Support NeoGAF

[GribbleGrunger]

Here is thing from most trailer Ellie isn’t treated as this perfect person, in fact the impression I’m getting is Ellie is losing her mind. One the trailer we saw is one of the characters is getting tortured by another woman.

Yes, and even though Neil definitely has an agenda (no question), he might have done it subtly. We know Ellie from the first game and there are obvious character developments that are going to happen. For instance, Ellie would not want people to know she was bitten because she'd fear repercussions. That means she's likely to keep herself to herself quite a lot and not allow herself to get too close to anyone. She'd spend a lot of time alone, isolated and mulling over her secret and Joel's lie. That's bound to have a negative effect on her mental health. In that respect, I'm looking forward to the dynamics of the relationship between her and Dina. It's going to be taut at times, especially because of 'the secret'. I don't imagine Dina will like it that she's had intimate contact with Ellie without knowing she's infected. We know that she can pass on the infection (or at least it was suggested) because she bit David and told him he was now infected. That is ALSO something I'm hoping they explore.

Think about that for a moment. What if that kiss ultimately kills Dina?

 

[Woggleman]

Horizon didn't even have an agenda. The first thing we see is a positive depiction of fatherhood and her Matriarchal tribe are a bunch of backward yokels.

 

[NickFire]

Isnt basically can be said about Horizon Zero Dawn? in that game most woman are treated as warriors and most men are treated as bunch of idiots.

These conversations get really mucked up. Whether its hitting send too quickly, pent up anger, indoctrination, hubris, tribalism, outright bad faith, etc., there seems to be a pattern whereby the conversations just circle the drain (there is no dig at any person intended here). I'm not sure how to explain this without eliciting a response of "you just hate person du jour", but I'll try.

The agenda itself is not a problem in my view. Its just a different person's view point. Parts of the agenda even make sense to me. Parts are absolutely insane to me. But the agenda itself is not a problem for me. Its just some else's opinion that I sometimes agree with, and sometimes disagree with. Here lies the problem for me:

1) Tactics.
2) Tactics.
3) Tactics.

As alluded to above, tactics are the problem. I am referring to the twitter nazi crowd. They are directly attacking one of the the most fundamental rights in America. They claim to do no such thing because they deny that freedom of speech exists exists in the context of employment, which has some merit but taken too far invalidates the entire first amendment because you cant live if you cant afford to eat. To them the constitution only prevents the government from harming someone (while grinding their teeth). They have absolutely no regard for the notion that the constitution was designed to protect against tyranny from the majority, because as far as they are concerned tyranny against their neighbor is appropriate for wrong think. They are ideological purists, who operate like run of the mill fascists. They are a direct attack against freedom.

Is ND making the problem worse? No. Is ND attacking freedom? No. Is ND guilty of anything? No

But the fact is the tactics have not yet stopped, so people who are fed up continue to lash out when they believe the agenda is rearing its ugly head again. And in this case it is magnified because the lead praises an absolute lighting rod, whose mention on gaming sites used to (still does in some circles) result in a handful of lunatics playing the big bad in Gladiator. If they were pleased by praise for her you got the thumbs up. Say anything remotely negative though, instant thumbs down with a permanent ban. So yeah, praising her and delivering a different story than expected creates the conditions for a perfect storm of backlash. Anyone paying attention for 5 years could tell you that would happen if looking objectively. Is it warranted? No. But was it predictable? Yes, very much so.

In this particular situation, the spoilers have turned me away from a purchase, but only because I know that I am not $60 interested in the story they are telling, having expected and wanted something else. I am a bit annoyed because it sure seems the story is what it is because of the agenda, but I don't know for sure, and don't really care. Its just a product I'm no longer interested in. Any comment about why it is not what I expected is just expression of frustration. No big deal, but that won't stop people from assuming I hate my wife and mother since I won't buy it.

 

[Clear]

The SJW agenda is that men are bad (especially white males), women are superior, we need more representation for minority groups because they're oppressed, sexualisation of women is bad (in ANY context) and therefore the patriarchy needs reminding of this in every single media including comics, books, films, TV series and now games. People are getting fed up with it. Then the progressive SJWs use the fact people are getting fed up with it as proof more and more people are bigots. It's like kicking a dog every day because you say it bites and then eventually when the dog does bite because it's sick of being kicked, pointing to the dog and saying 'see, it bites'.

