The Naughty Dog Agenda - RobinGaming

You can't impose anything on anyone because people can chose to not play your game. Which apparently you are unable to, since you think Nauthy Dog is coming to your home and forcing you to play TloU 2 at gun point.
The fact that you got that out of my argument only proves it. I'm sick of these kind of excuses as a way to justify forced representation.

But in terms of your other comment about being gay, it may or may not be political, but that's not the issue; it's certainly at least a social issue, and the issue is forcing gay characters on ones who were straight in past games. Totally not propaganda in any way, right?

Did they just tease it with one post on twitter? That's pretty normal in today culture that ships anything lol. It's even "worse" with boy/girl pairing, people automatically assume they are going to be a couple if they look eyes for 2 seconds.
Aren't ND taking it more seriously now? I don't want to act like I can see into their heads, but they're certainly embracing it.

It's easy to say this when you are white. It's funny though, because the second these polygons that are lead characters aren't white straight males, a "certain" collection of "gamers" get upset. I just wish more of some of the people in this thread would be more honest and stop the BS. One set of people want stories told to and by a wider audience of characters. Another set of people want the same narrow set of characters in their games. And there's a 3rd set of gamers that really could less either way and most of them aren't posting in this thread.
Yet another person who doesn't understand the point that propaganda is objectively wrong and should be discouraged.
 
Last edited:
First of all @1.21Gigawatts I enjoy thi conversation and this is what I would miss on reset era. Different opinions.

and now to some quotes

What the ACLU describes here (Hollywood blacklists etc.) is technically libel.
Suppressing speech as a non government entity is always a crime, at least in all the scenarios I can think of.
Nothing is easier today than to get things banned though social outrage. Be it video games be it articles from Walmart like the shirt with Impeeach Trump" etc. Government can do shit in this regard. Social Media is being used as a tool for censorship


least they're not hailing mentally challenged Youtubers as their idols.
No instead they are halling unprofessional "journalists" which push their agenda more than the actual truth. And do not accept AYNTHING than their own opinon .


You have a completely wrong understanding of my position. I don't want to "banish" anything.
I just want to be able, and I am, to call sexists sexists, racists racists and homophobes homophobes, as well as accurately categorize the respective content.
And here is another problem. Words like sexist and racist are being thrown around like free Candy on Karneval. Everything these days is racist and sexist. White people teaching Yoga? Racist. Wearing some T-shirt which was a present from his best female friend? Sexist. jokes like Tim Hunt did sexist and not only that the press not only lied to push an agenda they also left things out of their article to get him fired.

How did you get that from what I wrote?
I said lesbian romance wouldn't break Chloes characters, she might very well be bi.
I specifically said Ellie being bi is something I don't think would fit the character and I don't think NaughtyDog would want to do.
I never said a word about Nate or Sully. If you ask me Sully is a furry.
NO it would not but promoting this stuff in a very propaganda like way is not a good thing.
Mainstream, AAA, center stage.
Also, consider the history.
When the "Ballad of Gay Tony" released nobody complained that this characters sexuality was too on the nose. It was in the freaking title of the game.
But now that people have been incited by the anti-SJW crowd they are looking for shit to complain about.
BF5 got women fighting in WW2. Outrage. Zombies in COD are fine though.
The Last Of Us, a game tackling all kinds of mature themes, shows its female main character kissing a girl in a trailer. Outrage. An agenda is being forced down our throats.
Ballad of Gay Tony was not a gay character there we had a character who was gay. With Ellies friend right now or also in Bioware games you have gay characters. which is a huge step back of what Naughtydog didwith people like Bill for example. Bill was never a gay character Bill was always a character who also was gay. It was sublte it was human and it was not "Hey Joel good to see you again. Did you kow I am gay? Because I am gay" And you can litterally see which character in todays Bioware games is what and how they even follow a checklist pattern. HEre is the black character, here is the asian one, these are gay these are trans etc and you all can get this info in1 minute after talking to the person. This is not only bad writing but also pushing and forcing diversity. They are there because they are gay/trans etc.

Also just like you are being manipulated by the press with this BF5 matter. ALMOST NO ONE was angry befcause there were women in their video games. People were angry like it looked like bad Michael Bay movie in a fictional War setting. And honestly I think it was fucking insulting for all the women who did participate in this WAR. If you wanted to go back to the basic what Dice wanted to do with this WW2 game and then you basically make WW2 some fictional Steam Punk setting than of course people get mad at it.





But of course the usual suspects made it a sexism issue when it never was one.......


Like, I feel that the accusation requires much more evidence than "the trailer didn't do it for me = proof that NaughtyDog let a political agenda ruin their art".
RobinGaming, from what I understood in the very brief Twitter conversation we had, wanted to bolster the accusation through the sheer mass of individual pieces of evidence, but he then quickly drifted off into dissecting the private Twitter accounts of NaughtyDog employees and contractors as well as pulling pieces of interviews and talks of ND staff. Pretty much by the books confirmation bias stuff, because he still completely forgot to connect all causally to the trailer.
Neil Druckmann likes Anita Sarkeesian and ND staff shared Chlodine fanart on Twitter, which in connection with the recent trailers depiction of a lesbian kiss is reason for concern about NaughtyDog attempting to force an agenda down our throats even at the cost of the quality of their game.

Come one...this is absurd!
I noticed this agenda the first time I played 4 with Nadine which was an incredible boring character. Nadine was basically a Mary Sue Character. She had no flaws at all while men are rather all were acting very stupid. The typical feminist chliche Trope. I also never bought Lost legacy because of her.

Would you call parliaments echo chambers? Or universities? Because they also ban offensive speech and value inclusivity.
I think its a way to ensure civil and constructive debate. And as I said, many industry figures seem to value it and the size of the community also speaks for itself. They can't be too wrong.

But lets stick to the topic at hand.
Yes Universities have become echo chambers. And you can read about it even in the NEw York Times and other more objektive publications. It is insane how Universites now pandering like it is a SAFE space from Opinions. NO IT IS NOT. A University is a place to challenge your views and not to brainwash you with false statistics aka Gender Studies. Universitzies are not your home or safe space from Opinions.

Well, if there is outrage(strong reaction) about a lesbian kiss in a trailer(banality) without a rational, reasonable explanation for the outrage, I have to conclude that its based on different perception. And what causes perception of a lesbian kiss to lead to such strong reactions?
Latent sexism and homophobia.
We've seen similar patterns before when social progress exposed bigotry. Remember reactions to interracial relationships in media back in the day?
We are all super tolerant as long as it isn't tested. In Germany we currently see that with the refugee crisis. We thought we had moved past racist, fear based behavior, because it wasn't tested in decades. But now that people are confronted with refugees the ugly face of racism quickly shows itself again. Going so far that a party that proposed shooting people at the border as a solution to the refugee crisis, got 13% of the votes in the last election.
I don't think these people realize they are racist. They think they're action rational, they think their fears are valid and their aversion justified. And obviously confirmation bias kicks in, so information will be selected based on whether or not it is in line with people preconceived positions.

And I think with this topic, things are very similar.
And you again do not understand the refugee problem and how mass immigration changes a whole country and cuases a lot of problems. So I will not further go into this topic.


