divisionbyzorro
Member
truly101 said:
Quoted for truth.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Should we boycott Shadow Complex?
- Thread starter Coins
- Start date
Quoted for truth.
truly101 said:
Typical knee jerk reaction? Tell me where you heard that reaction before to talking points showcased by conservative pundits ad-nauseum? Maybe i just had the typical jerk reaction. You don't even know if your coming or going when you said the bolded part. You deny "shut up and take it" yet all i hear is "shut up and take it".
TheDrowningMan
Member
sonicmj said:
It's pretty obvious that Chair share an affinity for the right-wing cheerleading lionised by Card in the Empire book, anything more is informed speculation but it's not a leap to suppose that it goes further - They created that universe, remember. It's not coincidence that Card was selected to embellish their ideas and bring them to life.
Wow. I'm sure I've given my money to so many racists, neo nazis, bigots, etc a mindblowing amount of times. Boycotting it is doing zilch to make the problem go away. I was on the fence because the game is so short, but I'll counteract one boycott just because I think it's stupid, AND IF YOU'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING THERE ARE BETTER AVENUES TO ATTACK IT THEN ATTEMPTING TO HURT GAME DEVELOPERS.
Spend your energy doing something that might actually help at least 1 person who isn't a die hard idealogue change their view, not take 25 cents away from a guy who will never ever change while taking much more from game developers.
Spend your energy doing something that might actually help at least 1 person who isn't a die hard idealogue change their view, not take 25 cents away from a guy who will never ever change while taking much more from game developers.
Sneds said:
It's a difference of intent. A difference between an active mission to get people not to buy (for instance, at my college campus, a group of students actively sought to ban Coca-Cola Company products from campus due to their treatment of union workers in South America) and a personal decision not to make a purchase, which seems to be your stance. One attempts to deprive a target of income from anyone, while the other is a wish not to support something with one's personal funds.
They take a very different meaning.
thebaroness
Member
ShockingAlberto said:
This is what I gathered the first time I read Ender's Game and ESPECIALLY Speaker for the Dead. I thought they were engaging books, but I wouldn't place them at the absolutely top of any favorites list. I'm amazing that none of his personal viewpoints managed to find their way into any of his works, I'd congratulate him for at least that.
I think Peter's comments are a bit skewed since he has personal involvement with the game. He may be an advocator for gay rights, but he still is not gay himself. It's not his rights that are being infringed upon. I don't think "boycotting" Shadow Complex will do any good, since I think it will hurt Chair financial far more than it will hurt OSC. But I understand individual's personal choice not to spend their money on funding someone who is out to steal rights from them.
I believe in free speech, but as soon as you take action to infringe upon another's freedom is when you've crossed the line.
Ninja Moomin
Banned
i can't believe this is still a discussion.
the guy is despicable and does not deserve your money. it really is that simple.
the guy is despicable and does not deserve your money. it really is that simple.
Stoney Mason
Banned
NinjaFusion said:
Thank God we don't live in your dictator world. I'm very liberal. I bought the game. Don't have a problem with that action. You are free to disagree. And someone is free to boycott the game if that is a personal decision they want to make. What are you aren't free to do is pull "end discussion" card.
For what it's worth I think Card is a jackass. I still enjoyed Shadow Complex.
deadatom said:
That sounds like your issue since you wanted to take a phrase you claim has been coopted by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk and decided to paint my views with a broad brush to fit your political agenda or whatever. Again my original post never favored Coach Stringer to stay silent, you inferred that and that's your problem. I did express my distaste for how she handled her role and what I though she could have done that would have been more effective in my view. I think she played the role of victim in that issue and did so to her benefit, probably to increase exposure for her basketball program. In some respects you can't blame her, but I still don't have to like it either. I view a coach as a leader and ambassador and I have a bit higher expectations on how they handle things like this. I think how she handled it detracted from her as a coach in my eyes.
Ninja Moomin
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
i said he doesn't deserve your money... not that i disallow you from giving it, or persecute you for doing so....
you know what dictator is, right?
Stoney Mason
Banned
NinjaFusion said:
It's fine that you don't think he deserves my money in whatever way you feel that to be the case including buying Shadow Complex.
The fact that "you can't believe there is a discussion" strikes me as over indulged and silly. Because obviously there is a discussion. And some people don't agree with you for various reasons.
sonicmj1 said:
Students at my university successfully did the same with Nestle products. I was against it. I was against it because it wasn't a boycott but a ban. The students at your college weren't just organising a group boycott against Coke - they were trying to ban it.
