cosmicspooks
Member
Honestly though, how is Polygon's youtube channel so so good while their actual website is....not so so good. It's like the website is a different company or something.
Way to fuck up a reply to a perfectly reasonable post.
That's amazing news. The more I hear about the game the better I feel, but they did an absolutely awful job of communicating any of it in their reveal trailer. The majority of consumers will investigate this reveal as much as I did - watch the official reveal trailer and base assumptions off that. It was an all-white American led group supported by explosions and helmet-meets-face smashing. I was very worried.
What the...
No-one wants an American-only, white-male only, portrayal of WW2. Equally no-one wants to see race and gender diversity in a "fantasy" manner. A lot of people want to see the kind of shit that racial segregation led to, experience the war through the eyes of non-white Americans and Europeans, and play through a story that highlights the commitments that everyone made, not just the commitments that white males made. There's a lot of room between the two extremes you're painting.
Altering what history? My black grandfather's fought in WWII.
White washing history is altering it though and often times media around WWII ignores the work and struggles of women and POC during the time. Such as the lack of black european and gay victims of the holocaust, the various atrocities commited to Asian countries during the war, the role of people of color in the armed forces and resistance forces. , etc.Maybe you all misread what I meant/wrote - I'm on everyone's side - but against Polygon.
The whole "white-washing" label and saying that Sledgehammer Games is trying to portray one side and not the other is what is bothering me - that and the implication that history should not be historically accurate, lest it should offend someone. That's my point of contention.
The fact that Sledgehammer Games is trying to include every ethnicity, gender and creed into the narrative of this new Call Of Duty is a good thing - I support it as long as it is historically accurate.
No one's going to say that "it's a fact" that an Alien from Jupiter wandered onto Omaha Beach on June 6th, 1944 and won the war for the Allies because he just stood there - all stoic like.
That never happened.
That small, goofy analogy is my whole point.
If actual history and the portrayal of it in interactive media offends certain people; then maybe they should just stick to the present.
So not only it's click bait, it is also fake news.From SolidSnakex in the other thread:
Simply epic.
"Here is some criticisms of a game that I have not played but have an idea of in my head".
That is absolutely not what you should be taking away from this.
This is exactly why devs can't win anymore when it comes to creating a story in a game. It's a lose/lose scenario at this point. You're including women in the game? Not good enough. Better make it a game starring a woman or we're pissed off. You're featuring African American soldiers in the game? Nope, not good enough for us. Better somehow create a story for the entire campaign that can focus on them or prepare for nasty comments about your game. Instead of being happy that those things are even included in the game in some form for the players, they'll bitch that it's not enough or they'll say the devs only included it to appease people.
It's just stupid at this point. You can't please everyone. You'll always have people bitching and crying that games aren't diverse enough. Just make a good game, that's all I ask.
That's some grade-a gaming journalism right there
What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces. There was segregation, there was persecution, there were horrible atrocities committed by the Germans upon the Jewish community - there's no need to alter history into some kind of fantasy-level nonsense - it is what it was and it was what it is - we all learned about it in grade school.
Are some individuals really expecting Sledgehammer Games to just scratch the whole COD: WWII project and add-in everything that's currently acceptable as far as diversity/inclusion is concerned - at the cost of altering history??
This is simply an interactive historically-accurate game; Polygon is as always, a flushed toilet.
Treat both as such.
This isnt new...
The norm, the trend the -whatever you want to call it- nowadays with diversity and LGBTQ is 90% nothing but ticking boxes, just so you can "fill the obligation".
Movies do the same, series do the same, and ofc games do the same. People throw LGBTQ characters everywhere these days but most of the time, they feel like nothing but an afterthought, a cosmetic addition just to be politically correct.
Same thing with diversity. They dont care about making sense out of these things, just for them to be there, one way or another to cover all the social bulletpoints.
Of course and there are exceptions to this, but it kinda is the common practice.
Like, are there particular examples you have in mind? Because isn't the whole point about diversity and representation that these things are normal etc? I mean you say they don't care about it but you literally have no proof of that : /
Something like Overwatch wasn't created as "Let's be super diverse" but more of a "So, we have many different nationalities, genders and sexualities among the dev team at Blizz and the game is set on Earth so...why don't we reflect that?".
that is why i warned the guy from using it?