And yes, indicating that prime time, center stage lesbian romance is just an "agenda" thats "forced down peoples throats" and "tokenism" is offensive to people, especially to people who for the first time now have a protagonist in a huge mainstream AAA game to really identify with, who really represents them.
Just watch some of the trailer reactions on Youtube to get a grasp of how much this means to many people.
Having people coming along shitting on that with their crude nonsense about SJW agendas and concern about artistic purity or whatever... thats disrespectful, its not a discussion worth having.
This may sound hypocritical, since I am just having this discussion, but I am not here because I want an open ended debate or because I think someone could change my mind. I am here because I think that no one properly argued why RobinGaming doesn't have a point, so I wanted to give that input. I am also here because I wanted to see some of the mental gymnastics people perform in order to somehow justify being outraged about a game developer making use of their artistic freedom.
In the Youtube comment section that wouldn't have worked, because people don't even feel the need to present even an argument that resembles some form of logical coherence.
But even here on GAF, what I saw mostly was some form of entitlement("How dare they push the story in a direction that might not align with MY interests on first sight? Damn SJW agenda!") or people trying to connect all kinds of unrelated things, like Chloe from UC4, ND staff tweets, Neil Druckmanns personal opinions, into some kind of conspiracy theory that supposedly shows that NaughtyDog is pushing an agenda and sacrifices quality for it. Overall: Not impressed.
Again another great accomplishment by Anita who destroyed any form of ability to discuss these issues. This whole think fucked me so up that I when I see a strong female character now I think about how it does fit in the tropish feminist chatacter sheme. And that is a huge problem for me. The point is that men in games can be absolute evrything. The moment a female character is anything beside strong and independent they are being called out by the so called press. HELL women artists are not even be able to draw sexy characters anymore because of "sexism"


Meanwhile Japanese Media has the mot diverse and intersting collections of female characters in the World. Because In Japan women can be everything. According to Anita women can not even be shy.


Not all opinions are equally valid.
Gamergate for example is a completely and utterly worthless movement from an intellectual standpoint. Its add nothing and just creates trouble and hurts people.
Who is the one who decides what is valid and what not? This kind of thinking can be very very dangerous. And as for Gamergate I was part of it I never harassed anyone I never talked to people harassing anyone. Disagreeing with people on Social media is not harassment.

Also I think of modern feminism the same as you think of Gamergate so who is right here? Only difference I would never forbid these opinions I would go against them but I never wants to silence people no matter how stupid their thoughts are.
 
Last edited:
The fact that you got that out of my argument only proves it. I'm sick of these kind of excuses as a way to justify forced representation.
You argument doesn't make any sense. You still haven't told me how you are going to "force" anything on me. I'm waiting. Better yet. Write a book. Or show a me a book you think agrees with you politically Then force it on me.

There is nothing "forced" about Ellie being lesbian, by the way.

But in terms of your other comment about being gay, it may or may not be political, but that's not the issue; it's certainly at least a social issue,
Pretty much everything can be a social issue. Even black main characters used to be (are?) a social issues in some countries/places. I'm not sure why ND or anyone else should care people can't deal with homosexuality.

What propaganda anyway? They are going to turn our children gay?

and the issue is forcing gay characters on ones who were straight in past games. Totally not propaganda in any way, right?
Ellie was a lesbian in TloU (Or rather the DLC reveals she was a lesbian, the main game doesn't touch her sexuality). Nothing is forced. There are only two official gay characters in ND games, Ellie and Bill (I'm not going to include Ellie's girlfriend since we don't know much about her personality yet other than what the trailer showed us).
 
Last edited:
In her recent timeline she obviously has a huge hate on for Jordan Peterson, adores Justin Trudeau and talks about "fedoras" and "incels".

I could research more, but just with that I'm pretty sure she is a feminist.
Nah, it says on her website she's a humanist. Apparently she's trying to "spread science and humanism through manga" lol. Seems pretty cool.
 
Pretty much everything can be a social issue. Even black main characters used to (are?) a social issues in some countries/places. I'm not sure why ND or anyone else should care people can't deal with homosexuality.

What propaganda anyway? They are going to turn our children gay?
Let me quote the guy who was handpicked by Naughty DOG for a role in Last of US 2. I will spare you his racist and sexist remarks toward white people. Again Hanpicked by a so called progressive Studio.

"STRAIGHT! IS! NOT! THE! DEFAULT! SEXUALITY!"

Yes it fucking is this is how biology works without this norm we would have huge probelms.
 
Last edited:
Let me quote the guy who was handpicked by Naughty DOG for a role in Last of US 2. I will spare you his racist and sexist remarks toward white people. Again Hanpicked by a so called progressive Studio.

"STRAIGHT! IS! NOT! THE! DEFAULT! SEXUALITY!"

Yes it fucking is this is how biology works without this norm we would have huge probelms.
What dude? Is he a writer? Do you have a link to the actual post or...?

Nothing wrong with that post. People need to stop assuming every character is automatically straight and every time a character is presented as homosexual (Like Ellie) they start to harp and rant how that's "forced" and "virtue signaling". Yes, most people are straight, but it doesn't mean minorities are some rare unicorns that only exist when you deemed them necessary.

It's like saying because people ahve black hair, black hair should be the default in society.
 
Last edited:
What dude? Is he a writer? Do you have a link to the actual post or...?

Nothing wrong with that post. People need to stop assuming every character is automatically straight and every time a character is presented as homosexual (Like Ellie) they start to harp and rant how that's "forced" and "virtue signaling". Yes, most people are straight, but it doesn't mean minorities are some rare unicorns that only exist when you deemed them necessary.
Again he was handpicked (Not even an audition) to play a role in Last of US 2 His name is Ian Alexander and he is also in the video you probably never watched while posting in a thread about this video.

And yes there is something wrong with it because again if straight was not the default sexuality in the world humanity would have HUGE problems. IT is one thing to accept homosexuality and then there is another which denys biology completely
 
Last edited:
Of course, the "loud minority" excuse always prevail.
I'm trying to engage with you but I wish you'd be a little more clear about the point you're trying to make. What's the "excuse"? Am I making an excuse for something? Who is prevailing? Feminists? And if so, how? Please clarify.

Well one was a TIME top 100 person of the year and the other wasn't. One has been relentlessly promoted by every outlet under the sun and the other hasn't.

Let's not pretend like he doesn't have a point in that regard. Anita's brand of feminism is far and away more popular than Sara's.

Sara's view is more popularly shared among just average not sexist people.
I guess that's on me because I honestly didn't understand the point and how it countered what I was saying. I only quoted Sara because I happened to agree with her and it was one of many comments disagreeing with the original tweet. I didn't mean to imply that she was also famous.

I also think "average not sexist people" are more prevalent - that's my whole point. Anita was lightning rod - she wanted to make videos about tropes and got death threats. I'm going to go ahead and assume (realize I could be wrong) that her making Time's list was about more than her worldview, and had she simply just made a few internet videos she would not have gotten nearly as much notoriety.

In my opinion, society is simply moving in the direction where a lot of us want more diverse stories, and part of getting there is examining how we tell stories currently - Naughty Dog's story telling and the existence of Anita are products of this shift. I certainly don't agree with a lot of Anita's stuff but at the same time I think it's valuable as a learning tool regardless of if you agree.
 