Nobody has suggested that Shadow Complex should be banned, or that Card isn't entitled to his campaigns and freedom of speech. But some people feel uneasy about paying for a game he's linked with.
LocoMrPollock
Banned
NinjaFusion said:
I can't believe this discussion is still going on. The "guy" didn't have a fucking thing to do with the game.
It's really that simple.
Why don't you boycott something he actually worked on? For fucks sake.
Stoney Mason
Banned
minus_273 said:
Would have had a better point if you stuck with "radicals" period since the "radical right" is just as likely to do the exact same thing if it was a liberal person or some right wing issue.
EDIT: And beaten by seconds.
ShockingAlberto said:
It might be exactly what Card intended. The question, of course, is who is being perceived as being appropriately unique.
Since Card is a Mormon living on the East coast of the United States, I imagine he finds himself frequently at odds with the cultural climate he's in. Yet he chooses to maintain his beliefs instead of giving them up to be more accepted by some of his peers.
Similarly, the premise of Empire rests on the assumption that the political left is intolerant of those on the right, such that they would choose armed insurrection to safeguard their values.
These are fine things to feel, as long as they're also applied to the benefit of those you oppose, and not just those you agree with. I don't think that Card sees that contradiction because he feels his beliefs are more right to hold than those he opposes.
Timedog said:
That's cool with me. This thread is all about people paying for being or to be an asshole. I bet you musta been bummed when no publisher would dare touch that "fallujah" game. You musta cried when you heard that those poor game developers just had a bad run of luck with their Iraqi genocide simulator.
"Willy Pete NEVER HURT ANYONE" you must of told yourself over and over again. Crying in a crumpled mass of human non-gaming agony. Eventually, you release a video on youtube just yelling "WHY WON'T YOU ALL JUST LEAVE THE GAME DEVELOPERS ALONE?!?" as you cried your eyes out.
To conclude this stupid story. People make decisions. You wanna pay to be an asshole. OK. The developers chose this book to base their game off of. Now they live with the consequences of a terrible story. The consumers can collectively choose to not support those developers by voicing their disaproval. As well as refusing to collectively buy it.
Have fun with the game man.
Timedog said:
Here's the question... when did "not support" become "hurt"?
Chair isn't owed anything for the fact that they made Shadow Complex. They don't deserve even one sale on the game. If somebody decides to buy the game, great, but if somebody else decides not to, they didn't owe Chair $15 for Shadow Complex. A number of people seem to be putting Chair in as the victim here, but they're a business, and one of the risks of business is that people might not buy your product. It doesn't make one bit of difference why I decide not to buy a product at the end of the day: either I buy it, or I don't.
I'm not trying to hurt Chair; I as contemplating my decision as to if I want to support them or not. Chair has decided that they want to ally themselves with Card, and because of that I might decide not to support their products. They have every right to make the decision they did, just as I have every right to decide that I'd rather my money go elsewhere.
Somebody trying to hurt the developers would be somebody who decides they're going to play the game but not give Chair any money they are due for that action. Somebody deciding that they're not going to buy Shadow Complex is somebody simply deciding that they aren't going to support it. That's part of the reason Peter David's argument was misguided, and what some in this thread don't seem to get.
Pagusas said:
You dislike somebody for pointing out the fact that there was talk about a possible boycott against a game, and wanted to see what other people thought about the topic? So, basically, you dislike people who think it's good to have a discussion about something?
Wow... you sound like a REAL swell person.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Ten-Song said:
It's a football rooting mentality of not being able to express why you necessarily disagree with someone so you go to the "I'll do the opposite of what you say do" card. It's easier simply to say I disagree and this isn't enough of a reason to dissuade me from buying Shadow Complex if I was interested in it.
CabbageRed
Member
broad brushes for people who use narrow minded terminology. Please stop saying "victim card". I don't give a damn about all of that basketball crap. You see, some people have moved on with their lives to more significant things.truly101 said:
The problem with you is that you seem to be fixated on this one incident. A miniscule incident where you vapid about some coach being angry at a racist millionaire who made a racist put down of her team. It's fascinating that you go on and on about what she should of done and not about what he did. It's almost like you wish you could put her in her place...
LocoMrPollock
Banned
Divvy said:
Let's see it then.
In what capacity did he work on the actual game "Shadow Complex?"
Stoney Mason
Banned
shidoshi said:
Roughly agreed with everything here although as I said, I still bought Shadow Complex. While this thread would have turned into the monster it did anyway I think part of the reason it did was because of the phrasing of the op. "Should we" is a bit more presumptuous than I would have been if I had desired to make the thread or held this position. It's always better to start framing an argument from the individual perspective and broaden out rather than start broad.
