** from anyone with a big afro.
Natural hair is in these days. Mafia 3 and Wolfenstein are era-appropriate. IDK about A Way Out or BGAE 2, though for the latter, those curls are definitely modern.
I never saw that character in Mafia 3. Probably in one of the half-dozen DLCs, but Cassandra is also natural.
And then there's Nadine (Elena included for contrast)
Na, especially in the UC4 example, how ND made sure to get ethnic differentiation right down to the discoloration/moles/imperfections of Elena's chest, to the same being near-invisible on Nadine, you have to the very intentional as a developer to get this stuff correct.
Especially compared to Sheva Alomar who is almost merely a palate-swap, or Vanessa Lewis in VF4, who IS a palette swap--both of those characters have pressed, rather than natural hair.
Bonus: Rochelle from L4D2
And Coach.
Last edited:
Summer Time Celestia
Neo Member
It's a good thing too, they're sticking with pure unadulterated story telling and gameplay.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yup, they have been but it was never done in a forced manner and they never made a big deal out of it. They always had minorities in their games where it actually made a lot of sense or when they had a really cool story to tell like in the Ballad of Gay Tony. It never felt like a checklist to avoid getting scolded by the regressives in games journalism.
I remember last E3 where A way out, Wolfenstein 2, Mafia 3, Beyond Good and Evil 2, Uncharted Lost Legacy all basically had the exact same "super diverse and inclusive" character in their video games, a sassy black woman that doesn't take shit from anyone with a big afro.
To be fair.......3 of those games are LITERALLY periods pieces where black women had afros in real life. And I'd say most games have strong characters that don't take any crap and fight back. That's just normal.
ReBurn
Gold Member
At least with Mafia III the character made sense based on the time period the game was set in. She wasn't just shoehorned in for inclusivity's sake.Yup, they have been but it was never done in a forced manner and they never made a big deal out of it. They always had minorities in their games where it actually made a lot of sense or when they had a really cool story to tell like in the Ballad of Gay Tony. It never felt like a checklist to avoid getting scolded by the regressives in games journalism.
I remember last E3 where A way out, Wolfenstein 2, Mafia 3, Beyond Good and Evil 2, Uncharted Lost Legacy all basically had the exact same "super diverse and inclusive" character in their video games, a sassy black woman that doesn't take shit from anyone with a big afro.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
You say this as if A Way Out and Wolfenstein 2 weren't set in the 70s and 60s.
And this part isn't directed at
ReBurn
but it seems like if you are a minority or LGBT, your very existence is a liberal agenda to some people!
Doom85
Member
Hate to play Devil's Advocate here but I feel there's a double-edged sword there. I remember one of the heads of Nintendo quite a few years back (don't remember which one) flat out said they don't care at all about making games that will be considered "art" or deep. Which is fine.....for some, but I highly doubt every single developer working under Nintendo necessarily feels the same way, and I do wonder if a few or some of them aren't being given the opportunity to make a game like that due to Nintendo's general view on such games. Obviously there's plenty of non-Nintendo developers in Japan who do put plenty of political elements, moral discussions, etc. in their games like Hideo Kojima and Yoko Taro so I don't think I'm being unreasonable by pointing this out as a possibility. Not saying those elements would really fit in most of Nintendo's current IPs but I'm talking potential future new IPs.
And before someone throws out, "well, that person should get a different job at a different studio", yeah that's not as easy to do in Japan compared to most countries. From what I've heard there it's generally culturally accepted that you work at a place and you commit to that place and if you leave and try to go elsewhere that it doesn't help your work image. I'm guessing it's tied to Japan's usual stance of putting the group over the individual. It's why what Konami did to their former employees and current employees was extra awful, in the US and elsewhere it would be bad enough but in Japan they are likely ruining a lot of people's lives for a good while.
Also in terms of mckmas8808's post:
"but it seems like if you are a minority or LGBT, your very existence is a liberal agenda to some people!"
Exactly. I think some people are ridiculous in how hard to make sure a non-white character (or non-straight, or even female sometimes) "makes sense" in the story (not counting specific historical stories, I can understand why a Hispanic guy playing a large role in an American Revolution film would feel out of place) and "how well they are written" but white characters (and males, and LBGT) are almost never given the same scrutiny by these certain people.