Again he was handpicked (Not even an audition) to play a role in Last of US 2 His name is Ian Alexander and he is also in the video you probably never watched while posting in a thread about this video.
A lot of assumptions here. I could have watched it, but skipped some parts. I could have watched half of it. I could have simply forgot since it's a 20 minutes videos ranting about agendas. I'll let you decide since you are pretty big on strawmanning.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to engage with you but I wish you'd be a little more clear about the point you're trying to make. What's the "excuse"? Am I making an excuse for something? Who is prevailing? Feminists? And if so, how? Please clarify.
It's very typical of feminists to retort to the No true scotchman fallacy and similar fallacies.

When some feminist or feminists do or say something stupid, the auto imposed "real" feminists say they are not "real" feminists.

The old "loud minority" fallacy that somehow only the small bad side of feminism reaches to the surface it's just a variant of that.
 
A lot of assumptions here. I could have watched it, but skipped some parts. I could have watched half of it. I could have simply forgot since it's a 20 minutes videos ranting about agendas. I'll let you decide since you are pretty big on strawmanning.
Assumptions? Of that Straight is the default sexuality? REALLY?

Also Sicne you are in a thread which actually talks about a video you should have seen to make your opinion "valid" I will help you to get up to date. Also why not be honest of how much or even if you have watched it at all. You know honesty would help pretty much in discussions.


Here even with Timestamp.
 
Anita was lightning rod - she wanted to make videos about tropes and got death threats.
Almost everybody that has used the internet has received death threats. Stop acting like Anita is this heroic figure, because she is just a misandrist that wanted to use a very popular field of entertainment -of which she didn't know almost anything- as an excuse to vent his rage against males. And she won a lot of money with it.

All this feminists and SJW suddenly caring so much about videogames and geek culture -now that geek culture is popular and sexy, obviously- is because they associate that culture with males -ugh- and therefore want to put their noses in it just for the attention.

Do you think Anita cares at all about videogames?
 
I believe that videogames, at best, are commercial art. Especially AAA games. If ND should have an agenda, it should be to appeal to the widest demographic possible, in my opinion. I have heard on various podcasts and seen written in articles that because I don't like gay literature, my business is not wanted. More and more I am seeing this attitude by people who produce things that I enjoy. This message board used to have this attitude, so I rarely posted.
I really like most of your comment and willingness to open up a bit. Definitely agree that talking face to face is really important. No one likes to be told they're a bad person and I'm sorry it has happened to you as you certainly don't seem to be. However I do want to touch on the above excerpt.

I really don't agree with this. As someone who loves movies as well (I need to watch Love and Death on Long Island now - especially because of John Hurt), I also really want video games to move me. Not all of them, I love Mario Kart and Rock Band and Doom (obviously) and all that but to say that Naught Dog "should" aim appeal to the widest demographic possible is a huge bummer for me to think about. Should every developer do this? No Spec Ops, no Journey, no Witness. If you don't like those games that's perfectly fine. But not wanting them around at all is depressing to me.

Also, to be honest, I think if you say to someone that you don't like gay literature and you're being met with "you're a bigot" then I think you can safely say that person is not worth your time. I don't think normal, rational people would criticize you for that. However, if someone is talking about Last of Us and you say "i don't like gay stories" then I can see you being met with a raised eyebrow. Not wanting to read a story about homosexuality is fair, not wanting to read a story that has a gay character is different to me. Though I'll agree the line is muddy.
 
Not all opinions are equally valid.
Gamergate for example is a completely and utterly worthless movement from an intellectual standpoint. Its add nothing and just creates trouble and hurts people.
I disagree there friend. All opinion are equally valid as long as they are articulated in some semblance of logic. That's all you need in a forum and of course civility between members and I don't mean that loosely like anything is an attack to my well being. I mean obvious harsher stuff like calling someone a motherfucker for no reason, or using the N-word gratuitously despite the presence of people who might be annoyed by that.

And I also disagree about Gamergate. In a weird way it reminds me a lot of Anita's videos, it's mostly idiotic and the few good points it did stumble into were mostly by association rather than anything else. However both generated conversations and no conversation is worthless, people doing the talking are what fuck it up and do the silly shit like threatening someone or trying to get fools fired over unrelated shit they twitted out 6 years earlier. The ideas are fine to be debated, it won't cause your asshole to explode most of the time. It definitely sounds like you have some authoritarian inclinations there and I do not share those. Just don't kid yourself thinking that banning talk about stuff out of "intellectual validity" or it being "offensive speech" doesn't generate an echo chamber. It does. If you want that, that's fine, we all want weird kinky stuff. But know it is what it is.
 
No need to be sorry, dude. Presenting more accurate information is a good thing. I do wonder why the constant mentions of humanism, then.

But also who really cares lol. Already spent too much time looking into a random ass person lol.

I
I guess that's on me because I honestly didn't understand the point and how it countered what I was saying. I only quoted Sara because I happened to agree with her and it was one of many comments disagreeing with the original tweet. I didn't mean to imply that she was also famous.
I appreciate where you're coming from, man. But what I'm saying is that the "there's no such thing as sexism against men" line is super common feminist thought currently. Any feminist or far left community you go to and you'll see it constantly. And I think it's telling that possibly the most prominent, public facing, feminist of the last decade has that to say. All the most popular ones do as far as I know. Except the pariah like Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers. They're fairly popular but not accepted.

I understand if you identify as a feminist and feel those beliefs don't represent you. But it looks like the mainstream, not the fringe, to me.
 
Last edited:
Okay... you're coming in hot so I guess here we go...

Almost everybody that has used the internet has received death threats.
This is ridiculous and I hope you know it - do you seriously think that the death threats she got are the same as the ones you or I get when we're playing games online. You're either bad at evaluating equivalencies or you're trying to be inflammatory.

Stop acting like Anita is this heroic figure, because she is just a misandrist that wanted to use a very popular field of entertainment?
Literally never said that. I'm not acting like anything and I don't think she's a hero. At best I said that I agreed with some of the things she's said. Some. Because in some of her videos she simply points out tropes. What I mostly said was that she should be allowed to say it.

I guess suggesting that maybe she shouldn't have gotten so many death threats means I think she's a hero?

All this feminists and SJW suddenly caring so much about videogames and geek culture -now that geek culture is popular and sexy, obviously- is because they associate that culture with males -ugh- and therefore want to put their noses in it just for the attention.
Or, and hear me out, is it possible that maybe they (or at least most of them) cared the whole time? Also, you're not the gatekeeper. I'm sorry if you think that all these feminists and SJWs are faking interest in nerd culture simply because they associate it with males (does that imply that they're all women or gay men?) - that's either really pessimistic or really conceited. Or it's just both.

So is there anything here you want to misrepresent and then build into a straw man?
 
No need to be sorry, dude. Presenting more accurate information is a good thing. I do wonder why the constant mentions of humanism, then.
I mean... she can be both.

I appreciate where you're coming from, man. But what I'm saying is that the "there's no such thing as sexism against men" line is super common feminist thought currently. Any feminist or far left community you go to and you'll see it constantly. And I think it's telling that possibly the most prominent, public facing, feminist of the last decade has that to say. All the most popular ones do as far as I know. Except the pariah like Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers. They're fairly popular but not accepted.

