Support NeoGAF

[Asmodai]

Christian Nutt's article in Gamasutra about this thread was amazingly well written, simply great. I agree with him that it is shocking to read so many presumably adult people supporting (in the early part of this thread) the fallacy that "its just a game." Fun is not my priority. Humans are my priority, and with humans I want to have fun. Still I'm enjoying the thread, its becoming quite nuanced now and restored a bit of faith.

Can't say I really understand this sentiment, but then again, we all have different lines we draw with regard to what is acceptable and what should be boycotted.

 

[mavs]

I tend not to agree with him, but free expression does not mean "protected free speech" (the term you originally used when we got into this discussion - which is a term of art that implies that it is protected from government suppression). He's talking about esoteric principles of free expression and debate, not about government action.

"Free expression" a superset of free speech, and is used to refer to a set of rights granted by the first amendment (in literal terms you only speak with your mouth, but expression can come from any action). David may not have argued that boycotts are not protected, but he did equate them with criminal acts. Either way I'm not on his side.

 

[SnowDog]

Card isn't setting Mormon policy; he's just aping it. His personal feelings about penis-to-ass relations have fuck all to do with Shadow Complex. Boycott your fake outrage.

That's particularly nasty phrasing. Gay relationships are not all about "Penis to ass relations" ??? :lol
Because guess what? in the real adult world, away from childish stereotyping, some gay people are not into anal sex, and some straight people are. You're naive and prone to stereotyping people. grow up.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

Well I feel (very strongly) that I disagree with Peter David's assertion that boycotting a company does it material harm. Potential profit, no matter what the poets of Wall Street have told us, is not the same as human blood. Profit materially harmed for unlawful and untrue slander would be. I think it is circular to argue a 'chilling effect' through any consumer boycott. A consumer boycott of a company is the company's responsibility to manage. That, to me, is one of the ways in which we are able to manage to have a democracy despite the deep wounds capitalism makes in it.

The developer's right to speak is not being materially affected. What is being done is a signal flare - likely with very few actual boycotters - to the game community that contact with bigots (and Card is a bigot, not just a political campaigner or donor - like Will Wright, who donates to Republicans) is poisonous. I think that promotes, rather than chills dialogue about complex issues.

I honestly have never heard a compelling argument to the contrary.

 

[Tellaerin]

Shadow Complex is awesome guys. You are missing out.

But I guess sitting on a video game forum talking about this is much more fun.

Some people think supporting a worthwhile cause is more important than playing one good game out of thousands. I guess putting your principles ahead of self-gratification qualifies as stupid nowadays, huh?

 

[Asmodai]

Some people think supporting a worthwhile cause is more important than playing one good game out of thousands. I guess putting your principles ahead of self-gratification qualifies as stupid nowadays, huh?

Buying an entertainment product with the sole purpose of entertainment in mind is self gratification now?

I buy a pair of Nike shoes made by some third world sweatshop, and now I've put my need for nice shoes ahead of human rights...damn, I guess I'm a horrible person now. At least everyone else with shoes is a horrible person too!

It's naive to assume we can enjoy a Western standard of living without harming people in some significant way. The difference is where we all choose to draw the line.

 

[IrishNinja]

Please do not call it punishment. It's not. Punishment implies the removal of something expected or deserved.

point.

And again it's not strictly political associations but the nature of that relationship with political associations. It's one in which the success of the game supports and furthers an agenda I and many others find reprehensible.

It's not dishonest, intellectually or otherwise, if I maintain a decision to not support a game over OSC's involvement is just as valid as doing the same over cell shading. This is my position.

these 2 statements confuse me.
1) im not arguing validity.
2) i was arguing difference: OSC's involvement, i would say, is a potentially more valid/legit reason for a boycott than a design one. all i was saying is political associations are not the same as design decisions; if at some point it seemed i was trying to quantify them for you, i insist i was not; just saying they're different. but if you're hung up on validity due to some other posts, yes, theyre both quite valid...just in varying amounts, as one affects gameplay and the other (potentially, by this argument) affects people.

