The Naughty Dog Agenda - RobinGaming

I just want to say that GAF has changed for the better. I found myself avoiding subjects (self censoring) on many occasions, would pop into to interesting threads only to leave minutes later having seen some of the responses, and 'BANNED' members. I would often look at what they'd written to try and find out why they're been banned but could hardly ever find anything other than having 'the wrong opinion'. That 'wrong opinion' being anything other than PC. But it seems 'that' mentality has moved to 'another' forum now ...

This thread is a perfect example of why those people should never have been banned. For the first time in a long time, through lengthy discussion, some of us have been able to differentiate our opinions from extremists (on both sides). Oh, they exist, we all know that, but at last we can begin the process of building bridges again between the majority, who are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people. THAT is how a good forum works. We may not agree but we CAN agree that labelling only kills conversation (and reputations). We've all heard the saying 'attack the point, not the person'. Let's continue to embrace that.

So ... Yep, GAF is a much better forum now and all power to anyone with an opinion, regardless of what it is.
 
Last edited:
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.
How would the bolded be different from other things we've seen in games? Like how would we know it was "because" they were white and not because it's just another game where the villian is cartoon level mean?

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.
Author Gies is terrible. If he gave the game a 7.5 based off of that, then that is terrible. But your thing about Black Panther and Star Wars Last Jedi is wrong.

I would like to know how anyone can take this guy seriously, and how the hell he has a job writing about video games.
Because it's very thoughtful and a smart dude. I'm curious as to what the connection is with Monster Hunter 5 and Trump though. It may have been more to it than that raw comparison.
 
He sounds like an idiot to me. Where's the evidence that he is smart?
I listen to the WayPoint podcast every couple weeks. After listening to probably 20 hours of content it's pretty clear. You may disagree with him on lots of things (I disagree with him on things too), but it doesn't mean he's not smart.
 
The waypoint dudes aren't dumb but they're so ideologically possessed that they may as well be. Here is Patrick Klepek criticizing RAGE 2's marketing for using the word "insane."


If you're so far down the SJW rabbit hole of policing language that the word "insane" is too offensive for you, then yeah, I can't take you seriously. You're just too far gone.

Here's further insanity. A screen grab of a (since deleted) exchange in the thread for this tweet wherein Patrick laments "goofing up" and occasionally saying the word "crazy." It's literally beyond parody at this point.

(archive link for the screengrab)
 
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.
I never wanted to defend Anita. I even said this a couple comments ago: "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." I agree with you that I don't think she's good for discourse. For some reason @Jon Neu thought I was painting her as a hero - I never was and do not think she is.

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.
Yeah but they're arguing that it's "troubling" or that it's "ruining" things.

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.
There is definitely quality critique and crappy critique. I also don't agree that the existence of an agenda is a bad thing. Animal Farm for instance - fantastic book, 100% agenda. Was Will & Grace propaganda? Maybe. Some people in the late 90s certainly thought so. I would argue that propaganda needs to be misleading in it's portrayal of something. Perfectly fine if you disagree but that's probably why would could keep going back and forth. I don't think Naughty Dog wanting to make a story with a gay lead or Nathan Drake having a daughter is propaganda. Now, I wouldn't put it past Anita to use propaganda. I think we'd agree there.

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.
I understand that sometimes efforts miss the mark (aren't comic sales down in general?) but I guess I see it more as story tellers trying new things. This includes gay characters, but it also includes things like a God of War game about a father and son, a video game about a son dying of cancer, a game about a flower blowing in the wind. Is the shift from Lara Croft in the 90s to Lara Croft now pandering? I think the actual culture shift is a diversity in stories, and boiling it down to pandering is reductive.

I remember this type of conversation when Will & Grace first debuted. And Ellen came out on her TV show. Video games aren't this medium island that is unaffected by larger cultural shifts (IMO video games are just a little late due to how new the medium is). Sometimes the pandering fails, sure, but ultimately we're not going backwards, we're going to continue to see creators try new things and right now the market is more open to playing a game that deals with deeper themes. We're not at the point yet where the Last of Us trailer could have been two men. But we will be at some point.
 
The waypoint dudes aren't dumb but they're so ideologically possessed that they may as well be. Here is Patrick Klepek criticizing RAGE 2's marketing for using the word "insane."


If you're so far down the SJW rabbit hole of policing language that the word "insane" is too offensive for you, then yeah, I can't take you seriously. You're just too far gone.

Here's further insanity. A screen grab of a (since deleted) exchange in the thread for this tweet wherein Patrick laments "goofing up" and occasionally saying the word "crazy." It's literally beyond parody at this point.