I understand if you identify as a feminist and feel those beliefs don't represent you. But it looks like the mainstream, not the fringe, to me.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because getting down into anecdotal arguments probably won't be too productive for either one of us. In my experience, it hasn't been as common for me as it has for you. I do think it's the most noticeable though. I also know that most of the people I've met and hang out with would absolutely not agree that "there's no such thing as sexism against men" and I hang out with some pretty progressive people. And I'd argue that Anita is the most prominent, public facing feminist within the video game sphere. And, for the record, I don't think that's a good thing.

Appreciate the level-headed discussion though.
 
This is ridiculous and I hope you know it - do you seriously think that the death threats she got are the same as the ones you or I get when we're playing games online. You're either bad at evaluating equivalencies or you're trying to be inflammatory.
The same as an ordinary person? Obviously not, but basically because ordinary people don't go into a medium followed by millions of fans and start calling them names.

But she even appeared in the UN and some media were calling her a "survivor". Don't make me laugh.

Literally never said that. I'm not acting like anything and I don't think she's a hero. At best I said that I agreed with some of the things she's said. Some. Because in some of her videos she simply points out tropes. What I mostly said was that she should be allowed to say it.

I guess suggesting that maybe she shouldn't have gotten so many death threats means I think she's a hero?
Maybe you don't treat her like a hero, it was more of a general statement for those that do treat her like a hero.

Or, and hear me out, is it possible that maybe they (or at least most of them) cared the whole time?
No, it's not possible because they were never there the whole time. Most of them have simply jumped on the bandwagoon because it's a medium that gives them a lot of attention. And Anita is a clear example of it.

Also, you're not the gatekeeper. I'm sorry if you think that all these feminists and SJWs are faking interest in nerd culture simply because they associate it with males (does that imply that they're all women or gay men?) - that's either really pessimistic or really conceited.
I'm not the gatekeeper but I have a voice, and when I see a medium I love being used by feminists and SJW just to drive their agenda and gain attention, I'm going to call them out, you like it or not.
 
Assumptions? Of that Straight is the default sexuality? REALLY?
That's not what I said. Re-read the message.

Also what the hell is a "default" sexuality. People are straight, gay or bi. yes, straight people is the majority, no one doubts it. But it's not like someone chose his sexuality. It's like saying right-handed people are the default humans. I find it utterly bizarre.

Also Sicne you are in a thread which actually talks about a video you should have seen to make your opinion "valid" I will help you to get up to date. Also why not be honest of how much or even if you have watched it at all. You know honesty would help pretty much in discussions.
I could tell you "I watchted it all", but would it really matter? I could be lying, for what you know.
 
I'm myself neither is gay, bisexual or transgender but I have no problem with this because playing as gay character is no different than playing female or male, at end of day the actual characters matters not their sexual preference. I guess shouldn't like games like NieR Automata because it about Androids and clearly not an android.
Heh, weird, actually one of the reasons I stopped playing Nier was because I just did not care for the fact that all characters were androids. :cool:

Yes, it actually bothered me.
 
I really like most of your comment and willingness to open up a bit. Definitely agree that talking face to face is really important. No one likes to be told they're a bad person and I'm sorry it has happened to you as you certainly don't seem to be. However I do want to touch on the above excerpt.

I really don't agree with this. As someone who loves movies as well (I need to watch Love and Death on Long Island now - especially because of John Hurt), I also really want video games to move me. Not all of them, I love Mario Kart and Rock Band and Doom (obviously) and all that but to say that Naught Dog "should" aim appeal to the widest demographic possible is a huge bummer for me to think about. Should every developer do this? No Spec Ops, no Journey, no Witness. If you don't like those games that's perfectly fine. But not wanting them around at all is depressing to me.

Also, to be honest, I think if you say to someone that you don't like gay literature and you're being met with "you're a bigot" then I think you can safely say that person is not worth your time. I don't think normal, rational people would criticize you for that. However, if someone is talking about Last of Us and you say "i don't like gay stories" then I can see you being met with a raised eyebrow. Not wanting to read a story about homosexuality is fair, not wanting to read a story that has a gay character is different to me. Though I'll agree the line is muddy.
That's the trick of it though. The works I wrote about have gay subject matter, but the themes were something I could relate to. I could look past the subject matter and enjoy the themes. (Check out "Gods and Monsters" too, if you haven't, another gay subject matter with relateable themes.) That is what a good movie, or story or game does. It let's the largest demographic enjoy the work. We "know" Ellie, we don't know this new girl character. All we have is a very intimate moment between these two characters, juxtaposed with extreme scenes of violence. As a man, a not gay man, it looks weird to me to see a young lady acting like I would. It's a bridge too far for me. It's something I have a hard time finding believable. Does this make me hateful? Ignorant?

Back when I first saw "Star Wars" (no episode IV, that's how old I am), I wanted Princess Leia to marry me. She was tough and smart and still feminine. I have always been attracted to strong women. I married one, but make no mistake she is definitely a woman first. I am raising a daughter right now. I think it is my duty to show her how a man needs to treat her. I want to be the measuring stick with which she judges all men in her life. That, I think, is the most important lesson I can give to her. Her mother can help her with the "girly" things that I have no clue about. I show her how to take a painful blow, by example of course. If she hits her head on something, I don't let her dwell on the pain. "Walk it off," I'll tell her. I'll rub her sore spot with my palm and tell her it doesn't hurt. I don't fall to the ground and start bawling when I get hurt. I take it. Life is hard sometimes, you need to be able to stand it. These to me are things men think. My wife will coddle and sooth. That is the way a woman thinks......

Is this wrong to think this way? I think this is the heart of the issue. Am I "old fashioned"? Because I still believe in "Truth, Justice and the American Way", am I a fool? I want my heroes to be brave and strong and incorruptible. I need ideals to strive towards. Chuck Jones wrote in his book, "Chuck Amuck", that Bugs Bunny was aspiration and Daffy Duck was realization. We wanted to be like Bugs but saw ourselves in Daffy.

Anyway, I think how I see things is probably close to how others who have a problem with this see them too. We are so afraid now to say them because of a backlash that we couch in words like "agenda" and "SJW". To be clear, gay works can be too foreign to be relate able, unless the themes are strong. The director of the game seems to want the subject matter to be too far for some of us to take, despite the themes.
 
Posting my opinion.

As soon as I read the title, I kind of had an idea of what to expect. I disagreed from the start in the case of this game. As I watched the trailer, I was already wondering if there is something between the two girls because I felt an attraction there. When the kiss happened, I wasn't surprised that it happened. I felt happy that something did happen between them. Felt like the moment where you scream "kiss her already" in the movies. It felt authentic. I agree that these kind of situations can feel forced and that happens because the people writing have little to no experience writing about these topics (normally.)

I thought TLoU2 was a great showcase for character development in games. I suddenly cared about Elle and why she's doing all this. I did not care about her sexual preference.
 
Last edited:
Posting my opinion.

As soon as I read the title, I kind of had an idea of what to expect. I disagreed from the start in the case of this game. As I watched the trailer, I was already wondering if there is something between the two girls because I felt an attraction there. When the kiss happened, I wasn't surprised that it happened. I felt happy that something did happen between them. Felt like the moment where you scream "kiss her already" in the movies. It felt authentic. I agree that these kind of situations can feel forced and that happens because the people writing are this have little to no experience writing about these topics (normally.)