Once again these extra steps don't seem meaningful to me. The only important thing is that a consumer is making a decision based on the information they have. If I hand out a flier or make a website or edit a wikipedia entry, there is no meaningful difference here.

alright then, i give. they're meaningful to me because they're extra steps past deciding things for yourself. going above & beyond this, a campaign/cause is by nature more organized and not equal to individuals acting on their own ascertations, though i concede punishment might not be the best term. its also worth noting im not trying to take PAD's angle here; i appreciate his sentiment but i dont see boycotting as anti-free speech.

It's naive to assume we can enjoy a Western standard of living without harming people in some significant way. The difference is where we all choose to draw the line.

haha, ironic to say by page 42, but... /thread.

 

[Ulairi]

Well I feel (very strongly) that I disagree with Peter David's assertion that boycotting a company does it material harm. Potential profit, no matter what the poets of Wall Street have told us, is not the same as human blood. Profit materially harmed for unlawful and untrue slander would be. I think it is circular to argue a 'chilling effect' through any consumer boycott. A consumer boycott of a company is the company's responsibility to manage. That, to me, is one of the ways in which we are able to manage to have a democracy despite the deep wounds capitalism makes in it.

The developer's right to speak is not being materially affected. What is being done is a signal flare - likely with very few actual boycotters - to the game community that contact with bigots (and Card is a bigot, not just a political campaigner or donor - like Will Wright, who donates to Republicans) is poisonous. I think that promotes, rather than chills dialogue about complex issues.

I honestly have never heard a compelling argument to the contrary.

When reports came out that Wright has donated to Republicans and that Spore seemed to support　ID, he was attacked. We cannot say games is an artistic medium if everytime we see some content we disagree with and want to boycott it. That is no better than the people who boycotted Dogma or Disney.

 

[Wolves Evolve]

When reports came out that Wright has donated to Republicans and that Spore seemed to support　ID, he was attacked. We cannot say games is an artistic medium if everytime we see some content we disagree with and want to boycott it. That is no better than the people who boycotted Dogma or Disney.

I flatly reject this assertion. Its precisely because games are an artistic medium that the stakes are raised, and precisely because of those stakes that they should face the same scrutiny as Dogma, Disney or anything else. Boycotting has been a part of culture for hundreds of years. Sorry, that means art as well. More scrutiny the better, in fact. Imagine the arse-kicking that could go down on a sexist character design boycott?

 

[Kafel]

:lol

 

[Tellaerin]

Buying an entertainment product with the sole purpose of entertainment in mind is self gratification now?

Um, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of self-gratification. And it's not necessarily a bad thing by nature, either. Nothing wrong with doing something for fun. But if somebody decides that standing up for their principles is more important than buying a particular product just for fun, especially when there are alternatives (it's not like there's a shortage of good videogames in the world, and I'm sure most of us haven't played all of them), then they deserve props for that. Not to be shit on by someone saying 'y'all are missing out' with the implication that they're somehow stupid for passing the game up just because it's good.

 

[Ulairi]

I flatly reject this assertion. Its precisely because games are an artistic medium that the stakes are raised, and precisely because of those stakes that they should face the same scrutiny as Dogma, Disney or anything else. Boycotting has been a part of culture for hundreds of years. Sorry, that means art as well. More scrutiny the better, in fact. Imagine the arse-kicking that could go down on a sexist character design boycott?

And it doesn't work. Instead it should be used as a chance for discussion and counter-art. And again, what part of Shadow Complex is anti-gay？we aren't even talking about the game itself but someone who wrote a novel based in the games universe and we aren't talking about that novel being anti-gay but statements the writer made outsdie of his work of fiction.

