Support NeoGAF

[Cosmogony]

If they would ban points of views I disagree with like 90% of PoliEra would be banned. I'm german, I'm a social democrat. I think the American left doesn't know shit and does everything wrong.

But I think you all know very well what lead to ban on GAF formerly and what leads to ban on E

You think "we" all know you're a German social democrat and "we" all know your specific views on American politics? ?
I don't know and I don't particularly care .

Personally, I don't post on forums whose moderation policy I disagree with. I would assume both ResetEra's and NeoGAF's are to your liking, otherwise you wouldn't post here and there either. But this is all beside the point, which I addressed in my reply and you haven't commented on.

I suppose I could further sum up my point by asking you this:

From a moral standpoint, is it objectively wrong for two consenting adults to engage in pornography?

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Dude there's probably like 175 people making TLOU2. Are we so depressed of a society that if 4 of those people says bigotted remarks or stupid remarks on Twitter, that it applies to the WHOLE company and the project that they are working on? Is this what the world is now?

This is a deflection.
I think you would benefit from re-watching the part of the video in the OP that covers this detail (Jump to 12:55). The context it provides would explain why this is especially significant.

 

[Cactuarman]

Nadine was bascially REY in the Uncharted Universe. As I said before Chloe was a well fledged character she made mistakes, she had bad day she made bad decicions etc. In Uncharted 4 it was bascially men doing the stupid and women the good. Like when Elena suddendly showed up out of NOWWHERE to save the day because Drake fucked up.

To be fair, Nate's development in Uncharted 4 is that he just CANT stop doing what he's driven to do. Elena show's up "out of nowhere" because she's dealt with his shit for 4 games and isn't stupid. Nate's drive and determination (even when it's obvious he shouldn't do what he's doing) is what makes him interesting. Elena and Sully are the rational ones that constantly have to watch his back because he doesn't think very far ahead. Whereas Chloe would be the one pushing him forward.

Also, Nate saves Elena's life in Uncharted 1, Chloe and Nate save her life in 2, he protects her from that explosion and fall in 4. In Uncharted, not only does Elena save Nate, but Chloe saves Nate, Sam saves Nate, Sully saves Nate, and so on. Nate fucks up a lot and gets beat up a lot. (But, he also saves pretty much everyone himself).

If "out of nowhere" is the main issue then I promise you there are a fair amount of "surprise!" returns throughout the series.

I just thought this point was reductive (and I love Uncharted).

 

[plasmawave]

NO, it shows you're not afraid to answer a question fairly. It's got nothing to do with not wanting a gay character as a lead, it's about finding your character and it's wanting.

Would you sooner have a good gay character then a bad straight character?

Answer that question instead ... I'm absolutely certain that won't cause you any problems whatsoever.

It shows that I'm not willing to take the bait.

 

[llien]

I don't agree with it. Period.

You don't agree with it is fine, but you should have reasons why, which are nowhere to be seen.

In the very context you have quoted, we are talking about women suddenly getting much more interested in FPS genre by 2025.
A quarter of century old genre will suddenly see tectonic gender shift in user base... (remind me when had that happened the last time)

Women play games. They represent 58% of mobile gamers and more than 50% of PC gamers, we were told, what is the "fight" you are fighting? Why should women suddenly stop being interested in RPG and Sims kind of games and go postal (digitally)?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

It shows that I'm not willing to take the bait.

Oh my good Lord. What bait would that be? That you're capable of stepping outside of the echo chamber in order to prove you're willing to debate? That's what is at stake here and clearly you just can't do it. What is the point in anyone discussing anything with a person that clearly has an agenda?

 

[plasmawave]

Oh my good Lord. What bait would that be? That you're capable of stepping outside of the echo chamber in order to prove you're willing to debate? That's what is at stake here and clearly you just can't do it. What is the point in anyone discussing anything with a person that clearly has an agenda?

And what agenda would that be?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

And what agenda would that be?

The SJW, Feminist, PC agenda. Why else would you avoid answering the question?

If your answer to 'would you sooner see a good story with a straight male than a bad story with a gay male?' is NO, then you have an agenda. If your answer is YES, then you don't have an agenda and are capable of rational thinking. It's that simple.

Your answer is clearly NO.

 

[plasmawave]

The SJW, Feminist, PC agenda. Why else would you avoid answering the question?