Like, hey, we got a future sci-fi show with a rag-tag group of adventurers. There's two white males, a captain and his main buddy, okay no need to examine them anymore, they're automatically good. A white female character, hmm okay, but she better not be "too competent", we'll likely not notice the guys displaying the same amount of skills but we got to examine her every move. A blue-skinned psychic alien character, yeah it's sci-fi, that works. A black guy and a Hispanic woman, hmm getting a little too diverse in here! Well, rest assured I'll be scrutinizing their character arcs very closely to make sure they're not just "thrown in" or something. I may not give the same amount of scrutiny to the two white male leads (and the alien, well unless he's Jar Jar Binks-level of bad, we all have standards) but we know white males are never "thrown in". Huh, a gay guy, oh come on. What are the odds of this small crew having a gay guy, I did the "totally accurate" math and that's really pushing it. I can fully accept the blue-skinned alien with three eyes and psychic abilities I mentioned earlier, but a gay guy is so out of left field! Well, as long as it's not shoved in our face or anything. I mean, the white male captain can bang all the human women and alien women he wants, but the gay guy, err, tell you what we'll let you have an off-focus kiss near the end of the series, mkay? Don't want to seem "political". Also, the boyfriend will also have to be white (or alien, because they get a free pass apparently), if he's black or Hispanic or so forth then that's too much. A gay couple is already a lot, an interracial gay couple, come on. I mean, I clearly know that would be pushing an agenda, it's not like the actors might simply have had solid chemistry together or something.
To reiterate, this does not apply to everyone, but there definitely are people who basically behave in the way I displayed in the above paragraph.
Helios
Member
I agree, but I don't think you're referring to who I'm thinking of.
Cactuarman
Banned
That's packed with satire and social commentary.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
They really are being intentionally obtuse.
I have consistently argued through this topic that R* has always already been progressive.
All this business about "not making a big deal about it" well, that's the whole point of inclusivity. If you you have it, you have it and you don't need to worry about it any further from that. R* has always been ahead of the curve, which is why you don't have controversies about Franklin being playable, for example.
Last edited:
Cactuarman
Banned
Yeah it's really confusing to me. I'm sure Last of Us Part II will be like 90% murdering and survival with a little bit of Ellie's personal relationships mixed in (both romantic and with Joel), whereas Grand Theft Auto V is wall-to-wall satire but somehow Rockstar is "unaffected" by "agendas".
Pot Meet Kettle
Member
Now you have controversies about:
- Tomodachi Collection NOT having same-sex weddings (it's a late localization for a game made in a country where the concept doesn't exist legally)
- Final Fantasy XV having an all-male party, and the "unjustified existence" of Cindy
- Zelda's Link NOT reincarnating as a female
- Ubisoft's games with a gender selector with a dialogue NOT perfectly gender neutral, or some leftover signs of a male-ish writing that wasn't purged enough
- Games NOT having an obvious, active real life political statement (so you have "bigot developers" who should be chased out of all storefronts, "woke developers", and "coward developers" who didn't insert their political opinion in a conclusive way, so it wasn't obvious to people who used to think that "everything is political", and all they see in a game without politics is a game "that doesn't say anything". My preferred one: "Nintendo's conservative game development politics" of "cowering out of saying anything")
Same vocabulary used. "Doesn't make sense", "flimsy justifications", etc... Sometimes: "instead of weak justifcations the developers should publicly admit he's a pervert deviant/ apologize for his works and deeds/other kinds of ritual social media corporate suicide"
Let's not pretend this isn't a two-way street.
If all of that is political, hot topic politics no less, instead of inconsequential aspects of the game, then that TLOU2 kiss should count too as politics.
There are even developer statements that don't leave any speck of doubt left about the political advocacy purpose of it, rather than "just a fun bit of worldbuilding we felt like putting in our fantasy game" (I hear of some weeb games with lesbian characters in the latter category that attract feminist ire because it wasn't politics, but "male gaze" something something)
Now it's very clear Rockstar and many Japanese developers aren't into political advocacy and "playing it safe", falling squarely in that category of "coward developers".
Last edited:
Ballthyrm
Member
When you have gone so full political pundit that you can't even appreciate the elegance of Nintendo's games. I'll gladly take Nintendo game design philosophy over "anything of interest" game developer have to say.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
How old were you when Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas released? And you don't think Team Ninja is saying something when they make many of their game's female characters have extra large boobs?