 

[Asmodai]

Um, yeah, that's pretty much the definition of self-gratification. And it's not necessarily a bad thing by nature, either. Nothing wrong with doing something for fun. But if somebody decides that standing up for their principles is more important than buying a particular product just for fun, especially when there are alternatives (it's not like there's a shortage of good videogames in the world, and I'm sure most of us haven't played all of them), then they deserve props for that. Not to be shit on by someone saying 'y'all are missing out' with the implication that they're somehow stupid for passing the game up just because it's good.

I'm of the opinion that human beings are all hedonists and do everything in the interest of self-gratification.

But I do understand what you're saying. I don't agree with it in the case of Shadow Complex, but I know the general principle.

 

[SimpleDesign]

It has nothing to do with his statements and everything to do with the fact that he actively campaigns against equal rights for all Americans.

Card is on the board of directors at NOM, that's a big step up from just being a run of the mill bigot voicing his opinion.

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is a non-profit organization that seeks to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage, and invalidate those already legally contracted, stating that they do so in order to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

 

[mavs]

But if somebody decides that standing up for

my

principles is more important than buying a particular product just for fun, especially when there are alternatives (it's not like there's a shortage of good videogames in the world, and I'm sure most of us haven't played all of them), then they deserve props for that.

And I mean that completely unironically. I think it's stupid for people to protest entertainment media that, say, portrays gay relationships as normal, and I don't expect any respect from them either. But other than that, I agree with you.

 

[KHarvey16]

And it doesn't work. Instead it should be used as a chance for discussion and counter-art. And again, what part of Shadow Complex is anti-gay？we aren't even talking about the game itself but someone who wrote a novel based in the games universe and we aren't talking about that novel being anti-gay but statements the writer made outsdie of his work of fiction.

The motivation behind most people's decision to not support the game is to prevent their money going to Orson Scott Card who can use it to further his agenda politically. I think it's a rather direct cause and effect kind of thing.

 

[Night_Trekker]

"We" in the thread title should be changed to "I".

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.

 

[mario ate my burger]

Wow, only 500 posts less then the official thread

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Wow, only 500 posts less then the official thread

It's definitely a good thing this thread wasn't closed, because the official thread would have been flooded otherwise.

 

[Gantz]

Regardless of what OSC is making from SC, he was hired by Chair. I am therefore declining to purchase items or services by Chair on account of their business relationship with him.

There is always the question of when it is time to react accordingly. Should OSC just be the batshit insane person he is, without spearheading anti-gay prerogatives with his amounts of money, I probably would not be against purchasing something that has had his involvement.

Since he has, I have decided to take what little personal action I can.

You should boycott and stop buying gas too. Thousands of people die everyday so you can have gas for your car to drive to work.

 

[SovanJedi]

I think it's a noble cause to vote with your money on what is right and I can fully respect that wanting to snub a particular member of the dev team who has been proven to use his funds to support his strongly disapproving views of the world, but personally I think cutting off the nose to spite the face is a bad way of going about it - the money you would use to buy this game contributes to more talented, worthy people than simply the one homophobe highlighted by this thread and it's not right to make them suffer because of Card's beliefs. I don't have the game yet because I'm flat broke, but if I were to buy it right now, I would buy it because it's a good game and made by skilled craftsmen, not because the makers share the same views as I do on the world (and that couldn't be further from the truth either.)

I would actually agree with the OP in that, if it is a big problem to you try and find a charity or good pro-gay cause to contribute money to after getting the game. Preferably more than you paid for the game, although any amount would do since the percentage of the profit cut obtained by Card must be so minute considering his only minor role in the development.

 

[Tellaerin]

And I mean that completely unironically. I think it's stupid for people to protest entertainment media that, say, portrays gay relationships as normal, and I don't expect any respect from them either. But other than that, I agree with you.