(archive link for the screengrab)

"Is there a favored non-problematic alternative for 'insane'? asking in good faith"
Jesus christ who are these people lmao
 
^ it was fucking weird seeing ellie stand around like a bar bro checking out the ladies. like i dont think ive ever seen a woman do that in all my life. she was prowling at a comical level. for some reason no one brings up that embarrassing part
I wouldn't have said that, Ellie was just Ellie.
I did notice the Jesse was apparently a dick in the eyes of Ellie and Dina, although he didn't seem like a bad guy.
 
Regarding TLoU2 E3 demo, I don't think most gamers dislike it because Ellie is lesbian or even the lesbian kiss. That was known to many gamers already (Left Behind DLC) and many others found out now. The reason the E3 demo rubbed gamers the wrong way probably is because of what the E3 gameplay demos have been known to do in the past and what ND decided to do with TLoU2 demo. Lets take all ND's game E3 demos of the past. Go check out UC2, UC3, UC4 and TLoU E3 demos. What you will see is that it provides the following information:

I/We are the main character(s) of this game, I/We are cool/badass and this is a cool/awesome sequence that you will get to play in this game.

Now compare the above to the TLoU2 E3 demo which highlights the following:

I am the main character of the game, I am lesbian, this is a cool lesbian kiss cutscene you get to watch in this game, I am also badass as you see from this cool sequence of the game you will get to play, and back to the kiss you will get to watch.

That makes it very specific that ND wanted to highlight that in the demo. This also impacts the overall E3 as they have limited time to show stuff so with these restrictions you decide to spend time showing a cutscene and highlight sexuality of the main character. Neil Druckmann said he had secret agenda that he wanted to create strong non sexualized female characters in TLoU game but then he ends up focusing on the sexuality of the female character thereby sexualizing her in a different way.
 
I didn't have a problem with the sexuality in the e3 trailer, I thought it was a good juxtaposition of showing someone's vulnerable side versus the violence they dish out and endure. I do have a problem with ND hiring people that have no interest or background in gaming to discuss gaming or to push their agenda. Alexander's Twitter is a fucking cesspool so I can't help but think they made a colossal mistake hiring them, I can't imagine how much backlash they would have gotten if they hired someone as vitriolic on the other side of the spectrum, but we're just supposed to accept Alexander's shit because they're a minority. Terrible.

I love ND, they're the reason I bought my first Sony console (uncharted) but if tlou2 (after reading reviews / watching videos) suggest that there is an on the nose social agenda for their game I'll sadly skip out. It clearly wasn't meant for me and I'll spend my money elsewhere
 
I wouldn't have said that, Ellie was just Ellie.
I did notice the Jesse was apparently a dick in the eyes of Ellie and Dina, although he didn't seem like a bad guy.
I have it pre-ordered. So it's not as if I am not going to buy it, even if they got some agenda to push. I simply don't have any cares. I've got to beat this game before I can lay on any real judgements.
What I thought was pretty dickish, was how the guy at the beginning was watching his ex dance with some guy and then boom, Hot Lesbian Action as soon as Ellie is grabbed to go and dance. I guess Dina broke things off with that guy because she was already crushing on Ellie.

I have to admit, I am pretty interested in seeing how all the events that revolve around that play out.
 
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.
Game designers should not be at the mercy of gaming journalists.. I get that it’s unavoidable but the public has to see through the nonsense and judge a game on its merits .. I don’t think there’s enough people in the marketplace who buy games solely on a games moral compass or if it checks off a sjw checkbox
 
Yeah but they're arguing that it's "troubling" or that it's "ruining" things.
Absolutely no one is saying that. You seem to confuse feminism with women. Everybody is happy that women have their place and their women oriented games/characters in the videogame community/industry.

Having people in the gaming industry saying we should not use the word insane because it's "insensitive" it's a microcosmos of what people mean when we are talking about "troubling" politics being injected in the gaming industry in an artificial way and potentially (and more than potentially) "ruining" things.
 
I just want to say that GAF has changed for the better. I found myself avoiding subjects (self censoring) on many occasions, would pop into to interesting threads only to leave minutes later having seen some of the responses, and 'BANNED' members. I would often look at what they'd written to try and find out why they're been banned but could hardly ever find anything other than having 'the wrong opinion'. That 'wrong opinion' being anything other than PC. But it seems 'that' mentality has moved to 'another' forum now ...