Jon Neu
Banned
I'm curious, what they are saying?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
That women are to be gawked at physically. Look at the jiggly boobs and booty. Pay less attention to the skill of volleyball or fighting please. Just DEM BOOBS!!!! Like we all remember with every generation we guys cared about the new "Jiggle" tech that Team Ninja would put into their next-gen games. I'm in my 30s so I clearly remembered caring about that stuff years ago. I got older and more mature and realized how silly that stuff really was.
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
I don't think they are saying that, because that would be like saying that people should breathe to be alive.
I don't think they are saying anything, they are just taking advantage of sex and erotism because sex and erotism sells.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
If you had quoted, or better yet, actually read what he said.
You just defined sexploitation, so you are im agreements with
mckmas8808
that Tecmo is objectifing women.
Last edited:
Doom85
Member
Okay, I do remember the first one being an issue, but I don't think the next three are the best examples considering how the developers chose to handle the response (and plenty of people merely asked or calmly criticized these games, not everyone was freaking out).
Final Fantasy VX's all-male party was addressed with a head developer saying, "speaking honestly, an all-male party feels almost more approachable for players. Even the presence of one female in the group will change their behaviour, so that they'll act differently. So to give the most natural feeling, to make them feel sincere and honest, having them all the same gender made sense in that way." So guys are never sincere if there's a girl(s) in their group of friends? Yes, if they have a secret crush on her or one of them flat out begins going out with her, that will change the group's behavior somewhat, but that implies all guys are attracted to every possible girl they could possibly meet which just isn't true. Yes, some of my close female friends I've had crushes on, but there's plenty more I've handn't. And a few of them we can talk about anything I would also talk about with a close guy friend. Like what? Well, I, err, would rather not say them out loud but that should hopefully make it clear that yes you can be fully honest and not act differently around certain women.
It doesn't even make sense given how the characters turn out. Prompto is the only one who acts that much like a natural friend to Noctis, Ignis and whats-his-face (who I really didn't like, don't even feel like spell-checking his name) came off as more like mentors than friends to me. And oh hey, the vast majority of their limited costume selection for a ton of the game is dressed primarily in leather and they look like they should be in a K-pop band. Hmm, hmm. You know, if the developers had just said "we want to go with a game that's fanservice-y for a different demographic" that would have gone over fine rather than their narrow views on opposite-gender friendships. And to clarify, they're allowed to have these views, but others are just as justified in offering counterviews on the matter and offering criticisms within a reasonable level.
Oh Zelda, Zelda. For one thing, while I can't find the quote, I did once read a magazine where one of the original developers behind Zelda said he was called Link because he represented a link between the player and the character suggesting he's an avatar character (I know Miyamoto gave a different reason for the name). So naturally people felt that at the very least a gender option would be appreciated. But some of the developers' explanations are baffling. One developer said it would just be easier to make a game with Zelda as the lead. How does that make sense? To offer a female Link, just take the Zelda game you're making and hire a female actor to play female Link (and a male actor to play Prince Zelda if the development team wants it that way). A game with Zelda as the lead would be an entirely new game, not sure how that's "easier to do". Then there's Tri-Force Heroes where the developer said all three Links had to be male because the prophecy in the game said they were male. Err, you mean the prophecy that you yourself wrote? What? I didn't realize writers' hands were tied by things that they themselves wrote down. I guess if in the final Game of Thrones season the writers could suddenly write a prophecy where Jon Snow becomes a giant and finds a laser sword to defeat all the White Walkers, and any criticisms can just be addressed with, "hey, the prophecy said it had to happen."
Ubisoft is by far the worst of the three. FF and Zelda's responses come off as more somewhat ignorant and confusing/ridiculous respectively, Ubisoft's responses are downright laughable. We of course have the infamous "female characters take a lot of money and time to create" line in addressing the only male playable characters in AC Unity. The amount of dumb in that sentence should speak for itself. But there's a lesser known one where a AC 3 developer (and I think he only spoke like 3 or 4 years later, not sure why, I don't even remember anyone bringing up gender regarding 3) says there couldn't be a female assassin in their game because it wouldn't make sense for the time period. Riiiiiiiiight, got to stay historically accurate, we all know the American Revolution involved assassins in white cloaks parkour-ing all over the buildings, that's totally realistic for the time period but not female assassins, oh no. Like come on, these are just dumb comments.
As for the last one, I guess I'm just not on the right forums, I don't remember many people demanding every single game and developer having something meaningful to say in all their games.