What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces.
are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.For now, the tone-deaf manner in Which this all-white production checked all the diversity boxes women, an African-American unit and even a child
They as any of them that made non-modern cod'swho is they? sledgehammer was not making COD games before AW. And its not really weird they are pushing for inclusiveness now. Back then, questioning social and cultural norms were not as accepted as today.
America has gotten undeniably more socially liberal and progressive.
that is why i warned the guy from using it?
Nor should it be, as it's generally used by GamerGate/Trump supporters who get angry whenever the word "diversity" is even mentioned.
are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.
What soft-natured/easily offended individuals need to come to grips with, is that during the conflict that was World War II - there was not a tremendous amount of diversity/inclusion in the fighting forces. There was segregation, there was persecution, there were horrible atrocities committed by the Germans upon the Jewish community - there's no need to alter history into some kind of fantasy-level nonsense - it is what it was and it was what it is - we all learned about it in grade school.
Are some individuals really expecting Sledgehammer Games to just scratch the whole COD: WWII project and add-in everything that's currently acceptable as far as diversity/inclusion is concerned - at the cost of altering history??
This is simply an interactive historically-accurate game; Polygon is as always, a flushed toilet.
Treat both as such.
Rebuttals:Maybe you all misread what I meant/wrote - I'm on everyone's side - but against Polygon.
The whole "white-washing" label and saying that Sledgehammer Games is trying to portray one side and not the other is what is bothering me - that and the implication that history should not be historically accurate, lest it should offend someone. That's my point of contention.
The fact that Sledgehammer Games is trying to include every ethnicity, gender and creed into the narrative of this new Call Of Duty is a good thing - I support it as long as it is historically accurate.
No one's going to say that "it's a fact" that an Alien from Jupiter wandered onto Omaha Beach on June 6th, 1944 and won the war for the Allies because he just stood there - all stoic like.
That never happened.
That small, goofy analogy is my whole point.
If actual history and the portrayal of it in interactive media offends certain people; then maybe they should just stick to the present.
Somewhere, there's an actual journalist(s) who has been researching and examining how games handle and could improve the inclusion of minorities in WWII without coming across as pandering/exploitative and where deviation are necessary without trivialising the internal tensions present from outside the war. Then Polygon burst in like the Kool-Aid Man and add a mountain for them to climb in order to be taken seriously.
How do two people write this and neither question what they are doing? Seriously? This sounds like an editor's note.
What the...
No-one wants an American-only, white-male only, portrayal of WW2. Equally no-one wants to see race and gender diversity in a "fantasy" manner. A lot of people want to see the kind of shit that racial segregation led to, experience the war through the eyes of non-white Americans and Europeans, and play through a story that highlights the commitments that everyone made, not just the commitments that white males made. There's a lot of room between the two extremes you're painting.
Altering what history? My black grandfather's fought in WWII.
No-one. That's why they're crying for attention.Polygon are true masters of trolling. Who reads them?
When did Polygon start hiring gamergators?
That's some grade-a gaming journalism right there
Huh. So having diversity in a WORLD war is being historically inaccurate. You learn something new everyday.
Welcome to the gaming industry, friend.I don't want to give them the click, but it sounds like they're whining about something they won't actually know until the rest of us in November? It's like, the dev doesn't include diversity and they get accused of poor representation. They do include diversity and you get clickbait shit like this accusing them of making a token effort. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I feel like they're getting to the point where some segment of the writing staff is going to leave to do their own blog where they can push this as far as they'd like, and Polygon proper can get back to writing about games in a way that doesn't alienate a huge swath of readers.
are they referring to the developers or the cast in the game, because if it's the former than they should be held accountable for not fact checking.
Minorities & women are an often forgotten & actively ignored portion of these events. There were plenty of black people & women involved in WWII but much like in science, it's always the exceptionally exceptional white men who usually get all the spotlights while the contributions of everyone else getd ignored or even buried deliberately. "But historical context!" as an argument just maintains this image of only white men doing anything of worth when the truth is something completely different.That's part of the problem with having games set in historical settings. Deviating too far from history can become an issue. However, I have't played the game yet so I will reserve judgement.