If your answer to 'would you sooner see a good story with a straight male than a bad story with a gay male?' is NO, then you have an agenda. If your answer is YES, then you don't have an agenda and are capable of rational thinking. It's that simple.

Your answer is clearly NO.

Lol you really need to grow up.

Wishing for more inclusivity and representation is not an agenda. Come on now.
This video is basically saying "I don't have a problem with minority characters. I just don't want them if they are not well written".

And what is exactly the downside of having a diverse cast of characters in games?

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Lol you really need to grow up.

Wishing for more inclusivity and representation is not an agenda. Come on now.
This video is basically saying "I don't have a problem with minority characters. I just don't want them if they are not well written".

And what is exactly the downside of having a diverse cast of characters in games?

Have you any idea how bizarre it is for you to go this long and avoid answering a question rationally? The answer is obvious but for some reason you're terrified of it. You need to ask yourself why.

 

[Cosmogony]

Lol you really need to grow up.

Wishing for more inclusivity and representation is not an agenda. Come on now.
This video is basically saying "I don't have a problem with minority characters. I just don't want them if they are not well written".

And what is exactly the downside of having a diverse cast of characters in games?

Doesn't it give you pause that you cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question? You could have answered however you wanted. Would it kill you to answer?

Wishing for more inclusivity and representation is not an agenda.

It is the very definition of an agenda. Wanting to bend storytelling by way of outside pressure, that is, wanting for stories to be written in a certain way not because that's what those stories call for but because of a desired real-life goal. That is by definition an agenda. I'm not even saying it's a bad agenda. It just qualifies as one thoroughly, though. And I'm not saying that is what's happening in this case either. For all I know, Naughty Dog has a good story in store, at least as far as I can tell from the trailer. But that doesn't negate my point: your intentions unequivocally qualify as an agenda.


There's nothing inherently wrong or inherently right with a diverse cast of characters. Some stories are absolutely better off having a wide range of characters, with a wide range of backstories, wide range of worldviews, etc. But other stories are not and forcing such a cast upon them would be done at the expense of the quality of the writing. Yet the mantra appears to be that all stories no matter what must meet this arbitrary aprioristic criterion of having to have characters, even protagonists of a certain gender, characters of a specific race and characters of a specific sexual orientation. This politically-motivated drive is what explains some of the backlash against TW3 and KC: D, for example.

Here's a question you might be able to answer: philosophically speaking, why is it objectively better for a story to have a more diverse cast of characters?

 

[plasmawave]

Have you any idea how bizarre it is for you to go this long and avoid answering a question rationally? The answer is obvious but for some reason you're terrified of it. You need to ask yourself why.

What is the question?

Doesn't it give you pause that you cannot bring yourself to answer a simple question? You could have answered however you wanted. Would it kill you to answer?



It is the very definition of an agenda. Wanting to bend storytelling by way of outside pressure, that is, wanting for stories to be written in a certain way not because that's what those stories call for but because of a desired real-life goal. That is by definition an agenda. I'm not even saying it's a bad agenda. It just qualifies as one thoroughly, though. And I'm not saying that is what's happening in this case either. For all I know, Naughty Dog has a good story in store, at least as far as I can tell from the trailer. But that doesn't negate my point: your intentions unequivocally qualify as an agenda.


There's nothing inherently wrong or inherently right with a diverse cast of characters. Some stories are absolutely better off having a wide range of characters, with a wide range of backstories, wide range of worldviews, etc. But other stories are not and forcing such a cast upon them would be done at the expense of the quality of the writing. Yet the mantra appears to be that all stories no matter what must meet this arbitrary aprioristic criterion of having to have characters, even protagonists of a certain gender, characters of a specific race and characters of a specific sexual orientation. This politically-motivated drive is what explains some of the backlash against TW3 and KC: D, for example.

Here's a question you might be able to answer: philosophically speaking, why is it objectively better for a story to have a more diverse cast of characters?

Because why not? Especially in a game like TLOU2 where it takes place in the US? Are there no asian or black or gay people in America? How's an accurate representation a detriment to its quality?

 

[Cosmogony]

What is the question?

The question you've been asked and are conspicuously refusing to answer.

Because why not?

That's not how a rational argument works. The default position is neutrality. You're stating that it is better to have a diverse cats. It's your proposition. You're making the assertion and as such the onus is on you to provide an argument and evidence that that is indeed the case.

Especially in a game like TLOU2 where it takes place in the US? Are there no asian or black or gay people in America? How's an accurate representation a detriment to its qualit

y?