Fourth Stooge
Banned
NinjaFusion said:
What other products do not deserve my money? It sounds like I am in need of your counseling because I bought one for me and one for my nephew. I was about to buy one for my other nephew...but now I don't know. Please help me. I need your wisdom.
I shall require a list. We need a complete investigation of every software developer. What is Nintendo's position on homosexuality? Does Sony recycle their paper products? Are they vegans or merely unholy vegetarians? We shall put their names on lists. If any one of them dares to take a public stand on any political issue, then "we" will either boycott their games or buy their games en masse, depending on the righteousness of their opinions. We shall reward their good deeds and punish their transgressions. First we must investigate and interrogate. Then we shall have true freedom and purity.
Fight the power!!!
If only we could burn downloadable games... I wonder if 360s burn. Haven't been to a book burning in a while. I'll have to find my torches and lighter fluid.
Yeah, word. I'm actually pretty appalled that he went on the defensive, rather than just abstain from commenting at all. Clearly they fucked up by associating themselves so closely with OSC, nevermind what affect it has on the actual game.shidoshi said:
I mean, his unspoken point may very well be "Hey Orson Scott Card is actually a swell guy in person," and I guess that may be true. I have a few friends and family members that have despicable views, but I'm not about to cut them off because of that (I definitely take whatever opportunities I can to tweak them though, and maybe show them that they're being retarded). HOWEVER, I'm also not collaborating with them on a business venture where their views may prove to be a liability. Furthermore, I'm not making the fucking insulting suggestion to people I don't even fucking know that they should tolerate the bigotry of this person I'm associated with just because it suits the interests of myself and my co-workers.
Personally I'm giving it a pass, since I don't think Shadow Complex is actively disseminating homophobic propaganda or anything, and that's enough for me. But it might not be enough for some people! Though, honestly Peter David's comments actually do make me regret my decision a bit. If he had simply said "Sorry, we fucked up... we really liked Ender's game and thought it would be cool to collaborate with that author, we weren't thinking about the author's shitty opinions, we just wanted to make a cool videogame." But, no, he makes the decision to patronizingly say "Shame on you for having opinions and stances on things! Shame on you for NOT buying our videogame!"
LocoMrPollock
Banned
Divvy said:
Oh, so you mean, he wrote the book Empire and Chair made the game Shadow Complex.
Thanks for proving my point.
Stoney Mason
Banned
minus_273 said:
You are free to make any point you want. Just making it clear that
A.) Radical right does the same thing.
B.) "The radical left" isn't necessarily the unified front you think of it as.
I'm pretty far left. And I don't hold those views.
So ultimately you are pointing out a flaw that exists as part of human nature and goes beyond political ideology. It only manifest itself as political ideology based on the specific issue that may be at hand.
Nihilistic Monk
Member
just read through the thread and some of the articles floating around the web.
It's a very complex issue, and goes to show how gaming is growing as a medium. To me, the discussions become more interesting than the game
I can see both points of the argument, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone buying or not buying the game, we live in an open society, and for true openness, everyones opinion has a right to be heard.
I don't agree with OSC's opinions, but I've never read one if his books, so can't comment on anything contained within the book this games universe is a part of, or the game itself (As I haven't purchased it yet....)
OSC is in the public eye, hence, he has the ability to transmit his opinion much clearer than the average person, and being an author, and an activist for his cause, he obviously wants to broadcast his opinion about an issue that matters to him. That's fine, again, for true openness, everyones opinion has a right to be heard, but he's as much of a "Brand" as coke or pepsi, he's got a product to ship, and he's in the public eye, the fact he does what he does will generate opinion.
Chair knew what they were doing when they arranged a deal with OSC, so they have to expect that a storm like this could come up. I can see the point of people saying that this punishes the development team of the game, but management should have considered that this reaction may have come about, due to the association with OSC. That association is a business decision, and the tie in with a particular IP will help as much as it hurts (As this thread demonstrates.)
I work for an ISP, and remember when BT launched "Cleanfeed", a service that blocks access automatically to child pornography, and whilst the purpose is just, I still feel the technology of that was dangerous. In my opinion the Internet should be uncensored, with law enforcement having the job of taking any illegal content down under statutes of the law. That Technology could easily be passed on to block access to warez sites, political content and the like. It just doesn't jell with me. We do not run the IWF's blacklist on our systems, several other ISP's have implemented the system, and that's fine.