This thread is a perfect example of why those people should never have been banned. For the first time in a long time, through lengthy discussion, some of us have been able to differentiate our opinions from extremists (on both sides). Oh, they exist, we all know that, but at last we can begin the process of building bridges again between the majority, who are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people. THAT is how a good forum works. We may not agree but we CAN agree that labelling only kills conversation (and reputations). We've all heard the saying 'attack the point, not the person'. Let's continue to embrace that.

So ... Yep, GAF is a much better forum now and all power to anyone with an opinion, regardless of what it is.
Couldn't agree more. It's nice to see the forum is open to dissenting opinions and discussions now.
 
Absolutely no one is saying that.
Did a quick ctrl+f on the youtube comments:
"It's very troubling, and it's infesting every element of my hobbies"
"Ohh PLEASE do not let Rockstar Games become affected with an agenda and ruin GTA6."

Here's a GameFAQs thread: Can we all agree feminists and SJW are ruining gaming and gaming journalism?
Here's a r/Gaming thread: SJW culture is RUINING GAMING
Here's a fun subreddit r/SJWHATE (54K subs by the way): Social Justice Warriors have turned the video gaming industry into a toxic industry

Here's some even stronger language: "So I don't know how many individuals on this subreddit are video Gamers but as we know sjw's have managed to poison the world of video gaming with there cancerous rhetoric."
- Liberals are now whining about "toxic meritocracy" of 'competitive' video games

Took me literally 10 minutes to find these.

You seem to confuse feminism with women.
Ugh... I'm a man and a feminist so not sure where you got this. Based on your earlier comment "now that geek culture is popular and sexy, obviously- is because they associate that culture with males" I would have assumed you were confusing the two.

Everybody is happy that women have their place and their women oriented games/characters
Uhh... what is a "women oriented game"? Barbie Horse Adventures for the GBA?

Having people in the gaming industry saying we should not use the word insane because it's "insensitive" it's a microcosmos of what people mean when we are talking about "troubling" politics being injected in the gaming industry in an artificial way and potentially (and more than potentially) "ruining" things.
I agree, that is too far for me.

EDIT: typo
 
Last edited:
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.
Again, you didn't get the point and have begun to just assume what I believe and/or put words into my mouth that I haven't said. It was hypothetical, and I never said Ellie's sexuality was forced, I said Chloe and Nadine's "ship" is forced, is drawing the line, and is only proving to the skeptics that they're correct about ND and their ignorant plea to change already-established characters into something else. I've seen nobody in this thread have actual issues with, well, social issues.

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?
I think ND should care that fabricated diversity is hurting the industry and the people they're attempting to represent rather than helping them. And no, they'll just brainwash our youth into left-wing social justice progressivism and spawn a new generation of catering and/or pandering. And if you're trying to sneak in an assumption that I'm like the people who have issues with these people in real life, then I ask you to not assume my beliefs just because I merely don't like developers going down a path that will ruin their games, and/or alienate the fans who disagree with their approach.

But you're right, practically everything in life can be a social issue, but social issues can be turned into political issues, hence my problem.

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).
My friend, you're preaching to the choir. Everything you're telling the people in this thread, most of us already know, because we're fans (well, I'm somewhat of a fan) and we've played these games. The issue was never with gay characters to begin with because I don't have an issue with homosexuality, only when their sexuality is their defining characteristic, which would, in a hypothetical scenario not exactly applying to ND's case to be bad writing.

If you want me to sum it up, I don't want Naughty Dog to become Bioware. I feel that it's safe to say that the quality of Bioware's storytelling has significantly deteriorated ever since they added more political propaganda into their games, with some innocence in the mix, such as giving players the choice to be gay or be another race and that's one example of how it can be done fairly without it feeling like it's pandering to a specific base.

Ugh... I'm a man and a feminist so not sure where you got this. Based on your earlier comment "now that geek culture is popular and sexy, obviously- is because they associate that culture with males" I would have assumed you were confusing the two.
Did a quick ctrl+f on the youtube comments:
"It's very troubling, and it's infesting every element of my hobbies"
"Ohh PLEASE do not let Rockstar Games become affected with an agenda and ruin GTA6."

Here's a GameFAQs thread: Can we all agree feminists and SJW are ruining gaming and gaming journalism?
Here's a r/Gaming thread: SJW culture is RUINING GAMING
Here's a fun subreddit r/SJWHATE (54K subs by the way): Social Justice Warriors have turned the video gaming industry into a toxic industry

Here's some even stronger language: "So I don't know how many individuals on this subreddit are video Gamers but as we know sjw's have managed to poison the world of video gaming with there cancerous rhetoric."
- Liberals are now whining about "toxic meritocracy" of 'competitive' video games
What's your issue, here? These are genuine issues and since you mentioned that you're a male feminist I think you should respect these criticisms and try and be as rational as possible. It's just a fact that there are more liberal developers than conservative gamers in the video game industry, if not then it's debatable and they just have louder voices and have more influence because of that.
 