And let's not act like the other side can't find something to whine about it even when diversity is barely present. The new God of War game? Yeah, you would think that game of all games wouldn't trigger any "anti-SJW" people, but head on down to gamefaqs, where quite a few posters have refused to play the game because it's SJW. Now most sensible people would wonder how is a game about a white guy and his son (and only one major female character, the rest are guys) a SJW game? Well, because Kratos is behaving like a responsible father (because apparently being a supportive parent is a woman's job according to these posters), and also he doesn't sleep with a bunch of women anymore. Thus it's a SJW game according to these folks. I remember just staring at my screen in bewilderment when I saw these comments. Like, really? REALLY?!
Jon Neu
Banned
What?
You just defined sexploitation, so you are im agreements with
You know they aren't real women, do you?
And of course they are objectifying their characters, every videogame does it. But some people like you act like radical puritans every time a boob or an ass is showed because that is wrong.
Erotism is awesome, sex is awesome, games that appeal to sexual fantasies are awesome. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
fwiw I agree with you that eroticism has its place. It'd be a shame if we lost that from the world. What you're not seeing though is the (I hate to say it) bigger picture. If there were as many games aimed at objectifying men for women then as far as I'm concerned no problem. If there was as much media in general that treated men and women the same, whatever than treatment be, then no problem, but that's not how things are and that's the issue. Basically, one game isn't the problem, the volume of games like it is the problem
on topic. I remember San Andreas coming out and it being a bit of a thing that there was a black protagonist, it's still not exactly common now, so to say that Rockstar don't and haven't had politics in their games, given that they also satirise so much stuff, is just blind
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
Women and men are not the same, despite what some people say, women and men function differently, especially in a certain range of age.
Visual erotism sells much more to men, because our sex drive works that way. If nobody has made a game of ripped boys doing sexy poses in the beach, is not because they hate women, it's because that doesn't sell. If any product targeted at men has used erotism to sell, it's because we always fall for that trap, because it's our nature.
Not everything has to be equal between men and women, because men and women are not equal in the first place.
Last edited:
respectfully, you're wrong. Women find men attractive the same way we find them attractive. Look at the Diet Coke ads, the Chippendales, sexy fireman calenders, romance novels, David Beckham. That stuff exists, it just exists to a lesser extent than for men. Which again is the point, games don't exist separate from everything else
you are right that it wouldn't sell if there wasn't a market, but that's not really the point (there is a market and I have no problem with it)
Basketball
Member
One of the last western devs not infected for sure
It was pretty nice to hear about all the journos and bloggers got so pissed about GTA V and then the game goes on to set records. Hope it continues
It was pretty nice to hear about all the journos and bloggers got so pissed about GTA V and then the game goes on to set records. Hope it continues
Jon Neu
Banned
I'm not wrong because I never said that women don't find attractive men attractive. They just simply don't work the same way as we do when we see some flesh.
Sex sells among men much more because that is our nature, not because the patriarchy apparently hates women so much they don't even want their money.
sex sells to both genders. Your last point, I don't even know how to respond to that, as far as I've seen literally no one has argued that
Lil Crypto
Neo Member
They probably won't be affected by it ever, one of the marketing tactics they used for one of the earlier games was to intentionally spread negative press in order to get people talking about the game. I think that part of their history tells a lot for how unaffected they are by politics.
Jon Neu
Banned
sex sells to both genders. Your last point, I don't even know how to respond to that, as far as I've seen literally no one has argued that
Sex sells to both genders, but infinitely much more to men. That's why videogames of chicks in the beach sell.
Aquamarine
Member
.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No the difference is you find one to be an issue where as you don't find the other to be an issue at all. You're okay with the company selling you sex and eroticism. You are not okay with some of the things that companies like naughty dog have put into their games.
Cleared_Hot
Member
I just hope they remain the south park of videogames and roast everyone and everything.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Tell that to all the book companies that put half naked men on the front of all of those non fiction fantasy books that you see in Walmart and Target. Like just stop it bro. Seriously have you ever been to a celebrity driven blog site ran by women? They love looking at dudes on the beach with their shirts off talk about how hot they look.
Strife In a Teacup
Member
Just look at Danielle Steel novels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Steel
Btw the term I always heard for these novels was 'Bodice ripper'.
Which is even more messed up having just looked that up. Why did I google that.
Last edited:
Jon Neu
Banned
It's funny how you still quote things that contradict what you are answering in your made up strawmans. It's almost like you don't care at all what other people say because you are on auto mode.
Again, nobody is denying that women love attractive men, but if you think that men and women sexuality works exactly the same, you have a very bad problem of understanting basic biology, bro.