OSC's association with this game, I feel kinda similar, I can see the game has distance from the views of the author, but Chair/Epic, whomever, actively made the decision to attach this game to OSC's IP. I respect the right for it to exist, and I respect OSC's opinion Knowing what I know, I feel in my own mind, I can't purchase this game, and that's just my opinion, for those who buy it, I don't feel any ill will, or anger, they just have a different opinion than me, and that's fine. The game will sell, but for me, I can't get away from the fact this product is attached to OSC, and that was a conscious decision by Chair, as is my decision to pass.
I doubt this will effect the game in any way shape or form, we've seen internet dust-storms like this before. People are still angry about Activision's treatment of Schafer and the whole Brutal Legend affair, but Modern Warfare 2 will still be No1 at christmas, and Activision will still grow fat... Everything that changes stays the same...
It's a very complex issue, and goes to show how gaming is growing as a medium. To me, the discussions become more interesting than the game
I can see both points of the argument, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone buying or not buying the game, we live in an open society, and for true openness, everyones opinion has a right to be heard.
I don't agree with OSC's opinions, but I've never read one if his books, so can't comment on anything contained within the book this games universe is a part of, or the game itself (As I haven't purchased it yet....)
OSC is in the public eye, hence, he has the ability to transmit his opinion much clearer than the average person, and being an author, and an activist for his cause, he obviously wants to broadcast his opinion about an issue that matters to him. That's fine, again, for true openness, everyones opinion has a right to be heard, but he's as much of a "Brand" as coke or pepsi, he's got a product to ship, and he's in the public eye, the fact he does what he does will generate opinion.
Chair knew what they were doing when they arranged a deal with OSC, so they have to expect that a storm like this could come up. I can see the point of people saying that this punishes the development team of the game, but management should have considered that this reaction may have come about, due to the association with OSC. That association is a business decision, and the tie in with a particular IP will help as much as it hurts (As this thread demonstrates.)
I work for an ISP, and remember when BT launched "Cleanfeed", a service that blocks access automatically to child pornography, and whilst the purpose is just, I still feel the technology of that was dangerous. In my opinion the Internet should be uncensored, with law enforcement having the job of taking any illegal content down under statutes of the law. That Technology could easily be passed on to block access to warez sites, political content and the like. It just doesn't jell with me. We do not run the IWF's blacklist on our systems, several other ISP's have implemented the system, and that's fine.
OSC's association with this game, I feel kinda similar, I can see the game has distance from the views of the author, but Chair/Epic, whomever, actively made the decision to attach this game to OSC's IP. I respect the right for it to exist, and I respect OSC's opinion Knowing what I know, I feel in my own mind, I can't purchase this game, and that's just my opinion, for those who buy it, I don't feel any ill will, or anger, they just have a different opinion than me, and that's fine. The game will sell, but for me, I can't get away from the fact this product is attached to OSC, and that was a conscious decision by Chair, as is my decision to pass.
I doubt this will effect the game in any way shape or form, we've seen internet dust-storms like this before. People are still angry about Activision's treatment of Schafer and the whole Brutal Legend affair, but Modern Warfare 2 will still be No1 at christmas, and Activision will still grow fat... Everything that changes stays the same...
TheDrowningMan
Member
LocoMrPollock said:
Chair created the kooky, Bush-ites wet dream Empire universe and hired Card to expand it into a novel. They then developed a game based on it with Card obviously acting as an advisor for certain elements - probably a token role relatively speaking but Card, Empire & Chair all go hand in hand.
SonOfABeep
Banned
is this thread still going?
Quit feeding the monster and it will die
Quit feeding the monster and it will die
deadatom said:
Um, you're the who took issue with my post because it somehow espoused conservative world view. I was using it as an example where I thought a different approach regarding a racial slur would have been more proactive than the typical reactive approach that was, and I was trying to liken that to Peter David's belief that gay-rights supporters would have made a stronger statement by buying the game in what he believed would be a show of strength on their part. I didn't think that particular belief really applied in this case, but I named one where I think a show of true strength would have made a better difference. Maybe you think the road to equality is paved with lawsuits, bans, boycotts, protests and demonstrations. Good luck with that. I think in this day and age they tend to polarize people rather than find any sort of common ground. The more people believe you're trying to take something away from them, or impose something on them, they'll dig in even more. There are times when you have to take a stand, and others when you need to reach out and go beyond the normal expectations. And you're right it was a miniscule incident that got way blown out of proportion, because EVERYONE played their assigned roles and nobody gave two shits about how to actually improve the situation.