Well, yes. Not all positions on an issue are equally deserving of respect. When you've got one side saying, 'It's OK to be gay, but being straight is fine too, we just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has,' and the other in effect claiming, 'Us straight folks are good and righteous, while those gays are loathsome deviants that should be driven out of our communities and back into the closet', those are not the same thing. Voices of hatred and discrimination don't deserve to be elevated to the same level as ones arguing for tolerance and understanding. Yet those are usually the people who are most aggressive in demanding 'equal time' to express 'their views' and like to claim they're the ones being unfairly discriminated against whenever someone objects to them spreading their venom.

 

[procrastinator]

This sort of bothers me. Not in a way to get me to stop playing the game (just beat it), but ew.

I agree on the atrocious writing. It's like...total garbage. The cutscenes (like the ending) feel like they were ripped out of an SNES game in terms of pacing and production. Which is sort of what they're going for?

The story for the game wasnt written by OSC. Written by some comic book writer who is apparently very "gay-friendly" according to gaygamer.

 

[The Technomancer]

If I went to a restaurant, I wouldn't inquire before eating "Wait...the chef isn't a Klansmen by any chance, is he?"
If I called for a plumber, I wouldn't call ahead and make sure of his views on women in the workforce.
If I play a video game, I'm not going to ask if one person who was tangentially related to it's creation is a homophobe.

People are allowed their opinions. People are allowed to express their opinions. I am allowed to ignore those opinions, and enjoy a really well cooked meal, or a pipe that no longer leaks, or a really well made game.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Wow, only 500 posts less then the official thread

Well, the issue is certainly more broad than the game's appeal. This thread is considerably larger than the official threads of many games.

Games like Retro Game Challenge, which you guys didn't buy therefore condemning the hardworking developers to death by starvation. It was really inappropriate of you guys to punish them that way.

 

[ja30278]

There's nothing wrong with choosing to not buy any product, for any reason. What annoys me about the OP is that he/she isn't satisfied with doing that, and instead spends time trolling forums trying to gin up a flash mob to 'punish' people with differing views.

Even the topic phrasing is annoying: 'Should _we_'. Can't you be satisfied by making your own buying decisions without having to feel as if you're part of some noble movement?

 

[LaserBuddha]

I think something that could be clarified in this whole debate is the idea of whether taking action on this issue is a "punishment" against Chair/OSC.

There are two main responses being advocated in this thread in reaction to OSC's viewpoints. One is in no way any sort of punishment, another is an attempt at punishment.

-Choosing as an individual not to buy the game because of OSC's views on gays is of course no "punishment" whatsoever, since it is a personal choice and your purchase of the game wasn't any sort of forgone conclusion to begin with (Also please note that a private, individual choice to simply not to buy SC does not really qualify for the term "boycott" unless you intend some coercive effect in doing so. The misuse of this term by both sides has caused some misunderstandings here.)

-The idea of organizing a boycott, as well-explained in one of the Peter David quotes, IS an attempt to financially punish OSC and/or Chair. I'm making no moral judgement on whether you should or should not do such a thing, because I really don't give a shit. I'm just pointing out that if you want to encourage others to boycott this game with you, be realistic that it IS an attempt at punishment and not simply a purchasing decision. If you are trying to do some kind of grassroots thing, be proud of it if its in accordance with your beliefs but also accept the fact that you are attempting (however successfully) to punish them.

A lot of people here are trying to claim that even an organized boycott is not any kind of punishment, since it isn't removing anything from Chair's possession that was owed or belonged to them. This is a fantasy. The very REASON you want to boycott to begin with is to send Chair a message by hurting them financially through lost sales, in order to present them with consequences for offending you. You ARE attempting to punish them within your ability, you are just using different terminology for it. Do it if you feel justified, but if you don't have the balls to acknowledge that you are trying to hurt/punish Chair, then maybe you don't have the balls/conviction to go through with this to begin with.

P.S.: Why isnt deadatom banned yet?

 

[C Jones]

You should boycott and stop buying gas too. Thousands of people die everyday so you can have gas for your car to drive to work.