But who cares, you don't care at all what we are saying, you are going to twist and ignore everything with a different perspective so you can say the same SJW tropes in every post.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
If you played The Witcher series and the Divinity series, you clearly were not paying attention.
recma12
Member
I just finished the "SP: Fractured But Whole" game and totally agree. On one hand the game mocks gender/indentity bullshit, on the other hand they mock rednecks and Trump supporters.
Sometimes it feels like the game was made to piss of ERA, other times it feels like a dig at r/the_donald.
Perfect balance IMO. Just like in the old day when comedy wasn't 100% lopsided.
This.
Nobody ever gave a shit about black dude CJ in San Andreas, Gay Tony or illegal immigrant Niko Bellic because both both characters felt like natural fits. When it come to ND or EA tho....... oh boy.
They put women, LGBT and minorities in their games for the sake of touching these topics or "making a statement".
I mean, who in the world watched Sony's E3 presser and was like "Gosh, don't show me gameplay I really want to find out about Ellie's sexuality".
They make a 10min trailer and half of it is about Ellie's amorous LGBT adventures, something that doesn't matter to the game or story at all?
Content creators have opinions and views but companies only have one, profit. Respect and inclusion sells and there really isn't a good argument for a game to not have characters who aren't straight white men who fit into a "masculine" trope. The Kinsey study showed that 38% of men engaged in a homosexual experience and that was conducted in a far more conservative and less welcoming time. It's baffling to me that people would be shocked enough by inclusion and respect of different groups to bemoan it as an agenda. Times change and people progress, we get more educated and worldly. There is a good reason why Uncle Tom's Cabin or The Birth of a Nation isn't considered acceptable entertainment any longer. The average consumer has a greater sensitivity to the ways that media can disrespect diverse groups and people's and they vote with their wallets. You can either accept progress and other kinds of people and respect their place in the cultural zeitgeist or fall to the wayside of history like so many before.
Pot Meet Kettle
Member
Why the condescending tone?
I realize in these days the "political" discourse (even when about videogames, this is yet another reminder proving my point about the over politization of games and art these days) degraded so much that anyone who doesn't think like you must be inferior for some reason, but I can't help but be taken aback by the immediate hostility.
And I heard by some that GTA is just a prostitute murder simulator that needs to be banned. Sure it was in Australia by retailers after enough "controversies", and is a few steps away from a rejection by Sony or rating boards if the current state of things keeps up.
You are talking about a game with D-cup female martial fighters facing each other in combat and then beach volleys.
D-cup ladies, and boob jiggle exist. Their existence by itself isn't an affront to nature that should be ended.
Assuming they're an extinct breed (they're not), exagerrated depictions are not a crime. Cartoons don't follow rules of physics either.
In many cases it's also a celebration of the human form (just like greek statues... that were hidden in museum attics by british puritans until recently, and then there's a push to put them back there recently)
Aside from offending people who have religious reasons to avoid depictions of nudity (not even sexaul acts), it couldn't be more harmless.
You're concerned about the concept of the male gaze, a biological fact of life, even when other people than you do it in controlled environments ("their mothers' basements") with pixels divorced from any of the usual "you're a monster enabling the human trafficking pimp industry by watching this" baggage, pixels not even engaged in sexual activities, as something terrible, not okay, that should be ended and any media producers enabling it punished and shamed until they stop.
That's terrible for so many practical reasons even for your stated unrealistic end goal.
Simply put, you're angry a work by someone else doesn't adopt your views and advocate for them and supress anything going against them.
That aside, your argument is the same old one against violent videogames.
If "beautiful women" was an abhorrent thing.
Playing this makes you want to imitate it and become a
That argument is awful for so many reasons, for one, because of how versatile it is and restrictive of artistic expression. Indeed sites like kotaku have started running some pieces against violence in videogames (not only Hatred, but even the recent God of War asking to tone it down. The one you call the "sjw friendly" one.)
There's so many "serious" "off-limits" subjects in videogames. Kojima's plot points are one huge mental projection away from being a "corrupting influence" that propagates harmful views or behaviors. Games show fantasy cannibalism, slavery and mass murder. All of that would have to go.
FFXV's boy band aesthetic was in part a cynical attempt to cater to the young female audience, and as things turned out, Square knew what they were doing. That's about the opposite of what the western social media mob controversy implies.
What the developer said was very sensible. All-male interactions are different than a mixed gender group. So are the storytelling possibilities, or the implications. New ones would be opened up, while many others would be now creepy or off-limits.