I thought this was a TLoU2 was a great showcase for character development in games. I suddenly cared about Elle and why she's doing all this.
I think you're right, due to Ellie wearing something of the girls where she's fighting in the next scene. I think it was a bracelet or something or other, which could potentially indicate the other girl getting killed hence why the kissing scene is actually quite relevant. Had Ellie not been revealed as gay in the original DLC, or bi at least ( I can't remember if it's been specifically stated that she is 100% gay, although I think this is the case), then the kissing scene might have been a bit out of place if it was the first glimpse into her sexuality and a game play reveal.

I think what concerns a lot of people is the way Druckmann has spoken about his agenda, his involvement with Anita Sarkeesian (who has said some blanket statements and made questionable, even bigoted public tweets), together with some of the quite childish online behavior of some people involved with the game. That's certainly the impression I got from the video, and from this thread.
 
That is what a good movie, or story or game does. It let's the largest demographic enjoy the work. We "know" Ellie, we don't know this new girl character. All we have is a very intimate moment between these two characters, juxtaposed with extreme scenes of violence. As a man, a not gay man, it looks weird to me to see a young lady acting like I would. It's a bridge too far for me. It's something I have a hard time finding believable. Does this make me hateful? Ignorant?
I guess I want to call out right up front that there is quite a bit of personal preference in your comment. I don't think any of it makes you a fool but it's just preference. I mean I like my heroes to be "brave and strong and incorruptible" but I also occasionally like moral ambiguity and/or heroes who make mistakes. I like Superman and I also like Spider-Man.

Regarding the above quote: Really trying to come with you but I can't tell what you mean by "it looks weird to me to see a young lady acting like i would" but then "it's a bridge too far for me." Is acting like you would referring to kissing a girl? Is the "bridge too far" the violence?

Am I wrong to think that statement might be connected to this: "She was tough and smart and still feminine. I have always been attracted to strong women. I married one, but make no mistake she is definitely a woman first"? Sorry I just can't tell if your discussion of femininity and "bridge too far" is about the violence not being feminine or the girl kissing a girl not being (straight) feminine.

The rest of your comment seems to be you defending how you're raising your daughter - you being the "walk it off" masculine dad type and your wife being the "coddle and sooth" feminine type because that's the way men/women think. Not sure I can really weigh in here - whatever works for you and your wife.
 
That's not what I said. Re-read the message.

Also what the hell is a "default" sexuality. People are straight, gay or bi. yes, straight people is the majority, no one doubts it. But it's not like someone chose his sexuality. It's like saying right-handed people are the default humans. I find it utterly bizarre.


I could tell you "I watchted it all", but would it really matter? I could be lying, for what you know.
Straight is the default sexuality because of sexual reproduction. This is how the world works. That is called biology. I can not even beleive I have to tell that someone...

And yes you could tell me anything and I would believe you because I when I talk to someone I will not hold him down or make his opinion use less because of his race, gender etc. Everyone has a opinion and in the begining I treat everyone's opinion the same. So why don't we start with honesty and go from there?
 
Let's go a bit deeper. I saw the trailer only once, during E3, and never revisited it. It was more to me than just kissing a girl, from what I remember. It was smelling, and sensual and primal to me. One seemed, I think Ellie, more masculine. Maybe it was because she was doing the fighting, I don't know. When I think of the things that Ellie was doing, it just seemed silly coming from a little girl, barely older than my daughter. The disconnect was too great. Just so I'm clear, the whole of the trailer lost me after it was over. It seemed too over the top. Maybe it was the realism of it. It looked to good for it to seem real.

I am not defending anything, but I am making my posts more personal and honest. It is very deliberate. I want you to take the full measure of who I am. I don't like the term SJW and don't use it. I don't believe that "Justice" is what the brown-shirts are after. "Politically Correct" is another term I dislike. I don't believe they ARE correct. "Politically Controlling" is more accurate. I think these things and yet can have a reasonable discussion with you and others. 1.21 Gigawatts, earlier in this thread, wrote that he wants to understand what makes someone like me think the way I do. I am speaking to him and others like him, too.

There was a show on HBO about gay men living in San Francisco. I don't know the name of it. A buddy of mine was a costumer/prop guy on that show. I stayed up with him one night helping him put the costumes together for the Halloween episode. One was dressed like He-Man and another like a Hobbit. I glued the fur on the fake hobbit feet. If you watched the show, I helped on it. I was happy to do it! In fact, I didn't do much, but I'm proud of what I did. If you watched it, maybe you thought the costumes were cool.

Think on it.
 
Posting my opinion.

As soon as I read the title, I kind of had an idea of what to expect. I disagreed from the start in the case of this game. As I watched the trailer, I was already wondering if there is something between the two girls because I felt an attraction there. When the kiss happened, I wasn't surprised that it happened. I felt happy that something did happen between them. Felt like the moment where you scream "kiss her already" in the movies. It felt authentic. I agree that these kind of situations can feel forced and that happens because the people writing have little to no experience writing about these topics (normally.)

I thought TLoU2 was a great showcase for character development in games. I suddenly cared about Elle and why she's doing all this. I did not care about her sexual preference.
here is the point. The kiss itself was not something that did annoy me. For me it was showing how Ellie’s changed after something did happen and yes I still think her girlfriend gets fridged. For me it is all together not a single thing like the kids.
 
First of all @1.21Gigawatts I enjoy thi conversation and this is what I would miss on reset era. Different opinions.

and now to some quotes


Nothing is easier today than to get things banned though social outrage. Be it video games be it articles from Walmart like the shirt with Impeeach Trump" etc. Government can do shit in this regard. Social Media is being used as a tool for censorship



No instead they are halling unprofessional "journalists" which push their agenda more than the actual truth. And do not accept AYNTHING than their own opinon .




And here is another problem. Words like sexist and racist are being thrown around like free Candy on Karneval. Everything these days is racist and sexist. White people teaching Yoga? Racist. Wearing some T-shirt which was a present from his best female friend? Sexist. jokes like Tim Hunt did sexist and not only that the press not only lied to push an agenda they also left things out of their article to get him fired.



NO it would not but promoting this stuff in a very propaganda like way is not a good thing.


Ballad of Gay Tony was not a gay character there we had a character who was gay. With Ellies friend right now or also in Bioware games you have gay characters. which is a huge step back of what Naughtydog didwith people like Bill for example. Bill was never a gay character Bill was always a character who also was gay. It was sublte it was human and it was not "Hey Joel good to see you again. Did you kow I am gay? Because I am gay" And you can litterally see which character in todays Bioware games is what and how they even follow a checklist pattern. HEre is the black character, here is the asian one, these are gay these are trans etc and you all can get this info in1 minute after talking to the person. This is not only bad writing but also pushing and forcing diversity. They are there because they are gay/trans etc.

Also just like you are being manipulated by the press with this BF5 matter. ALMOST NO ONE was angry befcause there were women in their video games. People were angry like it looked like bad Michael Bay movie in a fictional War setting. And honestly I think it was fucking insulting for all the women who did participate in this WAR. If you wanted to go back to the basic what Dice wanted to do with this WW2 game and then you basically make WW2 some fictional Steam Punk setting than of course people get mad at it.





But of course the usual suspects made it a sexism issue when it never was one.......