That's MASSIVE PROJECTION. MASSIVE.

If you cannot see how unreasonable and paranoiac taking that specifically from that trailer is.... you're way too deep down an ideological rabbit hole.

 

[Cactuarman]

Think of moralising and standing on a soap box as finger wagging and social commentary as an interesting examination of social structures and philosophies.

This seems like an incredibly vague line - particularly since "interesting" is subjective.

 

[NickFire]

That's MASSIVE PROJECTION. MASSIVE.

If you cannot see how unreasonable and paranoiac taking that specifically from that trailer is.... you're way too deep down an ideological rabbit hole.

I don't man. Is he way too deep in the rabbit hole, or are you just looking to criticize him for his position without looking at context first? The quote you picked before making a personal insinuation was his response to someone SPECIFICALLY asking him to define a term, and he's said multiple times he still intends to play the game and reserve judgment.

 

[Clear]

I don't man. Is he way too deep in the rabbit hole, or are you just looking to criticize him for his position without looking at context first? The quote you picked before making a personal insinuation was his response to someone SPECIFICALLY asking him to define a term, and he's said multiple times he still intends to play the game and reserve judgment.

Tell me this: How is his takeaway different from someone looking at say Days Gone, and its gruff white-male protagonist and concluding that its indicative of its makers being supportive of white supremacy, the patriarchy, MRA stuff etc?

I'm sorry, two girls kissing just isn't that radical! Buffy mainstreamed it 20 years ago.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Tell me this: How is his takeaway different from someone looking at say Days Gone, and its gruff white-male protagonist and concluding that its indicative of its makers being supportive of white supremacy, the patriarchy, MRA stuff etc?

I'm sorry, two girls kissing just isn't that radical! Buffy mainstreamed it 20 years ago.

I'm sorry but this is fucking incredible. 'Isn't that radical'. LOL. It's NOTHING at all. It's a normal part of life.

 

[Clear]

I'm sorry but this is fucking incredible. 'Isn't that radical'. LOL. It's NOTHING at all. It's a normal part of life.

So why are you attaching it to a cultural warfare narrative where lesbians are killing (white, straight) men?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

So why are you attaching it to a cultural warfare narrative where lesbians are killing (white, straight) men?

Because it's agenda driven. Neil's words, not mine. I don't like agendas.

A gay guy, a lesbian, a black man and a woman walk into a bar. The transexual barman says: 'did an SJW write this joke?'.

 

[Clear]

Because it's agenda driven. Neil's words, not mine. I don't like agendas.

The same way that SJW's see gruff white male protagonists as emblematic of systemic oppression of marginalized groups... same crazy, just opposite political polarity.

Bottom line: just because someone leans in a certain direction politically, not everything they do or say or make is serving that political cause exclusively. Throughout this conversation I've offered a straight dramaturgic and diegetic counterpoint that takes into account what's being talked about is not a game, but a trailer -and advert- for a game.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

The same way that SJW's see gruff white male protagonists as emblematic of systemic oppression of marginalized groups... same crazy, just opposite political polarity.

Bottom line: just because someone leans in a certain direction politically, not everything they do or say or make is serving that political cause exclusively. Throughout this conversation I've offered a straight dramaturgic and diegetic counterpoint that takes into account what's being talked about is not a game, but a trailer -and advert- for a game.

I'm sorry but it's not the same at all. The views from the progressives are insane at times. They see problems everywhere, even in films like Dunkirk or games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance. We just want to play games without their overt and radical influences. I have no idea if that's the case with TLOU2. I'm going to wait, play it and then judge for myself. All I'm pointing out is why people got worried after the trailer and why 'possibly' they're not happy with the reveal. I hope it IS the silly radicals on this side of the argument that are largely responsible for this negative reaction, but with Neil's agenda, it's difficult to not take it as an indication that his agenda has indeed gone too far.