What is with this ridiculous argument that keeps popping up page after page that insinuates if you "boycott" something because of Cause A, you have to boycott things because of Causes B, Causes C, Causes D...etc.? Different things impact people in different ways, so why does it have to be all or nothing? It's almost like saying if you donate to one cause for charity you have to donate to all of them. So what if people pick and choose, what's it to you?

 

[TheUglyDrunk]

Very interesting thread, and a great way to kill time during my Saturday morning shift. I'll have to check out Christian's article.

That being said, OSC is an idiot, and his books are garbage. The story in Shadow Complex (when it actually exists) is garbage as well.

That being said, the game is awesome, and well worth the 15$ investment. I would have paid 30$ for it and been quite happy.

 

[KHarvey16]

A lot of people here are trying to claim that even an organized boycott is not any kind of punishment, since it isn't removing anything from Chair's possession that was owed or belonged to them. This is a fantasy. The very REASON you want to boycott to begin with is to send Chair a message by hurting them financially through lost sales, in order to present them with consequences for offending you. You ARE attempting to punish them within your ability, you are just using different terminology for it. Do it if you feel justified, but if you don't have the balls to acknowledge that you are trying to hurt/punish Chair, then maybe you don't have the balls/conviction to go through with this to begin with.

I don't have much time to respond at this point, but no, it isn't fantasy. Punishment, like I said, is the removal of something expected or deserved. The developer does not deserve sales simply because they made a game. A boycott is not depriving them of something they are owed. If, upon finding out some facts about a person who will benefit from sales, a number of individuals decide to not spend their money, no one is being punished.

Of course they are "hurt" by a reduction in sales. But that hurt is NOT the main point, it's incidental. In this case the whole reason for not supporting them is making sure OSC doesn't get their money. As others have said, if OSC had no ability to influence politics through direct involvement on committees or through substantial financial ability I wouldn't take much issue.

 

[Gantz]

Why doesn't someone contact Chair and ask them how much royalties OSC is getting from Shadow Complex and how much it's being donated to that anti-gay family organization. I would like to know.

 

[Owzers]

If I went to a restaurant, I wouldn't inquire before eating "Wait...the chef isn't a Klansmen by any chance, is he?"
If I called for a plumber, I wouldn't call ahead and make sure of his views on women in the workforce.
If I play a video game, I'm not going to ask if one person who was tangentially related to it's creation is a homophobe.

People are allowed their opinions. People are allowed to express their opinions. I am allowed to ignore those opinions, and enjoy a really well cooked meal, or a pipe that no longer leaks, or a really well made game.

Ignorance is bliss i guess, but once you DO know these things, wouldnt you go to a different restaurant or hire a different plumber?

EDIT: But then i start agreeing with you more, since are you ever going to find the perfect restaurant to eat attttttttttttt????????

I still need to buy Shadow Complex, i'm only hesitant because it's $15

 

[RadarScope1]

I hear your argument but disagree that Chair really needs to say anything on the matter, and they certainly shouldn't be bullied into a response, in any event. Card, not Chair, made those statements. Perhaps you would be convinced to purchase their game if Chair stated openly that they were not anti-gay, but the vast majority here would STILL choose to boycott the game simply because Card might benefit, however tangentially.

Asking Chair a loaded question accomplishes nothing. They're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't (do you think they'll risk possibly alienating the Pro-Marriage™ folks)? No one should be forced or coerced into divulging their independent thoughts on race, religion, sexuality, etc., despite the fact that those thoughts might be against what we personally feel or even prove hateful. Chair remaining silent whilst letting people jump to their own conclusions is the best course of action outside of an outright "No comment."

I agree that they don't need to do anything, but I am with Shidosi when he says they likely should. You're assuming they're going to get political and address the issue head-on. All they really need to do, and likely would do if they choose to address this, is say whether or not they were aware of OSC's controversial stances before working with him.

Something like: "We regret what's happening on the Internet over this and would really like to focus discussion back to the game itself, which thousands of gamers are playing and enjoying. We were not in any way influenced by OSC's views on anything other than the fact that he is a noted sci-fi writer whose works we respect. Mr. Card played a peripheral role in the creation of Shadow Complex and we would ask that the Internet consider the hard work done by so many others on our team."