Last edited:
I just want to say that GAF has changed for the better. I found myself avoiding subjects (self censoring) on many occasions, would pop into to interesting threads only to leave minutes later having seen some of the responses, and 'BANNED' members. I would often look at what they'd written to try and find out why they're been banned but could hardly ever find anything other than having 'the wrong opinion'. That 'wrong opinion' being anything other than PC. But it seems 'that' mentality has moved to 'another' forum now ...

This thread is a perfect example of why those people should never have been banned. For the first time in a long time, through lengthy discussion, some of us have been able to differentiate our opinions from extremists (on both sides). Oh, they exist, we all know that, but at last we can begin the process of building bridges again between the majority, who are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people. THAT is how a good forum works. We may not agree but we CAN agree that labelling only kills conversation (and reputations). We've all heard the saying 'attack the point, not the person'. Let's continue to embrace that.

So ... Yep, GAF is a much better forum now and all power to anyone with an opinion, regardless of what it is.
Forums are a lot like console wars.

The top dog gets arrogant and starts power trip and gets all draconian. Same thing is now happening at the other place. Pride comes before the fall.
 
What's your issue, here? These are genuine issues and since you mentioned that you're a male feminist I think you should respect these criticisms and try and be as rational as possible.
My issue with that specific comment was that I disagreed that "absolutely no one" was using language like "troubling" agendas or "ruining" video games.

And I've agreed with plenty of points made by people who I overall disagree with. I agreed with @Jon Neu about "insane" in that same comment (and others previously). I'd like to think I've been rational and respectful but maybe not.

It's just a fact that there are more liberal developers than conservative gamers in the video game industry, if not then it's debatable and they just have louder voices and have more influence because of that.
If you were asking about my overall issue - ultimately I don't think "louder voices" have more impact that money. Whether or not more gamers are conservative, the fact that Naughty Dog is doing so well as a company suggests that the majority of gamers (conservative or not) like their games. Maybe the pendulum will swing the other way and Naughty Dog will suffer because of it. But the main theme I've stuck to is that Neil Druckmann should be allowed to make whatever game he wants to make and that the video game industry is better off when story tellers are able to experiment and put out stuff they care about (regardless of if people like it - just like other forms of art).

Edit: fixed an awkward sentence
 
Last edited:
Just a public note rather than a warning. Avoid fracturing the user base and then labelling them. It doesn't strengthen your point.
I think that Sony did the right thing with the trailer, a month passed and the game it's still the theme of online discussions everywhere. It's probably exactly what they intended.
If the game is good I'll get it, if it's just OK, I'll wait for a sale. The issues HomophobeGAF and ChauvinistGAF have don't bother me, I have this amazing ability to ignore things I don't care about and that have no impact in my life. Some of you guys should really try to do that. All these tantrums about SJW I read here are bad for your mental health.
 
So frustrating to see one of my favorite studios "go Disney"... :(

It´s funny how some people preach about the values and importance of a creators vision, that it should be maintained and not subjected to any form of censorship, that they should be free to create whatever they want without scrutiny, but when a creator has a vision about a lesbian couple, diversity, feminist themes or what not that don´t gel with these very same people they often seem to stand up and scream "AGENDA!" as loud as they can. How is that?
I think there is one very important detail that is overlooked: the parasitic nature of agenda pushing.
Not creating new IP, instead, taking well established franchise and trashing it (Star Wars anyone?).

Do it like in Horizon.
Don't do it like in Star Wars. This feels like forcing it down the throats of existing customers (whom you, on top of everything, seem to hate). Imagine someone taking "Desperate Housewives" and turning it into "True Detective", even if you do a great job, there will be major uproar from established fans.

Don't insult your user base and we'll all be good.

Yeah but they're arguing that it's "troubling" or that it's "ruining" things.
What happens when you have people who care about agenda more than they care about <insert here>, influence <insert here> with their agenda?
 
Last edited:
I would like to know how anyone can take this guy seriously, and how the hell he has a job writing about video games.
They all just hire one another. Under the umbrella of diversity, they hand pick the most narrow minded and specific of individuals. The Guild Wars 2 lady, Jessica Price, will end up at Naughty Dog, or another studio that's short of a few angry weirdos.