 

[Clear]

I'm sorry but it's not the same at all. The views from the progressives are insane at times. They see problems everywhere, even in films like Dunkirk or games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance. We just want to play games without their overt and radical influences. I have no idea if that's the case with TLOU2. I'm going to wait, play it and then judge for myself. All I'm pointing out is why people got worried after the trailer and why 'possibly' they're not happy with the reveal. I hope it IS the silly radicals on this side of the argument that are largely responsible for this negative reaction, but with Neil's agenda, it's difficult to not take it as an indication that his agenda has indeed gone too far.

I'm sorry man, but I don't see a solution in adopting the same tactic where every creative choice is scrutinized for its political affiliation/leaning and judged in relative to the observer's personal beliefs.

Seems to me that by doing so you are validating the lunatic "everything is political" mindset. Which, and this I think brings us full-circle, is all about projecting ones own politicized interpretation and in so doing ignoring/invalidating all other readings.

 

[DForce]

The SJW agenda is that men are bad (especially white males), women are superior, we need more representation for minority groups because they're oppressed, sexualisation of women is bad (in ANY context) and therefore the patriarchy needs reminding of this in every single media including comics, books, films, TV series and now games. People are getting fed up with it. Then the progressive SJWs use the fact people are getting fed up with it as proof more and more people are bigots. It's like kicking a dog every day because you say it bites and then eventually when the dog does bite because it's sick of being kicked, pointing to the dog and saying 'see, it bites'.

As I keep saying, context is important and I'm waiting for the full context.

Seems like you're just reading too much into things while trying to turn it in politics.

Your entire theory is that they're trying to make "men" look bad (white men) with how the 2018 E3 gameplay trailer was portrayed.

I can do that too.

Ellie - "I'm just a girl. Not a threat."
Dina - "Oh, Ellie. I think they should be terrified of you."

The scene cuts to Ellie cutting a man's throat.

This is clearly a reflect of Ellie's personality. People don't see her as a threat, but she really is. This is in line with the entire plot of the story about Ellie getting revenge. This is why she is a threat and that they should be terrified of her.


Only a few people see it the way you do and not an attack on men (white men).

 

[PanzerAzel]

The real fact is without the leaks it wouldn't be a big deal at all here on gaf. Whether or not YOU are basing it solely on released trailers most people here weren't too upset until the leaks hit. That's a ridiculous comparison, TLOU II can get away with having a trailer for the kiss because they expect you already care about Ellie due to the first game and they expect you to understand the importance of it due to Left Behind. The leaks don't substantiate any of your suspicions, I've seen all 90 minutes.

If Ellie kissing a girl is that bad to you it says more about you than the game.

Where have I indicated that Ellie kissing another girl is bad? I'm getting a bit tired of others trying to paint me into a corner attempting to lazily invalidate my argument by an ad hominem appeal in implication of my supposed bigotry and homophobia. It is lazy, disingenuous, and without foundation. The real fact is, this was a controversy that has been going on since the initial E3 trailer that had Ellie and Dina kissing, long before the leaks happened. Many people were talking about an agenda at that point, and when the leaks hit, then it exploded.

"TLOU II can get away with having a trailer for the kiss because they expect you already care about Ellie due to the first game and they expect you to understand the importance of it due to Left Behind."f

The importance of what? Her orientation? Is that the defining attribute of Ellie to you? What was important was Riley and Ellie's relationship, something that was very competently written and executed upon, and the kiss was simply a means to demonstrate that. It was organic, spontaneous, natural, incidental, and 100% believable because it culminated upon hours and hours of good character development. Of which is absent in a five minute trailer beginning with Ellie dancing and kissing someone we know absolutely nothing about, or the subsequent "How would you rate our kiss on a scale of 1-10?" trailer which was just as irrelevant. Who's Dina? Is she a superficial flirt (which she comes off as dancing with others before choosing Ellie as if she's the new flavor of the week)? Is she a serious relationship, or simply using her to make others "jealous" as they discuss? I care about Ellie because she is Ellie, not because she kissed someone of the same sex, and it seems to me that you are placing value in her character based on nothing but this incredibly superficial trait by advocating for it in the absence of any greater context such as that Left Behind afforded. I was completely taken by surprise by the LB's kiss, which I think is very indicative as to how well done it really was.