And then, not say anything else. That would definitely not satisfy some of the hyperventilating people on this thread, but they can say they've addressed it and move on. Again, in business, "no comment" is not a good strategy.

 

[Mr.Green]

The stupid thread that would not die.

 

[C Jones]

The stupid thread that would not die.

Boycott it.

 

[LaserBuddha]

I don't have much time to respond at this point, but no, it isn't fantasy. Punishment, like I said, is the removal of something expected or deserved. The developer does not deserve sales simply because they made a game. A boycott is not depriving them of something they are owed. If, upon finding out some facts about a person who will benefit from sales, a number of individuals decide to not spend their money, no one is being punished.

Of course they are "hurt" by a reduction in sales. But that hurt is NOT the main point, it's incidental. In this case the whole reason for not supporting them is making sure OSC doesn't get their money. As others have said, if OSC had no ability to influence politics through direct involvement on committees or through substantial financial ability I wouldn't take much issue.

If your whole goal in a hypothetical boycott would be to avoid contributing to anti-gay lobbying, rather than send a message to Chair/OSC via reduced sales, then yes in your case it would not be done with the intention of punishment.

That aside, the goal of any sufficiently large boycott would be to deprive Chair of enough sales that there would be to send a message to them via noticeable financial penalty (because in order for the boycott to be effective, they would have to lose enough sales that they would make noticably less than would be reasonably expected). For you the punishment would be a consequential part of what your real goal is, and thats fine, but i think you're in the minority. What some people are trying to say, which I take issue with, is that their specific goal of denying sales via boycott is NOT a punitive action, which is not true. They want to make a political statement and create leverage by hurting Chair/OSC, yet they distance themselves from the concept of "punishment". Thats simply a delusion that, as far as i can tell, is some self-conscious attempt not to feel or appear vengeful or heavy-handed. Honestly if they feel that strongly about it in the first place, I don't know why they should be self-conscious about it.

 

[Banjo Tango]

If I went to a restaurant, I wouldn't inquire before eating "Wait...the chef isn't a Klansmen by any chance, is he?"
If I called for a plumber, I wouldn't call ahead and make sure of his views on women in the workforce.
If I play a video game, I'm not going to ask if one person who was tangentially related to it's creation is a homophobe.

People are allowed their opinions. People are allowed to express their opinions. I am allowed to ignore those opinions, and enjoy a really well cooked meal, or a pipe that no longer leaks, or a really well made game.

No one is asking whether OSC is anti-gay activist - we know he is and of his involvement.

My father-in-law used to eat at an Indian buffet until he found out the owners were involved in some scary indentured servitude immigration shit... and once he found out, he stopped going (as did most other people in the community), regardless of how fantastic their Tikka Masala was.

For my part, Metroid is my favorite game EVAR - and I was really looking forward to this, until I found out about OSC. I can't just ignore his involvement when I really don't *need* to buy this game.

 

[FateBreaker]

Great, you're right; and I don't HAVE to buy their game.

That'll show them.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

That's particularly nasty phrasing. Gay relationships are not all about "Penis to ass relations" ??? :lol
Because guess what? in the real adult world, away from childish stereotyping, some gay people are not into anal sex, and some straight people are. You're naive and prone to stereotyping people. grow up.

I was being reductive for emphasis. I have gay friends and family members and fully support their civil rights. I completely disagree with Orson Scott Card on virtually every issue. But that has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the things he is actually involved in (Ender's Game) or the things he is artificially involved with (Shadow Complex).

Statistically, we can assume that roughly 50% of people who develop all video games are against gay marriage. Think about the logical consistency of boycotting a game based on the dubious involvement of a single, vocal person.