It's the same in Academia. Hopefully you haven't had the misfortune of attempting a PHD. I dropped out of mine (Philosophy) after six months, when it became very clear that the department was run by crazy people.
 
Whether or not more gamers are conservative, the fact that Naughty Dog is doing so well as a company suggests that the majority of gamers (conservative or not) like their games.
ND didn't get where it is, doing what it is doing at the moment, as you rightfully noted.

But the main theme I've stuck to is that Neil Druckmann should be allowed to make whatever game he wants to make and that the video game industry is better off when story tellers are able to experiment and put out stuff they care about (regardless of if people like it - just like other forms of art).
Hell yes. The only issue I see with the concept is that since the target audience, he's trying to target, is represented by:
None of them cares about gaming, all of them hate majority of existing gamers, so, where are we heading with it, please? Is it not troubling?
 
Last edited:
Right wing politics in general has denigrated people with arts degrees and other advanced degrees for decades. I find it hilarious that the segment of the population which least values the arts and science (in general) gets mad at artists for making art that doesn't correspond to your values.

Here's an idea, get involved in the arts and science and make art that appeals to your sensibilities. The people that make these games owe you nothing.
 
Here's an idea, get involved in the arts and science and make art that appeals to your sensibilities.
That's exactly what they are supposed to do, except they don't.
If you want a different game, go create it (Horyzon for instance).
If you want a game influenced by a lesbian that doesn't play games and a trans person hating whites, heck, that's fine too!
But why do "things" to an established franchise?

Is it to fend off customers, then blame it failed because GG/neckbeards/alt-right/too-many-reviewers-with-white-penises?
It's not for "them" and it's fine. But why did you take "their" franchise to begin with???
 
Last edited:
Couldn't agree more. It's nice to see the forum is open to dissenting opinions and discussions now.
What is also nice is to see that we actually can civil discussions about such things - something that OldGAF always made you feel is not.
This whole thing really highlights that what was done was nothing but censorship and why it is important that we are against it.
 
Here's an idea, get involved in the arts and science and make art that appeals to your sensibilities. The people that make these games owe you nothing.
Nice advice. If more people followed it, developers wouldn't fear for their jobs and games such as Super Seducer wouldn't get blocked at marketplaces.
 
But why do "things" to an established franchise?
Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment. We are now entering the era where videogaming is the single biggest form of entertainment bar none.

Companies would be foolish if they didn't attempt to bring new demographics to their games by serving underserved markets. Especially when AAA titles cost as much to make as they do now. It's a numbers game and the key is to appeal to as many people as possible.


The simple fact of the matter is gaming is no longer a boys club, it's mainstream and the games will ultimately reflect the culture. It's simple capitalism.
 
Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds.
I don't think so, but it doesn't matter in this context.

Companies would be foolish if they didn't attempt to bring new demographics to their games by serving underserved markets. E
So you have a game that "boys" like.
And you want to bring in more "girls".
And to achieve that, you absolutely have to change "boys" game, instead of creating "girls' game? What about boys not liking it and leaving (Star Wars)?

And if goal was the opposite, say, you want to have more "boys" play games like "Sims", you should change "Sims" and add elements, that "boys" like, turning it, say, into another GTA, right?

The simple fact of the matter is gaming is no longer a boys club
It never was.



The types of games people of different gender play, however, are rather different (as well as hours they spend doing it). As Meryl Strip put it: "I submit to you that men and women are not the same, they like different things,” she said. “Sometimes they like the same thing, but sometimes their tastes diverge. "

And for the record, I have kids of both genders, both play games (whichever they like, but, of course, within age restriction limits) guess who plays what.
 
Last edited:
I Wonder when all this SJW stuff happened in gaming ? I'd say around 2011-12 or so and it first came slowly like suddenly some activist decided that they must lecture and teach the gaming Community about life.

And I remember before that, nobody cared that GTA SA had a black protagonist or by the many androgynous characters in many classic JRPGs. I Don't think there ever was a problem to begin with. There never was one type of male characters in video games. I never saw classic characters like Leon, Squall, Sonic or Link (and a bunch of others) as machists or anything. And the games with exaggerated protagonists like Duke Nukem were in fact pretty rare. And a bunch of female characters were strong and driven. But then some people came out of Nowhere and told us (and basically we were just chilling among ourselves, playing and discussing games, as we did since… forever I guess) that we are a bunch of racists women haters. It's like I'm at home, after a work day, with my cat, on my couch, playing a game and suddenly the door burst open and a dude yells at me "women hater !" just like that, without knowing me, just because he sees me enjoying some JRPGs with cute girls. The dude doesn't know that I nearly cried when Aerith died or that I worship Rei Ayanami or that I care a great deal about numerous female characters in various games. And then, the same dude is in a state of shock because I choose to fight back his intrusion in my privacy