And that's why you don't do this shit in trailers, because unless you have greater context to lend it narrative justification and build up to something that typically necessitates aspects such as intimacy, it will come off as shoehorned and forced, and I for one don't appreciate having characters that are very well-written essentially relegated into empty shells to be used as nothing but the vessels for political and ideological capital. If I'm to be the enemy, the bigot, the homophobe, simply because I think Ellie deserves better than to be superficially exploited upon the altar of diversity and representation, then so be it. I, and every other person who takes issue with this exploitation, are in fact those who value her as a character who believes she deserves far better than to be the gutted ideological puppet of Druckmann and his cronies.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Where have I indicated that Ellie kissing another girl is bad? I'm getting a bit tired of others trying to paint me into a corner attempting to lazily invalidate my argument by an ad hominem appeal in implication of my supposed bigotry and homophobia. It is lazy, disingenuous, and without foundation. The real fact is, this was a controversy that has been going on since the initial E3 trailer that had Ellie and Dina kissing, long before the leaks happened. Many people were talking about an agenda at that point, and when the leaks hit, then it exploded.

"TLOU II can get away with having a trailer for the kiss because they expect you already care about Ellie due to the first game and they expect you to understand the importance of it due to Left Behind."f

The importance of what? Her orientation? Is that the defining attribute of Ellie to you? What was important was Riley and Ellie's relationship, something that was very competently written and executed upon, and the kiss was simply a means to demonstrate that. It was organic, spontaneous, natural, incidental, and 100% believable because it culminated upon hours and hours of good character development. Of which is absent in a five minute trailer beginning with Ellie dancing and kissing someone we know absolutely nothing about, or the subsequent "How would you rate our kiss on a scale of 1-10?" trailer which was just as irrelevant. Who's Dina? Is she a superficial flirt (which she comes off as dancing with others before choosing Ellie as if she's the new flavor of the week)? Is she a serious relationship, or simply using her to make others "jealous" as they discuss? I care about Ellie because she is Ellie, not because she kissed someone of the same sex, and it seems to me that you are placing value in her character based on nothing but this incredibly superficial trait by advocating for it in the absence of any greater context such as that Left Behind afforded. I was completely taken by surprise by the LB's kiss, which I think is very indicative as to how well done it really was.

And that's why you don't do this shit in trailers, because unless you have greater context to lend it narrative justification and build up to something that typically necessitates aspects such as intimacy, it will come off as shoehorned and forced, and I for one don't appreciate having characters that are very well-written essentially relegated into empty shells to be used as nothing but the vessels for political and ideological capital. If I'm to be the enemy, the bigot, the homophobe, simply because I think Ellie deserves better than to be superficially exploited upon the altar of diversity and representation, then so be it. I, and every other person who takes issue with this exploitation, are in fact those who value her as a character who believes she deserves far better than to be the gutted ideological puppet of Druckmann and his cronies.

Spectacular post, man! I'm assuming when you say the kiss took you by surprise, you didn't mean the relationship did? I think the booth scene was probably the biggest clue to the two of them having repressed feelings about each other. That awkwardness was wonderfully done.

 

[PanzerAzel]

Spectacular post, man! I'm assuming when you say the kiss took you by surprise, you didn't mean the relationship did? I think the booth scene was probably the biggest clue to the two of them having repressed feelings about each other. That awkwardness was wonderfully done.

Thanks.

It was the nature of the relationship that surprised me, yes. I saw them as friends and up to that point I hadn't felt anything really tended past the platonic (plus Ellie looking at Bill's magazines made me suspect that she was a curious young girl taking interest in the opposite sex). The signals in the booth I just attributed to the awkwardness of youth being unfamiliar with their feelings in forming a very close relationship with another. I agree with you it was wonderfully done, and that's why I take exception to them focusing on this aspect of Ellie in the trailers. It overall cheapens her, because to focus on her orientation absent any grander context to justify it or show why it should matter lessens her into, again, a vessel to send a message, and not an individual who has real values, feelings, and desires.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Thanks.