That's not how you framed the issue. You framed in an all-encompassing way. If you specifically mean that it is reasonable for TLoU2 to have a diverse cast then my answer is Yes! Definitely! But it is better not because of issues of representation, mind you, but because the internal logic of the story requires it. And that is the key difference you are not willing to acknowledge.

 

[plasmawave]

The question you've been asked and are conspicuously refusing to answer.



That's not how a rational argument works. The default position is neutrality. You're stating that it is better to have a diverse cats. It's your proposition. You're making the assertion and as such the onus is on you to provide an argument and evidence that that is indeed the case.

y?

That's not how you framed the issue. You framed in an all-encompassing way. If you specifically mean that it is reasonable for TLoU2 to have a diverse cast then my answer is Yes! Definitely! But it is better not because of issues of representation, mind you, but because the internal logic of the story requires it. And that is the key difference you are not willing to acknowledge.

Again tell which question and I will answer it.

Also it's interesting that you think unless there's a logic to having minority characters to play bigger roles, the default must be always white people.

And to be fair, I've yet to see any of you bringing up a specific case where a diverse cast of characters with different racial backgrounds have actually made a game worse.

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

I saw an article where Druckmann said "We don't use the word 'fun". Might not be thread worthy though.

https://www.gamesradar.com/we-dont-use-the-word-fun-says-the-last-of-us-2-director-neil-druckmann/

 

[Cosmogony]

Again tell which question and I will answer it.

You were asked if you'd prefer - I'm paraphrasing here - an inferiorly- written gay character or a better-written straight character, or something along these lines. It's been half an hour. You can't have forgotten it, can you?

Also it's interesting that you think unless there's a logic to having minority characters to play bigger roles, the default must be always white people.

That is a slanderous lie. I said and maintain the default position is neutrality - which means one should withhold judgement on any given proposition until one is presented with evidence. I did not say the default position is an all-white cast not did I imply it. That is a complete fabrication. I am categorically and emphatically denying this malicious strawman argument of yours. What I said and maintain is that in any rational debate, be it the existence of God or whether beauty is objective or not - the starting position is of agnosticism. Always. This also applies to your proposition. To the statement "A diverse cast is always a better solution than a narrow one and this is true for all stories", the default position is neutrality, up until you present a rational argument as to why that's the case.

With regard to this discussion, I have affirmed that indeed a diverse cast is often a better suit and yet here you are pretending I said otherwise. Does your position require you to misrepresent others?

So you are asserting the proposition that an inclusive cast is always better than a narrow one. So my default position is of neutrality until you present the evidence and a rational argument to go along with it. I am not asserting that an inclusive cast is never better. It's you who is asserting a proposition and as such the onus is on you. Let's hear it then.

And to be fair, I've yet to see any of you bringing up a specific case where a diverse cast of characters with different racial backgrounds have actually made a game worse.

Fairness is the least of your concerns as the above overt misrepresentation of my position shows conclusively. The fact you are also attempting to bundle the opposition to your unsupported claim as one monolithic group also goes to show how preoccupied you are with being accurate.

Again, you are asserting that a diverse cast is always better. The onus is on you. The burden of proof is yours. You have to provide a rational argument and evidence. What - exactly - are you waiting for?

Finally, the backlash against W3 and KC answer your last question.

 

[plasmawave]

You were asked if you'd prefer - I'm paraphrasing here - an inferiorly- written gay character or a better-written straight character, or something along these lines. It's been half an hour. You can't have forgotten it, can you?

Oh THAT question. No, I'm not taking the bait. We don't live in a hypothetical world where we can only choose one over another.

That is a slanderous lie. I said and maintain the default position is neutrality - which means one should withhold judgement on any given proposition until one is presented with evidence. I did not say the default position is an all-white cast not did I imply it. That is a complete fabrication. I am categorically and emphatically denying this malicious strawman argument of yours. What I said and maintain is that in any rational debate, be it the existence of God or whether beauty is objective or not - the starting position is of agnosticism. Always. This also applies to your proposition. To the statement "A diverse cast is always a better solution than a narrow one and this is true for all stories", the default position is neutrality, up until you present a rational argument as to why that's the case.

"A diverse cast is always a better solution than a narrow one and this is true for all stories"
Talk about irony. Show me where I said that.