 

[Big-E]

I take a day to enjoy the great outdoors and I come back to see the same arguments getting spewed of "think of the poor developers" and "you have probably paid for something made by a child molester". Awesome stuff guys. Truly awesome points. You know what else is an awesome point? Choosing not to buy this game ensures that not one cent or even a fraction of a cent from my own self goes to OSC and his ability to fund his campaign of hate. Do you see this point? Is it in English? Good. Now I want one of you to say why this point is wrong and why you would have issue with this. This point should be clear as day and should not harm you in anyway yet you guys feel the need to continue with the retarded played out arguments.

 

[Hellion]

ehh......NO

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Choosing not to buy this game ensures that not one cent or even a fraction of a cent from my own self goes to OSC and his ability to fund his campaign of hate.

Nope. I'm sure Card owns stock, even a portfolio of many stocks. Are you going to track down his holdings and boycott all of those companies to make sure he doesn't get any dividends that could be traced back to your purchases?

You can't ensure that your money will never end up in his hands. Not by boycotting a game, not by boycotting any other company.

 

[Big-E]

Nope. I'm sure Card owns stock, even a portfolio of many stocks. Are you going to track down his holdings and boycott all of those companies to make sure he doesn't get any dividends that could be traced back to your purchases?

You can't ensure that your money will never end up in his hands. Not by boycotting a game, not by boycotting any other company.

I can ensure my money doesn't end up in his hands, by not purchasing this game. This is what so many people are frustrated with in this thread. This is an optional purchase which directly benefits Card. Me not buying it doesn't give money to him. This is as factual as the Sun being hot. The fact that people continue to bring points like "Well you could have funded him before" is pure bullshit and makes no sense.

 

[Asmodai]

I can ensure my money doesn't end up in his hands, by not purchasing this game. This is what so many people are frustrated with in this thread. This is an optional purchase which directly benefits Card. Me not buying it doesn't give money to him. This is as factual as the Sun being hot. The fact that people continue to bring points like "Well you could have funded him before" is pure bullshit and makes no sense.

Not saying that I agree with whoever you were quoting, but in a Western society, especially with globalization, you can't prevent your money from going into the hands of people just by avoiding their products. Everything from your clothes purchase to your car purchase could be going toward someone's stock portfolio. Seems a simple enough point to understand.

As I said earlier in this thread, we cannot enjoy a Western standard of living without causing suffering in the rest of the world. The only difference is where we personally draw the line.

Also, it's worth noting that the OP got so much trouble for this thread mainly because he said "should we boycott" Shadow Complex, not whether he personally should.

 

[Big-E]

Not saying that I agree with whoever you were quoting, but in a Western society, especially with globalization, you can't prevent your money from going into the hands of people just by avoiding their products. Everything from your clothes purchase to your car purchase could be going toward someone's stock portfolio. Seems a simple enough point to understand.

As I said earlier in this thread, we cannot enjoy a Western standard of living without causing suffering in the rest of the world. The only difference is where we personally draw the line.

Also, it's worth noting that the OP got so much trouble for this thread mainly because he said "should we boycott" Shadow Complex, not whether he personally should.

You bring up a valid point but with stocks, Card is not benefiting for services provided which with this game he is so I think it is slightly different. On your regards with the OP, posing the question "Should we boycott Shadow Complex" I don't see anything wrong with that. He was merely posing a question to the community in bringing attention to a situation I did not occur. As mentioned earlier, I wish I knew sooner because I already purchased the game before this thread was made. I find it striking that the word "boycott" seems to get people so angry over its use like its a dirty word.

 

[Asmodai]

You bring up a valid point but with stocks, Card is not benefiting for services provided which with this game he is so I think it is slightly different. On your regards with the OP, posing the question "Should we boycott Shadow Complex" I don't see anything wrong with that. He was merely posing a question to the community in bringing attention to a situation I did not occur. As mentioned earlier, I wish I knew sooner because I already purchased the game before this thread was made. I find it striking that the word "boycott" seems to get people so angry over its use like its a dirty word.