It was the nature of the relationship that surprised me, yes. I saw them as friends and up to that point I hadn't felt anything really tended past the platonic (plus Ellie looking at Bill's magazines made me suspect that she was a curious young girl taking interest in the opposite sex). The signals in the booth I just attributed to the awkwardness of youth being unfamiliar with their feelings in forming a very close relationship with another. I agree with you it was wonderfully done, and that's why I take exception to them focusing on this aspect of Ellie in the trailers. It overall cheapens her, because to focus on her orientation absent any grander context to justify it or show why it should matter lessens her into, again, a vessel to send a message, and not an individual who has real values, feelings, and desires.

I had exactly the same reaction and I think many did. I want to see the full context though. That kiss could signify something different in the full context given that Ellie is infected and can pass it on, which was suggested in the scene she bit David. It's obvious from everything we've seen so far that nobody knows she's infected. The tattoo, wearing a mask, Dina asking if she's clean. There's even a scene that could be foreshadowing it in one of the trailers. Dina and Ellie are riding through the snow and talking about how they want to die. Listen to this closely:



Think about how heart wrenching that would be. So, yeah, I'm waiting for full context.

 

[Clear]

Spectacular post, man! I'm assuming when you say the kiss took you by surprise, you didn't mean the relationship did? I think the booth scene was probably the biggest clue to the two of them having repressed feelings about each other. That awkwardness was wonderfully done.

The problem is that when we get into the whole SJW vs Anti-SJW thing, we can find ourselves in company with people that we'd otherwise not wish to be associated with. If nothing else, this whole kerfuffle over TLOU2 has really brought that into sharp focus for me.

Speaking for myself, I'm antagonistic to the whole "woke" thing, not because I'm in disagreement with fundamental principles such as racial/gender equality, a desire to minimize oppression and marginalization, but because of the bullying, autocratic way they seek to achieve their goals.

I've written numerous posts excoriating Resetera and the hard-left Twitterati because I despise the inherent hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness of their tactics. That being said, I refuse to associate with their hard right-wing opposites out of convenience. There are plenty of these types, and just like their ideological opponents are looking to resurrect the dismal specter of GamerGate at any and every opportunity.

The point I'm making is that if you want to take on the "SJW agenda", you have to be extremely cognizant of the (rhetorical) company you keep and the arguments you choose to make your points in order to avoid getting their stink on you.

Its way too easy to find yourself on-side with actual bigots.

 

[vypper]

What i don't get about Neil is him criticizing other developers about how much they Sexualize female charactars to make them look appealing to the average straight male gamer, and how those charactars are role models which is weird because all the examples that he mentioned were from M rated games which kids are not supposed to consume anyway, but that's beside the point, what’s important is that he wish to do the female charactars Justice and make them appealing without referring to their sexuality which is good, but he didn't do that, instead he did the same thing as the other developers he criticised, the only difference is he made his character's sexuality appeal to the LGBT community,so what a took from all of this bullshit is :

-Making a female Charater sexuality appeal to straight men = BAD

-Making a female Charater sexuality appeal to LGBT community = GOOD

 

[GribbleGrunger]

The problem is that when we get into the whole SJW vs Anti-SJW thing, we can find ourselves in company with people that we'd otherwise not wish to be associated with. If nothing else, this whole kerfuffle over TLOU2 has really brought that into sharp focus for me.

Speaking for myself, I'm antagonistic to the whole "woke" thing, not because I'm in disagreement with fundamental principles such as racial/gender equality, a desire to minimize oppression and marginalization, but because of the bullying, autocratic way they seek to achieve their goals.

I've written numerous posts excoriating Resetera and the hard-left Twitterati because I despise the inherent hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness of their tactics. That being said, I refuse to associate with their hard right-wing opposites out of convenience. There are plenty of these types, and just like their ideological opponents are looking to resurrect the dismal specter of GamerGate at any and every opportunity.

The point I'm making is that if you want to take on the "SJW agenda", you have to be extremely cognizant of the (rhetorical) company you keep and the arguments you choose to make your points in order to avoid getting their stink on you.

Its way too easy to find yourself on-side with actual bigots.