I noticed this agenda the first time I played 4 with Nadine which was an incredible boring character. Nadine was basically a Mary Sue Character. She had no flaws at all while men are rather all were acting very stupid. The typical feminist chliche Trope. I also never bought Lost legacy because of her.



Yes Universities have become echo chambers. And you can read about it even in the NEw York Times and other more objektive publications. It is insane how Universites now pandering like it is a SAFE space from Opinions. NO IT IS NOT. A University is a place to challenge your views and not to brainwash you with false statistics aka Gender Studies. Universitzies are not your home or safe space from Opinions.



And you again do not understand the refugee problem and how mass immigration changes a whole country and cuases a lot of problems. So I will not further go into this topic.



Again another great accomplishment by Anita who destroyed any form of ability to discuss these issues. This whole think fucked me so up that I when I see a strong female character now I think about how it does fit in the tropish feminist chatacter sheme. And that is a huge problem for me. The point is that men in games can be absolute evrything. The moment a female character is anything beside strong and independent they are being called out by the so called press. HELL women artists are not even be able to draw sexy characters anymore because of "sexism"


Meanwhile Japanese Media has the mot diverse and intersting collections of female characters in the World. Because In Japan women can be everything. According to Anita women can not even be shy.


Who is the one who decides what is valid and what not? This kind of thinking can be very very dangerous. And as for Gamergate I was part of it I never harassed anyone I never talked to people harassing anyone. Disagreeing with people on Social media is not harassment.

Also I think of modern feminism the same as you think of Gamergate so who is right here? Only difference I would never forbid these opinions I would go against them but I never wants to silence people no matter how stupid their thoughts are.

"With Ellies friend right now or also in Bioware games you have gay characters. which is a huge step back of what Naughtydog didwith people like Bill for example. Bill was never a gay character Bill was always a character who also was gay. It was sublte it was human and it was not "Hey Joel good to see you again. Did you kow I am gay? Because I am gay""

Extremely subjective though, who is saying this in the game btw? I'm not even understanding this whole "subtle" thing either, some people are open about being gay, some are not.

Have you seriously not considered that the character Ellie is NOW, is more open because she has seen so much death? She doesn't want to hide, she wants to live in the moment. It would be like if you had a straight character in game 1 try to start a relationship but they are shy about having their heartbroken, then in game 2, they've seen death, they've lost friends, they now hold their hearts on their shoulders and are not afraid to dance, kiss in public, say I love you out loud etc.

You are not talking about something "forced" you are simply talking about a character more open about who they are, that happens in real life, why would that NOT happen in a game referenced from humans that live on earth? So unless you can read minds, I don't think you really know if any team is really creating characters like some "checklist". I'd argue, to have that point only prove SJW's correct when you REALLY thing about, they claimed the industry had some forceful agenda to place white males in games....

Sooooooo to say this "checklist" exist, is actually to agree with SJW's that some "agenda" exist to place characters in a game based on demographic regardless of quality. From where I stand, you basically are a SJW, simply against a different demographic. Same "theories" lol

Either way, developers choice. They can have any demographic as "subtle" or as LOUD and in your face as they feel like it.

I mean....do we NOT have people like that in real life?
 
I'm not even sure what's the agenda is in TloU 2? Lesbians exist and they can be main characters for AAA games too?
Can we please, like, not play stupid here? Weather you like it or not, they knew this was controversial and opened the Sony PC for a reason with this particular scene. They didn't even bother to make a proper connection to the gameplay that followed afterwards. If that is not the definition of an agenda, than I do not know what is. ND knew exactly what they were doing and to play in any way surprised about the reaction is not only laughable but insulting to anyone. It's also the reason why I decided to not to buy any of their games any more. I have never and would never say bad things to a gay person and I have never been against gay rights but this kind of communication is just wrong.
 
Can we please, like, not play stupid here? Weather you like it or not, they knew this was controversial and opened the Sony PC for a reason with this particular scene. They didn't even bother to make a proper connection to the gameplay that followed afterwards. If that is not the definition of an agenda, than I do not know what is. ND knew exactly what they were doing and to play in any way surprised about the reaction is not only laughable but insulting to anyone. It's also the reason why I decided to not to buy any of their games any more. I have never and would never say bad things to a gay person and I have never been against gay rights but this kind of communication is just wrong.
" they knew this was controversial " ? and? Who cares? Its their game. They can know that and still have a character they want to express in a game. Knowing that doesn't mean its some "agenda", it just means when they wrote the character, they knew some people would be emotionally upset about its existence or what ever strange reason they are being upset by it.

"ND knew exactly what they were doing"

Ok, you can copy and paste that about any developer though, ie "yup CDPR knew exactly what they were doing, must be an agenda"

"It's also the reason why I decided to not to buy any of their games any more." lol ok pal. This is just sad. I don't buy games based on what the developers believe in terms of religion, politics, economics etc, why? Because you know not of what is in all developers hearts and minds, even if you did, how is that relevant to the actual quality of the content? Do you know just how few games you'd even play if you REALLY found out how many really have different views then you? Just for arguments sake, lets say 90% of the games you like have developers that believe this or disagree with your views, you seriously not buying 90% of games you actually otherwise would want to play because of this?

You say you are not against gay rights, but clearly this has upset you to the point where you are even choosing to not enjoy a video game based on some elses views.

Maybe you should start playing games for fun. Just a thought. I don't buy games for that reason, I'm a African male and a game could be made by the most racist person and if its fun, I'd still buy it. Why? Um....well I know not of how many REALLY think like this person and its irrelevant to the quality of work that they've produced. Its dumb when SJW argue about white males in games and this secret "agenda" and then say they are boycotting games that have this in them based on such dumb reasons ie nothing to do with the game.

This is no different. You basically are one of em.
 
"With Ellies friend right now or also in Bioware games you have gay characters. which is a huge step back of what Naughtydog didwith people like Bill for example. Bill was never a gay character Bill was always a character who also was gay. It was sublte it was human and it was not "Hey Joel good to see you again. Did you kow I am gay? Because I am gay""

Extremely subjective though, who is saying this in the game btw? I'm not even understanding this whole "subtle" thing either, some people are open about being gay, some are not.

Have you seriously not considered that the character Ellie is NOW, is more open because she has seen so much death? She doesn't want to hide, she wants to live in the moment. It would be like if you had a straight character in game 1 try to start a relationship but they are shy about having their heartbroken, then in game 2, they've seen death, they've lost friends, they now hold their hearts on their shoulders and are not afraid to dance, kiss in public, say I love you out loud etc.

You are not talking about something "forced" you are simply talking about a character more open about who they are, that happens in real life, why would that NOT happen in a game referenced from humans that live on earth? So unless you can read minds, I don't think you really know if any team is really creating characters like some "checklist". I'd argue, to have that point only prove SJW's correct when you REALLY thing about, they claimed the industry had some forceful agenda to place white males in games....

Sooooooo to say this "checklist" exist, is actually to agree with SJW's that some "agenda" exist to place characters in a game based on demographic regardless of quality. From where I stand, you basically are a SJW, simply against a different demographic. Same "theories" lol

Either way, developers choice. They can have any demographic as "subtle" or as LOUD and in your face as they feel like it.