To me, the use of "we" in the thread title is annoying. He acts as if GAF is one giant collective will, when it is basically the exact opposite.

If he wants to boycott anything, that is of course his right and his decision. But you can botch anything, and the OP definitely botched this thread.

Also, a question about Card and Shadow Complex: earlier in this thread, some gaffer posted a pic of his Gears 2 DVD, which he had torn in half. He said he had destroyed his Gears 2 DVD because Epic is a partner with Chair for this game.

Now, I ask: why stop there? Microsoft is a partner with Epic. Is the gaffer who now hates Epic simply because they are a partner with Chair now going to boycott Microsoft, the 3rd largest company in the world?

The question is where to draw the line. I don't think that everyone who goes within a square mile of OSC should be boycotted. He's an idiot, not a carrier of some contagious disease. I think some people in this thread, like the aforementioned gaffer, took it way too far.

 

[YoungHav]

I hope dumbasses dont think Washington and Jackson are still alive and prospering from me spending my 1s and 20s!

:lol don't be mad b/c your thread is full of fail. If you go and research products and services you use, you'll find that you support a lot of despicable people and institutions. Even the banks that you use now may have profited off of slavery. Good luck w/the boycott.

 

[vilmer_]

Shadow Complex is a great game, I'm really enjoying it.

 

[FoneBone]

Over at Gamasutra, Peter David responds to a criticism of one of his more dubious arguments with... well, other dubious arguments:

"Also I hate to point this out Peter but that part where you advocated that pro-gay rights supporters should buy the game BECAUSE Card is associated with it was meant as a sly joke, right?"

You'll notice I didn't mention the game or Card when I said that. I was talking in general.

Years ago, when Neil Gaiman was in school, he had this one teacher who hated him. Just hated him. Got on him about everything. And Neil finally came up with a strategy: Rather than argue with him, he proceeded to kill him with kindness. He was unfailingly, relentlessly, over-the-top polite. It made the teacher nuts. It all came to a head one day when Neil said something like, "That's a lovely tie you have on today, sir." The teacher said, "Right, that's it!" He dragged Neil to the headmaster and started howling about Neil's behavior. The headmaster said, "Gaiman, what did you say to him?" Neil said, "I said, 'That's a lovely tie you have on today, sir.'" "SEE!" howled the teacher, "I TOLD YOU!" The headmaster stared at Neil, stared at the teacher, then looked back to Neil and said quietly, "That will be all, Gaiman." Next day the teacher was gone.

It's called thinking outside the box. Killing with kindness. Do I really expect people to abandon boycotts and try another approach? No. Why abandon a strategy so effective that it fails to have a significant impact the vast majority of the time?

By all means, everyone should advocate boycotts. Do the same old thing that people have been doing for years. The approach that hurts people with whom you have no quarrel and just reinforces the opinions of the people who are the real targets that their attackers are vengeful jerks.

In this case: Is it going to hurt me? Not in the least. I've got plenty of other irons in the fire. I'm fine, thanks. Will it hurt Card? Nope. He's likewise doing just fine. Who will you hurt? Well...possibly Don and Laura Mustard, a great couple of kids who poured her heart and soul and best efforts into a game that has drawn unilaterally rave reviews across the board. Who knows? Maybe you'll beat the odds. Maybe the boycott will actually be effective and terminally cripple their company so they can't put out more games that receive rave reviews, thus punishing not only Don and Laura, but every enthused gamer who enjoyed the hell out of "Shadow Complex" because they can't play the sequel.

All to prove...what? That you think Orson Scott Card is an asshole?

I think the words of Pogo might be appropriate: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

PAD

 

[Divvy]

:lol don't be mad b/c your thread is full of fail. If you go and research products and services you use, you'll find that you support a lot of despicable people and institutions. Even the banks that you use now may have profited off of slavery. Good luck w/the boycott.

You know, you're just embarrassing yourself with your recycled talking points. At least do some reading.