I agree but you can't live your life trying to navigate between the two. Whether you 'find yourself in the company' of either extremes, the only focus should be honesty, integrity and transparency. I do take your point though. People will label you an ally or an enemy at the drop of a hat and won't take into consideration anything you've said in the past or consider context. It's already a difficult subject to discuss because it's nuanced. Add to that the wild misinterpretations and the whole discussion gets muddy. While I talk about narrative construction and its purpose, others just see me complaining about the kiss because that's part of the narrative construction.

The internet isn't a great place to encourage good conversation because it's simply one statement after another. This post for instance. You can't interject mid sentence in order to clarify the context before I continue explaining. I can't know I've constructed the discussion in a way that makes sure you know for certain exactly where I'm coming from because you can't interject. That's why Twitter, with its limited word number, is the WORSE social media on the internet.

 

[Clear]

I agree but you can't live your life trying to navigate between the two. Whether you 'find yourself in the company' of either extremes, the only focus should be honesty, integrity and transparency. I do take your point though. People will label you an ally or an enemy at the drop of a hat and won't take into consideration anything you've said in the past or consider context. It's already a difficult subject to discuss because it's nuanced. Add to that the wild misinterpretations and the whole discussion gets muddy. While I talk about narrative construction and its purpose, others just see me complaining about the kiss because that's part of the narrative construction.

The internet isn't a great place to encourage good conversation because it's simply one statement after another. This post for instance. You can't interject mid sentence in order to clarify the context before I continue explaining. I can't know I've constructed the discussion in a way that makes sure you know for certain exactly where I'm coming from because you can't interject. That's why Twitter, with its limited word number, is the WORSE social media on the internet.

I don't think its that hard (to navigate between the two), to me its less threading the needle than just avoiding taking short-cuts.

The impatience to effect change, and get that rush of gratification is what drives the excesses in my view. We need to make peace with the idea that an open-ended and not necessarily conclusive discussion is better and more useful than scoring points with argumentative "gotchas" and the like, because as you correctly say, this is a topic with a lot of nuance.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

I don't think its that hard (to navigate between the two), to me its less threading the needle than just avoiding taking short-cuts.

The impatience to effect change, and get that rush of gratification is what drives the excesses in my view. We need to make peace with the idea that an open-ended and not necessarily conclusive discussion is better and more useful than scoring points with argumentative "gotchas" and the like, because as you correctly say, this is a topic with a lot of nuance.

I'm in full agreement, man. I'm 62 and kinda over the trying to navigate process. It's frickin' exhausting sometimes. And thank you for this respectful conversation after yesterdays more heated chat. It tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[Clear]

I'm in full agreement, man. I'm 62 and kinda over the trying to navigate process. It's frickin' exhausting sometimes. And thank you for this respectful conversation after yesterdays more heated chat. It tells me all I need to know about you.

Likewise chap.

 

[Palantir]

You know how actors in Hollywood start buying into their own hype and think that they are the messengers for the people, so they start pushing extreme messages while patting themselves on the back?

I think that's what media creators are going through. This Neil Druckman guy thinks he's in a position of great power and must use great responsibility. He thinks he's a messenger for the youth and it's his duty to educate the gaming masses about the same malformed ideas other mind virus victims pushed onto him. And he'll pat himself on the back, and the sycophants around him will pat his back as well (after asking for consent first!).

It's not that some of this stuff is inherently wrong or has no place in gaming or anything like that. It's just that you can see right through why all of this is being pushed. It wasn't just some creative decision-making, it really started with, "How can I force some obscure representation into this project so I can be a good Ally™." And that shit is annoying and pandering.

This is EXACTLY the issue.

 

[PanzerAzel]

I had exactly the same reaction and I think many did. I want to see the full context though. That kiss could signify something different in the full context given that Ellie is infected and can pass it on, which was suggested in the scene she bit David. It's obvious from everything we've seen so far that nobody knows she's infected. The tattoo, wearing a mask, Dina asking if she's clean. There's even a scene that could be foreshadowing it in one of the trailers. Dina and Ellie are riding through the snow and talking about how they want to die. Listen to this closely:


Think about how heart wrenching that would be. So, yeah, I'm waiting for full context.