I Don't have any problems with diversity in any way because there were always diversity in video games but I have a big issue with people telling me how I should think or what I must like and dislike. I'm pretty sure TLOU2 will be amazing and I loved the first one (and Left Behind) but it feels that this time around the game doesn't feel as organic as the first one. It's more political, choosing a side. The first time it was about discovering new characters without giving a shit about sexuality or anything, that's why the kiss at the end of Left Behind was so organic and natural.
 
Two points:

Regarding @Sethbacca, In sales, for example, a car salesman wants to sell one man ten cars over a number of years instead of ten cars to ten different people. Retaining customers is vital to all business. Yes, expand your potential customers, but keep the customers you already have.

And as far as games as "art". I can sit with a pen and notepad and create art. Good art or bad, it is possible for me to do. I can draw a picture, or write a story. I can do this for my own pleasure. It is something that comes out of me. Yes there are games made by one individual, but it is rare that one person has all of the required skills to make a game. Consumptive art is the best you could call a game. A game has artistry in it, but as a whole is not art. Old games are artifacts, not art.

I only mention these two things because they keep being brought up in discussion.

Edit:

@Cranberrys it is not about diversity, that is the lie. It is about marginalizing. Perceived "winners" in society brought low. And this is regardless of race, sex or any other distinction. Exceptionalism must be stamped out in order to bring in the glorious revolution. Dumbo didn't need the magic feather to fly, he had the ability all along.
 
Last edited:
So you have a game that "boys" like.
And you want to bring in more "girls".
And to achieve that, you absolutely have to change "boys" game, instead of creating "girls' game? What about boys not liking it and leaving (Star Wars)?

And for the record, I have kids of both genders, both play games (whichever they like, but, of course, within age restriction limits) guess who plays what.
These advertisements never reflected the reality of the situation. They represented what the manufacturer wanted to happen. How many girls do you know that played video games in the 80s or 90s? How many adults or senior citizens. Growing up with video games, anecdotally at least, it was always a boys club.

As to the idea that you're changing a boy's IP to reflect inclusiveness I would argue that the idea that people who feel like they own things they're a fan of are misguided. The creation belongs to the creator, you're only ever a fan. The creator can do whatever he or she pleases. The idea is that they're attempting to pull in more people than they're losing. If they pull in 5 million girls and LGBT people and lose 1 million entitled fanboys they're still coming out ahead.
 
Two points:

Regarding @Sethbacca, In sales, for example, a car salesman wants to sell one man ten cars over a number of years instead of ten cars to ten different people. Retaining customers is vital to all business. Yes, expand your potential customers, but keep the customers you already have.
I feel like this argument is flawed. The market for cars is not expanding generally. Its at saturation. The only way car makers expand market share at this point is by taking it from another manufacturer. Gaming is still a growing form of entertainment and there's a gold rush of consumers still to be sold to. As much as you want to satisfy existing customers you're trying to pull in part of the massively underserved market that isn't partaking.
 
The waypoint dudes aren't dumb but they're so ideologically possessed that they may as well be. Here is Patrick Klepek criticizing RAGE 2's marketing for using the word "insane."


If you're so far down the SJW rabbit hole of policing language that the word "insane" is too offensive for you, then yeah, I can't take you seriously. You're just too far gone.

Here's further insanity. A screen grab of a (since deleted) exchange in the thread for this tweet wherein Patrick laments "goofing up" and occasionally saying the word "crazy." It's literally beyond parody at this point.

(archive link for the screengrab)
That Twitter thread is insane wild. Truly these people are sick and need help. I'm surprised he didn't also take issue to the word "rage", because you know, there are real people out there suffering from uncontrolled anger. Just so happens most of them are games journalists.
 
Last edited:
I feel like this argument is flawed. The market for cars is not expanding generally. Its at saturation. The only way car makers expand market share at this point is by taking it from another manufacturer. Gaming is still a growing form of entertainment and there's a gold rush of consumers still to be sold to. As much as you want to satisfy existing customers you're trying to pull in part of the massively underserved market that isn't partaking.

So, it's flawed when I write it, but not when you rephrase what I wrote?
 