I mean....do we NOT have people like that in real life?
Ellie was not more open she was shy and the other girl was very forceful. And I also have no problem with Ellie being gay. Honestly I do not care if she is gay or not. She is still Ellie. I have a problem when the first thing you know about a character is his/her sexual preferences. Like in Bioare games as I brought up. And I also did not find the kiss strange or controversial alone. I am talking about the overall statements, about all these events together like in this video presented. And for the checklist you can see this in Bioware games these days the best. You know at first look of a character what his/her sexual preferences are. You know exactly how many different relationship possibilities you have. It is boring and it is lazy writing when same random NPC you have just met tells you that he/she is trans after a short Hello. This is what I call token diversity because these people do not have any other reason to exist except her gender/race/sexuality. Again Bioware games: You always have the black guy, the asian one, the lesbian, the trans and so on.

Again Indy games dong a so much better job in this regard. They are so diverse and no one talks about it in a bad light which is strange since gamer are always presented as sexist/racist etc but they are mostly the ones who play these games.

And yes developers choice and my choice is it to not buy it and to criticize this. And giving the fact they hired this racist asshole while also pretending to be so woke and progressive I can not support this Studio anymore.
 
" they knew this was controversial " ? and? Who cares? Its their game. They can know that and still have a character they want to express in a game. Knowing that doesn't mean its some "agenda", it just means when they wrote the character, they knew some people would be emotionally upset about its existence or what ever strange reason they are being upset by it.

"ND knew exactly what they were doing"

Ok, you can copy and paste that about any developer though, ie "yup CDPR knew exactly what they were doing, must be an agenda"

"It's also the reason why I decided to not to buy any of their games any more." lol ok pal. This is just sad. I don't buy games based on what the developers believe in terms of religion, politics, economics etc, why? Because you know not of what is in all developers hearts and minds, even if you did, how is that relevant to the actual quality of the content? Do you know just how few games you'd even play if you REALLY found out how many really have different views then you? Just for arguments sake, lets say 90% of the games you like have developers that believe this or disagree with your views, you seriously not buying 90% of games you actually otherwise would want to play because of this?

You say you are not against gay rights, but clearly this has upset you to the point where you are even choosing to not enjoy a video game based on some elses views.

Maybe you should start playing games for fun. Just a thought. I don't buy games for that reason, I'm a African male and a game could be made by the most racist person and if its fun, I'd still buy it. Why? Um....well I know not of how many REALLY think like this person and its irrelevant to the quality of work that they've produced. Its dumb when SJW argue about white males in games and this secret "agenda" and then say they are boycotting games that have this in them based on such dumb reasons ie nothing to do with the game.

This is no different. You basically are one of em.
I appreciate what you wrote and respect your views but I'm not sure why you did so. I was just referring to the claim that ND has no agenda whatsoever when they clearly have - and I think I explained this in my post.
And please make no mistake, I am not boycotting the game because of the content but because of NDs communication. That are two different things. Perhaps (most certainly...) I have been burned by old GAF and ERA but todays ND seems like the embodiment of that group of people and to me they are toxic (evident also by their comments on Twitter). So I'm not supporting it.

I do want to say though that your stance with not caring about the background of the people making the games is wrong. When you have an opinion you should stand behind it. I decided not to buy games from EA either because of their shady practices. Does that mean this will always remain like that? Of course not. I don't hold a grudge and if they re-evaluate the business I will buy their games again. Same goes for ND. I have a colleague here who told me he is not going to watch the next world cup because it's played in Saudi Arabia and people have been treated horrible during the construction of the stadiums. That is absolutely fair. It's only a small thing but that is the only way you can send a message.
 
Last edited:
A few observations and thoughts:

* This is a good thread and I've found the level of discourse really engaging. The waters have been a bit choppy at times, but nobody has seemed to fall overboard. Thank you.

* Some of the concerns expressed in the video commentary about discussions on these kind of topics have been justified in the comments in this thread. I've seen reductive logic and labelling employed. If some of those concerns from the video have already been realised, is it not unreasonable to empathise with the notion that other concerns may also become realised?

* It recently occurred to me that this very discussion is a sort of affirmation about how far games have come. And in particular how great some developers can be at presenting characters and situations that people care about. I paused for a moment to realise that people are talking about Ellie and other characters, their motivations, preferences etc almost as real people - even when talking about how they are written/created in the next sentence. This is a high level of engagement based around a bunch of zeroes, ones and an arbitrary collection of triangles. That's pretty amazing.
 
Last edited:
A few observations and thoughts:

* This is a good thread and I've found the level of discourse really engaging. The waters have been a bit choppy at times, but nobody has seemed to fall overboard. Thank you.

* Some of the concerns expressed in the video commentary about discussions on these kind of topics have been justified in the comments in this thread. I've seen reductive logic and labelling employed. If some of those concerns from the video have already been realised, is it not unreasonable to empathise with the notion that other concerns may also become realised?

* It recently occurred to me that this very discussion is a sort of affirmation about how far games have come. And in particular how great some developers can be at presenting characters and situations that people care about. I paused for a moment to realise that people are talking about Ellie and other characters, their motivations, preferences etc almost as real people - even when talking about how they are written/created in the next sentence. This is a high level of engagement based around a bunch of zeroes, ones and an arbitrary collection of triangles. That's pretty amazing.
I can totally agree with this. Also for me this is an important topic because I play games because of the story and its characters and while I loved what Naughty Dog did with Uncharted and Last of Us character wise in this regard I am getting a bit worried that it will end like with of what Bioware is today. Given all the stuff surroundings of this company I have these fears. I just want a great story and characters that do not feel like someone wants to push some highly progressive message. Like in the Last Jedi for example. You can archive diversity when it feels natural like many many Indie games for example. This is what we should strive for and not what Bioware is doing.
 
Or, and hear me out, is it possible that maybe they (or at least most of them) cared the whole time? Also, you're not the gatekeeper. I'm sorry if you think that all these feminists and SJWs are faking interest in nerd culture simply because they associate it with males (does that imply that they're all women or gay men?) - that's either really pessimistic or really conceited. Or it's just both.
At 34:06:
For me, the big picture has always been cultural change, and pop culture was just a vehicle and a medium through which cultural change can happen or be influenced by. So it's not actually about video games... [inaudible]"
It's just one example, but Sarkeesian doesn't care about games, as she admits in the panel she did a few years ago. Of course, we already knew this because a clip exists where she straight up says "I'm not a fan of video games." In fact, in that clip she just says she's critiquing "male-dominated media."

Now of course, Sarkeesian is just one example. But it does prove that the things @Jon Neu brought up do happen, and that these people are given a platform, and in many cases get to drown out more nuanced positions.

There've always been women who enjoy nerd culture, and it only makes sense they want comics and games made for them as well. No-one's arguing with that. Even ND can just go and decide "Hey we want to make games for minorities." They can just go and do that and there's nothing we can do about it. I'd be somewhat disappointed, but hey, it's a valid strategy. The problem arises when people start critiquing games and elements because they want to change the social landscape, something some members in this thread seem to also be advocating for, claiming "This is something gaming needs" and "We need to show normal gay characters (to reinforce that gay people are normal)." That's an agenda, and that's potentially using video games as propaganda. Like Sarkeesian.