FFXV was already cut down significantly because of pressure from western branches. On top of the chaotic development, some Luna scenes were completely excised, an entire subplot about a doomsday cult omitted because Sony and the ERSB would reject it... it's already a compromised, very sanitized product. It's good it sold well and proved the absence of need for even more "safe" storytelling.
Zelda: You do know about character bibles with established characterization and all. Used all the time in movies. Nintendo maintains one. You seem to think the story should be written and reworked around a quota. Nintendo did that a few times. It resulted in games like Xenoblades X where they threw 30% of the story content because the story characterization didn't mesh well with a character generator.
Nintendo wanted to do a new game plus with Skyward Sword with Zelda's quest, but time limits decided otherwise. Some assets from that are even used in the credits. They aren't even against playable main female characters if it makes sense with their universe's rules. They may be decadent art and excuse plots for you, but they do put efforts.
Throw all of those rules and bend them to accomodate representation? Didn't go so well with Ghostbusters and Star Wars. Not just because of the meta internet drama. Even the staunchest supporters know those are terrible as movies in those specific franchises and try to defend them instead as "deconstructions" or "a letter of
When I mentioned Ubisoft, I was talking about the mini-controversy about one of the Far Cry games that had alleged "misgendering" the (selectable gender) playable character because the word choices and some pronouns still had a hint of "gendered" speech. Not that I think the other controversies aren't any less silly - the no time to model female models in particular: that's a particular scrapped feature that requires lots of remodeling and revoicing characters (before there were incidents with female models just head swaps with same mocap animations and no voiced clip - the popular suggested "solution" - but that didn't save those games from being "called out")
Demands to make Cyberpunk 2077 characters gender fluid when there's so much firable offense worthy acres of eggshells to walk on just for a basic male/female choice (because pre-established character arcs are now the devil) make me laugh for that reason.
Not that all of the above is relevant to my point.
My point isn't to discuss those incidents, but that they were dunked on by angry social media mobs because casting and game/story design choices were politicized. Which means they are for better and worse political. And by extension, decisions like making TLOU2 about Ellie's sexuality or Tomb Raider's reboot about rejecting the confident D-Cup Laura trading it for the "realistic" "written as a lesbian" PTSD-suffering Laura are just as political by necessity, since those too are casting choices.
Cactuarman
Banned
Again, I feel like half the comments in this thread are confusing having violent or sexual content to mean that Rockstar is unaffected by politics - Grand Theft Auto satires Americanism, masculinity, violence, the far left, the far right, wealth & excess, social media, etc. While I certainly wouldn't support a blogger who criticizes the sexual/violent content in GTA (because I think they're missing the point), I also don't like people suggesting that GTA doesn't contain politics. Because it does. A lot.
Also Aquamarine, you named hugely successful devs/publishers - if they're truly bending over backwards to satisfy a "super-tiny" minority then I guess it's been working out okay so far. Is it possible you're in the minority for thinking they're not actually satisfying the majority?
Lil Crypto
Neo Member
I think what people mean when they say unaffected by politics they simply mean that the political climate in society won't affect censorship in GTA games, not that it won't be something to poke fun at within the games themselves.
Cactuarman
Banned
I think if this thread was about a genuine concern that Rockstar would have to censor themselves in some way I would be on board, but this thread has been a bit... broader than that.
As OP said: "they tend to avoid that trend of inserting really leftist political ideals in their games unlike Naughty Dog or Bioware" and I think this is a claim based on a couple false premises. 1) That Rockstar doesn't have really leftist political ideals in their games and 2) that Naughty Dog/Bioware are inserting these ideals into their games as some sort of trend bandwagoning.
I think the real trend is that the current climate is more open to (and even wants) a wide range of stories featuring more diverse characters. Druckmann went "awesome, here's a story about survival, loss, and hope featuring a lesbian character" and Bioware went "cool, here's a bunch of different romance and player options".
And some people are upset by this.
Lil Crypto
Neo Member
I suppose you're right, most of the people here seem to be talking about something differently than I was thinking initially.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I don't think so at all, the only difference is that were effected in a neutral way, they mock it along with everything else. Look at Clinton's aunt for example, straight up taking the piss out of modern feminism. Rockstar have always commented on the current climate, just not adhered to its demands.
Redshirt
Banned
Trevor is Canadian!
deriks
4-Time GIF/Meme God
Not in his heart