With regard to this discussion, I have affirmed that indeed a diverse cast is often a better suit and yet here you are pretending I said otherwise. Does your position require you to misrepresent others?

I get your position. Minorities should stay in the background unless there's a reason for it. I got it clear.

So you are asserting the proposition that an inclusive cast is always better than a narrow one. So my default position is of neutrality until you present the evidence and a rational argument to go along with it. I am not asserting that an inclusive cast is never better. It's you who is asserting a proposition and as such the onus is on you. Let's hear it then.

No, I'm asking the downside of inclusivity and how being diverse and inclusive hurt the end product.

Fairness is the least of your concerns as the above overt misrepresentation of my position shows conclusively. The fact you are also attempting to bundle the opposition to your unsupported claim as one monolithic group also goes to show how preoccupied you are with being accurate.

Wut.

Again, you are asserting that a diverse cast is always better. The onus is on you. The burden of proof is yours. You have to provide a rational argument and evidence. What - exactly - are you waiting for?

Again, where did I say this?

Finally, the backlash against W3 and KC answer your last question.

Ridiculous.

 

[Cosmogony]

Oh THAT question. No, I'm not taking the bait. We don't live in a hypothetical world where we can only choose one over another.

A dodge, as expected. Honesty is like kryptonite to some minds.

"A diverse cast is always a better solution than a narrow one and this is true for all stories"
Talk about irony. Show me where I said that.

Great. We are in full agreement then. Sometimes a diverse cast is better, other times it is not. Simple. Splendid then. And yet you refused to answer the above mentioned question.

I get your position. Minorities should stay in the background unless there's a reason for it. I got it clear.

And here you are lying through your teeth again. I did not say that. I do not think that. In fact, I have stated the opposite of that. Is that finally clear?

No, I'm asking the downside of inclusivity and how being diverse and inclusive hurt the end product.

I am not asserting that inclusivity necessarily hurts the product. I do not think that inclusivity necessarily hurts the product. And since I am not asserting it, the burden of proof is not one me, but rather on those who assert that inclusivity is always better for the product.

In your opinion, is inclusivity always better for the product?

Ridiculous.

In your opinion, was the backlash against TW3 and KC over concerns about inclusivity justified? Would either or both games be better off with a more diverse cast?

 

[plasmawave]

A dodge, as expected. Honesty is like kryptonite to some minds.



Great. We are in full agreement then. Sometimes a diverse cast is better, other times it is not. Simple. Splendid then. And yet you refused to answer the above mentioned question.




And here you are lying through your teeth again. I did not say that. I do not think that. In fact, I have stated the opposite of that. Is that finally clear?



I am not asserting that inclusivity necessarily hurts the product. I do not think that inclusivity necessarily hurts the product. And since I am not asserting it, the burden of proof is not one me, but rather on those who assert that inclusivity is always better for the product.

In your opinion, is inclusivity always better for the product?



In your opinion, was the backlash against TW3 and KC over concerns about inclusivity justified? Would either or both games be better off with a more diverse cast?

The guy who made the video certainly think so. He doesn't want diversity if it hurts the quality... except there could be plenty other reasons why a game might turn out bad.
And you said it yourself. Unless the story requires it, minorities can stay in the background. It is what you said.
Because there must be a reason why minorities should play a leading role...?

As for the Witcher 3, a game made by homogeneous country, I don't expect them to make a game to cater to America's diversity. It's not their job to do so.
For KC, if it's accurate to the time period then I see no problem.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

The guy who made the video certainly think so. He doesn't want diversity if it hurts the quality...

Please can you point me to the time in the video where this sentiment is expressed in the manner in which you've stated?

 

[Cosmogony]

And you said it yourself. Unless the story requires it, minorities can stay in the background. It is what you said.
Because there must be a reason why minorities should play a leading role...?

I do not think that.
I did not say that.

Minorities can do whatever they please. They can be protagonists, secondary characters, extras, whatever they choose. There doesn't have to be a reason for them to come to the foreground. They can act as they please, direct, star, fund, co-fund, co-protagonize, protagonize. It's entirely up to them. I'm all for it. The freer a society the better. In civilized countries, people are free to do whatever they feel inclined and no explanation is owed to others. That's a great thing in my book.

However, if you are going to make the philosophical argument, to assert that diversity necessarily leads and always leads to a better script, better movie, better game, then I am going to respectfully ask for evidence to support that claim.