I don't buy the argument that this is something gamers want either. I think a lot of these games are popular in spite of their inclusive policies, not because of them. Just look at all the movies and comics that tried to pander to feminist whims and failed spectacularly. Marvel is in deep doodoo because of their efforts to diversify, with the situation ending up being no one's actually interested in their diverse and inclusive comic characters. For all the complaining people like Sarkeesian do about pop culture, they don't seem to be interested in actually buying stuff companies are making for them.
 
I think we're getting into nit picky territory here now. You can on the one hand argue that ND is forcing an agenda down peoples throats and that trailer showed that, and on the other hand say that if they had cut it a little differently it would've been all fine.

Like, I feel that the accusation requires much more evidence than "the trailer didn't do it for me = proof that NaughtyDog let a political agenda ruin their art".
RobinGaming, from what I understood in the very brief Twitter conversation we had, wanted to bolster the accusation through the sheer mass of individual pieces of evidence, but he then quickly drifted off into dissecting the private Twitter accounts of NaughtyDog employees and contractors as well as pulling pieces of interviews and talks of ND staff. Pretty much by the books confirmation bias stuff, because he still completely forgot to connect all causally to the trailer.
Neil Druckmann likes Anita Sarkeesian and ND staff shared Chlodine fanart on Twitter, which in connection with the recent trailers depiction of a lesbian kiss is reason for concern about NaughtyDog attempting to force an agenda down our throats even at the cost of the quality of their game.

Come one...this is absurd!



I think I was very clear about what kind of upsides it has. For what they want to achieve with Era, this kind of strict moderation is the way to go.
I even think they could be stricter on console war drive by shit posts, the pointless negativity these bring into threads bothers many people.
GAF was actually stricter back in the day imo.
My version of the trailer is something that I believe is just something that would work no matter your sexual preference since I think pda scenes in ultra violent videos tend to get simply groans or eye rolls. Well when you do some research on folks making a game and several of them with tweets or videos has I guess a certain slant and then you watch a trailer with an emphasis of two women kissing then I would say that NaughtyDog has probably had a culture change in their company that would most likely push for some agendas. I can't say right now I'm miffed about it now when I thought of this as simply a rated "R" movie with two girls (it is so hard to say women instead of girls every time) kissing would be no big deal. It is just something to be aware of when playing their games which is fine when you have folks counting the number of women and other people of color in a trailer or being the main lead. It is pretty much the same action the left does when counting all of the changes and viewing posts from 10 years ago but in the opposite by viewing what has changed in your posts today and changes in your games as a result.

On to the second point. The problem I have is this in the old neogaf and current Era you pretty had folks worried that they would say something that did not go with the current trend even if that was their honest view on a subject and get banned for it even if it was the average point of view of the masses. It was an era of fear. It was kinda the reason I was really hesitant to post on Neogaf. Strict moderation is fine to an extant but I would like for it to be mostly limit it to attacks on others,porn, and aggravating trolls.
 
We all know the people who says everything is okay, would be in arms if different politics were forced the same way into pop culture and videogames.

Try to imagine a blockbuster videogame with a protagonist saying that you can't change your biological gender, that you can only at best pretend to be something you are not because Jesus or the evolution made humans that way (you can give it the christian approach or the scientific one, ironically).

Could you imagine the fucking outrage? It would be in the news, the game boycotted and probably forced to change or be cancelled.
 
I wonder if Amy Hennig departure would be a case of ageism. She like to write strong women characters not in the same way of the young people at Naught Dog are wishing.
 
I wonder if Amy Hennig departure would be a case of ageism. She like to write strong women characters not in the same way of the young people at Naught Dog are wishing.
Quite possibly, as no doubt creative differences lead to her leaving or possbily being forced out. I always enjoyed all female characters in Uncharted, bar Nadine, as I found them interesting and relateable. Elena is quite possibly one of my favourite female characters in gaming. Not only is she resourceful, brave, intelligent but she's shown signs of vulnerability which completely grounds and humanizes her to me. She's an exceptionally well rounded character.
 
I feel this is such a non-argument
Game designers are free to create whatever story it is they want.. whether it’s pushing a sjw agenda or not.. bottom line is that video games are supposed to make money ... the market will dictate how approving the public is .. to me that’s really it.. if the story affects too many people negatively, the public just won’t buy the game
 
Did they just tease it with one post on twitter? That's pretty normal in today culture that ships anything lol. It's even "worse" with boy/girl pairing, people automatically assume they are going to be a couple if they look eyes for 2 seconds.
No. They tease it with the post and posts of fan art depicting it.

And if they did this with Ellie and a boy and I seen it, I would come to the same conclusion. And I would feel it was in bad taste.
 
I feel this is such a non-argument
Game designers are free to create whatever story it is they want.. whether it’s pushing a sjw agenda or not.. bottom line is that video games are supposed to make money ... the market will dictate how approving the public is .. to me that’s really it.. if the story affects too many people negatively, the public just won’t buy the game
Quite true, but with the potential backlash from social media and extremist fans (I've seen a lot of these on Era), do you trust game journalists to be open and criticize the game accordingly? Imagine, hypothetically, that the games story or game-play was somehow negatively effected by Naughty Dog's supposedly pushing of certain agenda's, can you imagine if this game received and was generally deserving of a 7 out of 10. I couldn't even dare fathom the shit show that would happen.
 
Quite true, but with the potential backlash from social media and extremist fans (I've seen a lot of these on Era), do you trust game journalists to be open and criticize the game accordingly? Imagine, hypothetically, that the games story or game-play was somehow negatively effected by Naughty Dog's supposedly pushing of certain agenda's, can you imagine if this game received and was generally deserving of a 7 out of 10. I couldn't even dare fathom the shit show that would happen.
Why would a "SO-CALLED" agenda make a game go from a 9 out of 10, to a 7 out of 10? That would be weird actually.
 
Why would a "SO-CALLED" agenda make a game go from a 9 out of 10, to a 7 out of 10? That would be weird actually.
Let's say for the sake of arguement, that a massive SWJ or feminist agenda was pushed, (which again I honestly highly doubt). One of the most common things in these type of agenda's is to make white men the enemy to almost unbelievable cartoon like levels. If that were too happen, I could easily see that detracting away from the overall narrative and flow of the game to a point of detriment, but would game journalists mark the game down for this out of fear from backlash? Like I said, highly unlikely that this will be the case, but as we are talking about ND's agenda's or what is perceived as an agenda, thought it was interesting to discuss.
 
Why would a "SO-CALLED" agenda make a game go from a 9 out of 10, to a 7 out of 10? That would be weird actually.
Best example?

Arthur gies who openly hate eveything Japanese reviewed Bayonetta 2 said the game is perfect except the sexualization and gave it a 7.5. And there are tons of reviews like this today. When you critizicize e a game like Far Cry 5 for the reason that black people and women were enemies while also arguing how a Kingdom Come is not diverse enough. You lost your plot and ability to review games. When you compare a Monster Hunter game with Imperialison and somehow even connect it to Trumps family you lost the fucking plot by a mile.

Agenda driven reviews are nothing new in games media because of the agenda driven people who review these games. Same with the movie inustry by the way. Example Everyone who did not like Black panther was called racist. People did not even review the game but the social importance of the movie. Same with Last Jedi which was praised for its progressive message while totally ignoring the actual plot of the movie.