I’d like to watch that footage, but tbh aside from the main trailers I’ve made it a point to avoid extended gameplay footage to be able to go into the game as fresh as possible in that respect. It’s been difficult so far, don’t tempt me. Only one month to go.

Waiting for broader context is fair, but I tend to view any trailer that requires the full context of the game it’s advertising to justify its existence to frankly be a poorly executed trailer. Trailers should be able to stand firm on their own merits and not require something outside of them to retroactively validate what they show, micro context and the general gist should suffice, and they certainly shouldn’t leave an audience with a mistaken (negative) impression that hours of investment in the full experience is needed to rectify. An impression, in this instance, that has led to rampant speculation about the intent of the individuals behind its creation. That fact in and of itself warrants it a failure of a trailer in my book.

Aside, I’ve heard a few things in the leaks that cast possible doubt on your suspicions, but I can’t elaborate (even with spoiler tags) outside of leak threads as I don’t wish to get permabanned.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

I’d like to watch that footage, but tbh aside from the main trailers I’ve made it a point to avoid extended gameplay footage to be able to go into the game as fresh as possible in that respect. It’s been difficult so far, don’t tempt me. Only one month to go.

Waiting for broader context is fair, but I tend to view any trailer that requires the full context of the game it’s advertising to justify its existence to frankly be a poorly executed trailer. Trailers should be able to stand firm on their own merits and not require something outside of them to retroactively validate what they show, micro context and the general gist should suffice, and they certainly shouldn’t leave an audience with a mistaken (negative) impression that hours of investment in the full experience is needed to rectify. An impression, in this instance, that has led to rampant speculation about the intent of the individuals behind its creation. That fact in and of itself warrants it a failure of a trailer in my book.

Aside, I’ve heard a few things in the leaks that cast possible doubt on your suspicions, but I can’t elaborate (even with spoiler tags) outside of leak threads as I don’t wish to get permabanned.

That is EXACTLY why the trailer leapt out at me. The trailer could have begun with her stabbing a guy in the neck and ending with her decapitating a guy. That would have been enough. The fact it was book-ended with an ambiguous statement ('they should be terrified of you) was what jarred with me. THAT was what felt like an agenda more than just a set up to the scene.

If you're avoiding that trailer I posted for fear of spoilers, what on earth are you doing going into the spoiler thread?

 

[Bryank75]

What i don't get about Neil is him criticizing other developers about how much they Sexualize female charactars to make them look appealing to the average straight male gamer, and how those charactars are role models which is weird because all the examples that he mentioned were from M rated games which kids are not supposed to consume anyway, but that's beside the point, what’s important is that he wish to do the female charactars Justice and make them appealing without referring to their sexuality which is good, but he didn't do that, instead he did the same thing as the other developers he criticised, the only difference is he made his character's sexuality appeal to the LGBT community,so what a took from all of this bullshit is :

-Making a female Character sexuality appeal to straight men = BAD

-Making a female Character sexuality appeal to LGBT community = GOOD

It's easier to tell and artist to make a female character look butch than to leave a female character with her natural qualities that make her attractive and write a story for them that makes you connect on a deeper level and see beyond their body / shape.

The main thing I get from this whole saga is that these Californian developers don't understand that making characters ugly or more manly isn't changing perception.....

There are still loads of attractive women...everywhere. It's up to each individual to realize there is more value in others than their looks and shape. Dunno if I've made sense here, bit of a rant.

 

[PanzerAzel]

That is EXACTLY why the trailer leapt out at me. The trailer could have begun with her stabbing a guy in the neck and ending with her decapitating a guy. That would have been enough. The fact it was book-ended with an ambiguous statement ('they should be terrified of you) was what jarred with me. THAT was what felt like an agenda more than just a set up to the scene.

If you're avoiding that trailer I posted for fear of spoilers, what on earth are you doing going into the spoiler thread?

Because it's narrative vs. gameplay. I don't mind narrative spoilers (which the spoiler thread is predominantly focused upon), but as one who loves TLoU's gameplay, I'd rather not see any of it past their main trailers. They've given me enough to work with, and I've seen enough as is.