As for the Witcher 3, a game made by homogeneous country, I don't expect them to make a game to cater to America's diversity. It's not their job to do so.
For KC, if it's accurate to the time period then I see no problem

.

We agree then. Forcing diversity down onto those two specific games would have likely made them worse, as it would have broken the lore, in one case, and the goal of historial accuracy in the other. By contrast, it makes perfect sense for TLoU2 to have a diverse cast. I am neither complaining nor opposing the decision in any way, shape or form. And no, there doesn't need to be a reason to have a diverse cast. The writers can do whatever they want. But there should be a legitimate creative reason to have a diverse cast when the story would advise otherwise. Exactly like there should be a legitimate creative reason to have a uniform cast when the story would advise otherwise.

I've asked you several other questions which you did not answer. No one should have any trouble figuring out why you are refusing to answer them.

 

[plasmawave]

Please can you point me to the time in the video where this sentiment is expressed in the manner in which you've stated?

That's basically what he's saying.
He's OK with minority characters... as long as there's no agenda behind it.
What makes him think TLOU2 has more agenda than The Left Behind DLC is beyond me.
He thinks showing Ellie kissing a girl at E3 was pandering to a specific group... which somehow is a negative to him.
He wants ND to cater to his "game should be for entertainment and not pushing ageda" needs but catering to the gay community is a big no no. His needs come before others it seems.
Because he is annoyed to see them being happy for a fair representation? I don't know.

 

[plasmawave]

I do not think that.
I did not say that.

Minorities can do whatever they please. They can be protagonists, secondary characters, extras, whatever they choose. There doesn't have to be a reason for them to come to the foreground. They can act as they please, direct, star, fund, co-fund, co-protagonize, protagonize. It's entirely up to them. I'm all for it. The freer a society the better. In civilized countries, people are free to do whatever they feel inclined and no explanation is owed to others. That's a great thing in my book.

However, if you are going to make the philosophical argument, to assert that diversity necessarily leads and always leads to a better script, better movie, better game, then I am going to respectfully ask for evidence to support that claim.

.

We agree then. Forcing diversity down onto those two specific games would have likely made them worse, as it would have broken the lore, in one case, and the goal of historial accuracy in the other. By contrast, it makes perfect sense for TLoU2 to have a diverse cast. I am neither complaining nor opposing the decision in any way, shape or form. And no, there doesn't need to be a reason to have a diverse cast. The writers can do whatever they want. But there should be a legitimate creative reason to have a diverse cast when the story would advise otherwise. Exactly like there should be a legitimate creative reason to have a uniform cast when the story would advise otherwise.

I've asked you several other questions which you did not answer. No one should have any trouble figuring out why you are refusing to answer them.

So you shouldn't have a problem with the diverse cast of characters in TLOU2 then, Yes? Ok cool.
Or you say they can do whatever they want... as long as they're not pushing an "agenda".

 

[GribbleGrunger]

A dodge, as expected. Honesty is like kryptonite to some minds.

It's actually quite frightening when you think about it. He's not alone. I've seen behaviour like that in many places. It's as if there's a whole part of their brain they've shut off. I'm not joking here. It IS frightening to consider how the bubble can affect what was once a rational mind. 1984 is here.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

That's basically what he's saying.

I'm sorry, but I need to hear this from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Where someone is offering an interpretation then there is scope for misinterpretation. Or even misrepresentation.

So, if you are opting to speak for someone else - and particularly for the message in a video they have produced - then, again, I politely ask you to reference specifically where in the video these sentiments are expressed in the manner you are stating.
The video in question often does this with the subject matter it is referring to, so I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the same level of substantiation to support the claim you are putting forward.

 

[Cosmogony]

So you shouldn't have a problem with the diverse cast of characters in TLOU2 then, Yes? Ok cool.

I have already said I have no problem whatsoever with a diverse cast of characters in TLoU2, thank you. The setting requires it, in fact. I have said that twice at least and in the most explicit terms possible in our exchange and yet, somehow, you don't seem to have noticed it. Why would that be?

Or you say that they can do whatever they want... as long as they're not pushing an "agenda".

Pushing an agenda entails taking creative decisions not based on what's best for the story but rather for real-life political motivations. Sometimes agendas hurt the story, sometimes agendas are inconsequential to the story. This principle applies equally to left-wing agendas, right.-wing agendas, cultural agendas, religious agendas, atheistic agendas, scientific agendas, you name it. Whenever I feel the agenda in question will hurt the quality of the fiction, I will call it out. Notable examples of games where agendas would be to the detriment of the quality are the already cited TW3 and KC : D .