So, it's flawed when I write it, but not when you rephrase what I wrote?
All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between a saturated market where people are simply replacing old and broken, and an expanding market where people are buying in and expanding your market base. Your salesman analogy is good outside the car comparison except that instead of selling to 10 and wanting to keep 10 customers, they're taking a gamble that they can gain 4 customers for every 2 they're willing to lose. Businesses that only sell to people they've always sold to may stay alive but they're certainly not going to grow at the same rate as those actively looking to expand their market.

Like I said. It's just a numbers game.
 
Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment.
You might have been a loner nerd, but myself and all the other cool kids were happily playing games and proud. It was never looked down upon in my 80s/90s youth. Parents and older people might have looked down on it, but that’s par for the course for every generation.
 
There was a point in my life when I had to go door to door selling a service to people. Straight cold calling. The service was good and the company I worked for won consumer's choice awards yearly. It was the best service for the money. I believed that. After the service was sold to a customer, a survey followed after a time. The survey was meant as way to improve service for existing customers. "What do you like about the service?" "How can we better serve you in the future?"

You are de-emphasizing the importance of customer retention, (in what was meant to be an analogy), in order to bolster your point. A point I made in my original post. "Yes, expand your customer base...." I wrote that!!!!

Why do you think brick and mortar stores cannot keep customers? Believe me, price, while a factor, isn't the only factor. When a new company comes in and uses only price as a talking point, if your service or product is too good to give up, you will not lose that customer. I have been told to my face that the service I brought was the best, even though there was a "cheaper" alternative.

Edit:

I think that's why the art aspect is brought up so heavily. It is the last refuge for the "socialists" to hang their hat on. "Don't ask a man to compromise his art." Nonsense! If the "art" is meant to be consumed, make it palatable. "PissChrist" is art, even if the subject matter is objectionable. "Pac-Man" is not.
 
Last edited:
These advertisements never reflected the reality of the situation. They represented what the manufacturer wanted to happen. How many girls do you know that played video games in the 80s or 90s? How many adults or senior citizens. Growing up with video games, anecdotally at least, it was always a boys club.
It was TARGETED at all genders (as it was quite expensive), PCs were targeted at entire families.
Friend's wife kicked major ass in shooters (that's how they met), She kicked ass in Mortal Kombat as well, plays with their 15 year old son on PS4 today (steam is still there).

It was boys club because "girls" didn't care about those types of games. (they still MOSTLY don't)

World of Warcraft was totally different, I've spend endless hours together with my wife, who enjoyed throwing fire/icebolts around in raids.

And then there are games like Sims and endless mobile games DOMINATED by "girls". (boys MOSTLY don't like that type of games that much).


As to the idea that you're changing a boy's IP to reflect inclusiveness I would argue that the idea that people who feel like they own things they're a fan of are misguided. The creation belongs to the creator, you're only ever a fan.
Oh, I wasn't talking about rights, merely about feasibility of turning Sims into GTA to "attract more boys" and "for inclusivity", sounds like a crazy idea, but doing reverse, for some reason, does not.

Once you accept what Meryl Stirp has stated (cited above), solution is obvious.
 
Last edited:
Not all customers are worth keeping. Full stop. Not a popular idea but toxic fandoms and entitled people who only want you to make what they're willing to consume aren't worth catering to. They just consume resources and complain because nothing will ever meet their standards anyway.

Also, I don't know how you can't consider modern games art. You're talking literal motion capped performances and voice acting, asset creation, and writing large multi patched narratives in many cases. You can decide these things as socialist, but this is the reason you don't see more right leaning works in gaming or Hollywood . This just goes back to what I did before about how the right has no appreciation for arts and sciences, and if more right leaning people got involved in these areas you may see more work that leans toward your interests.
 
toxic fandoms and entitled people who only want you to make what they're willing to consume aren't worth catering to. They just consume resources and complain because nothing will ever meet their standards anyway.
It's funny because this statement could apply to either side. A lot of your arguments can be interpreted that way. Pretty interesting.

I also think you're wrong. It's definitely worth catering towards the people who buy your products, rather than to those who don't. It's obvious why: They're paying you, and the rest aren't. You can try to appeal to a wider audience, but you should be real careful that you don't alienate your current fanbase, unless you want to trade in one for the other, which is a risky move. This existing fanbase aren't the ones complaining either. It's the authoritarian left that's been whining and complaining about products, and it's pretty clear they'll never be satisfied with the result, whatever your company does to appease them.

According to your own logic, companies shouldn't try to appeal to them.
 
All I'm saying is that is's worth taking calculate risks. They wont always pan out but they might. There will be many many people who pick up Uncharted 4 or LoU2 and go back and play the original games if they haven't already done so. Yes, that argument can blow up in my face if they fail to bring in the customers to replace the ones theyre losing. I'll agree with that wholeheartedly.

You say the militant left is the one demanding these changes but all I see here is 12 pages of dudes wanting to keep the gaming status quo because they can't handle perspectives that don't align with their own. I don't ask for these changes, but I don't care that they're in there. I just understand that companies are attempting to appeal to a broader demographic.
 
Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment. We are now entering the era where videogaming is the single biggest form of entertainment bar none.

Companies would be foolish if they didn't attempt to bring new demographics to their games by serving underserved markets. Especially when AAA titles cost as much to make as they do now. It's a numbers game and the key is to appeal to as many people as possible.


The simple fact of the matter is gaming is no longer a boys club, it's mainstream and the games will ultimately reflect the culture. It's simple capitalism.
The only time it was ever a "boys club" was during the late 80s and the 90s and I'd argue that was moreso due to perception (advertising) than reality. Ms. Pac-Man wasn't made to appeal to boys, after all. Arcades and home consoles were just as much for girls and girls regularly played them. Game Boy was a very popular girl's system. Gaming was first popularized in bars, bowling alleys, clubs, and other such placesThe PC market was definitely a boy's club, though, until you began seeing stuff like The Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and so forth showing up at the turn of the millenium.

There's also the fact that across the spectrum, men tend to be more interested in mechanical devices and women tend to be interested in personal interaction. And this is manifested in reality. For example, a hugely disproportionate number of women play MMOs compared to most other gaming genres. This has been true since the days of Everquest if not before.

I'm curious if these are the sort of games most women enjoy playing anyway. I'd enjoy seeing proof that AAA third-person shooter with a female lead will sell markedly better to women. What if women don't enjoy that genre of game? Seems like devs would rather make the same games they were gonna make anyway but are cramming a female into the game because it'll sell better (??). How shallow is that?

If the goal is to appeal to women, then we should first do the stuff that works and then worry about representation. You know what works? Good gameplay. Girl gamers and boy gamers are identical in this respect: they want the game to be enjoyable. I cannot comprehend how the industry can simultaneously claim

"Barbie games and pretty princess games aren't the sort of games that girls want even though they continue to buy them..."

and then say

"...so let's cram women into genres that women have not historically been attracted to 'cause that's what they want".

I really don't care about the representation thing. I don't see a high moral impetus to include more women in a few narrow genres of videogames on the basis that it is the right thing to do, nor do I see the business reason for doing so because women have already been included in videogames pretty much from the start. Fact is, most men and women don't care about gender or racial representation in games. They don't. Videogame sales are proof of that. Do they enjoy the option? Sure. However, most of this is being viewed through the lens of AAA story-driven gaming which is a small portion of the overall gaming world.

I'd offer the following experiment: EA and 2k Sports should both release a WNBA game alongside their yearly NBA game. Then we can finally see if adding women or making women the focus will create higher sales to women in genres that are traditionally enjoyed mostly by men.

I also don't care about the "feminism is taking over our industry!!" concern. If you're the sort of person who is truly enraptured and satisfied with videogame stories, I am sorry to offend but you should get out more. Videogame stories are like longer, worse-acted movies. If you don't want to play as a woman, don't. If your life is so pathetic that you are stuck in this fake moral quandary between playing a cool-looking videogame but also having to play as a woman, then your grasp on reality is already too weak to have a reasonable discussion.
 
I'm curious if these are the sort of games most women enjoy playing anyway. I'd enjoy seeing proof that AAA third-person shooter with a female lead will sell markedly better to women. What if women don't enjoy that genre of game? Seems like devs would rather make the same games they were gonna make anyway but are cramming a female into the game because it'll sell better (??). How shallow is that?

If the goal is to appeal to women, then we should first do the stuff that works and then worry about representation. You know what works? Good gameplay. Girl gamers and boy gamers are identical in this respect: they want the game to be enjoyable. I cannot comprehend how the industry can simultaneously claim

"Barbie games and pretty princess games aren't the sort of games that girls want even though they continue to buy them..."

and then say

"...so let's cram women into genres that women have not historically been attracted to 'cause that's what they want".

You know, it is funny you mention it, because (and I could be REALLY wrong about it, though) I vaguely remember a thread was made in this site at the start of 17' that gave a clear percentage of what Female gamers were more than likely to play than their Male counterparts.

And don't quote me on it, but being showcased at early 17' in this site, had a negative effect on both the title and the discussion surrounding this topic.

Anyhow, the research in question is this one

https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/