 

[plasmawave]

I have already said I have no problem whatsoever with a diverse cast of characters in TLoU2, thank you. The setting requires it, in fact. I have said that twice at least and in the most explicit terms possible in our exchange and yet, somehow, you don't seem to have noticed it. Why would that be?



Pushing an agenda entails taking creative decisions not based on what's best for the story but rather for real-life political motivations. Sometimes agendas hurt the story, sometimes agendas are inconsequential to the story. This principle applies equally to left-wing agendas, right.-wing agendas, cultural agendas, religious agendas, atheistic agendas, scientific agendas, you name it. Whenever I feel the agenda in question will hurt the quality of the fiction, I will call it out. Notable examples of games where agendas would be to the detriment of the quality are the already cited TW3 and KC : D .

Except you said someone wishing for more inclusivity or diversity is the definition of an agenda... hmmm.

 

[Cosmogony]

That's basically what he's saying.
He's OK with minority characters... as long as there's no agenda behind it.
What makes him think TLOU2 has more agenda than The Left Behind DLC is beyond me.
He thinks showing Ellie kissing a girl at E3 was pandering to a specific group... which somehow is a negative to him.
He wants ND to cater to his "game should be for entertainment and not pushing ageda" needs but catering to the gay community is a big no no. His needs come before others it seems.
Because he is annoyed to see them being happy for a fair representation? I don't know.

Evidently, Naughty Dog is entirely free to view games however they see fit nd act accordingly. In the same vein, everyone is free to assess their products both in concept and execution.

If Naughty Dog feels video games are the right medium to proclaim their real-life worldviews, they have every right to do so. It's their game, their money, their team. People, in turn, have the right to scrutinize both their ideology and the game that came out of it.


Every single one of the above quoted statements of yours could be turned back at you. If TLoU2 pandered to Trump supporters, would you have remained indifferent?

This is what separates us. I deem agendas in general to be counterproductive, no matter what their content is. You pick and choose. If agendas align with your specific world view, it's Kosher. But all hell would break loose, or at least I would bet on it, if Naughty Dog suddenly decided to vent real-world ideas you find objectionable.

In this regard you are exactly like that mythical video author you so eagerly criticize. And there is a name for that sort of stance.

 

[Cosmogony]

Except you said someone wishing for more inclusivity or diversity is the definition of an agenda... hmmm.

That in no way negates any of my points. An agenda is the drive to have real-life political goals dictating creative choices. More inclusivity and diversity may in fact be entirely appropriate, necessary and commendable, but it's not because of real-life political motivations, mind you.

This has been repeated countless times but you are bent on obfuscating, omitting, distorting, twisting, in short, doing whatever will - in your mind at least - get you off the hook.

 

[plasmawave]

Evidently, Naughty Dog is entirely free to view games however they see fit nd act accordingly. In the same vein, everyone is free to assess their products both in concept and execution.

If Naughty Dog feels video games are the right medium to proclaim their real-life worldviews, they have every right to do so. It's their game, their money, their team. People, in turn, have the right to scrutinize both their ideology and the game that came out of it.


Every single one of the above quoted statements of yours could be turned back at you. If TLoU2 pandered to Trump supporters, would you have remained indifferent?

This is what separates us. I deem agendas in general to be counterproductive, no matter what their content is. You pick and choose. If agendas align with your specific world view, it's Kosher. But all hell would break loose, or at least I would bet on it, if Naughty Dog suddenly decided to vent real-world ideas you find objectionable.

In this regard you are exactly like that mythical video author you so eagerly criticize. And there is a name for that sort of stance.

Good thing that's not happening, isn't it? You can drop your whataboutism. We are discussing the current situation that we have right now and not the made up hypothetical world scenario.
And who would want to endorse Trump's ideology to begin with?

That in no way negates any of my points. An agenda is the drive to have real-life political goals dictating creative choices. More inclusivity and diversity may in fact be entirely appropriate, necessary and commendable, but it's not because of real-life political motivations, mind you.

This has been repeated countless times but you are bent on obfuscating, omitting, distorting, twisting, in short, doing whatever will - in your mind at least - get you off the hook.

Except I didn't say that did I? Wishing for inclusivity and diversity is not an agenda, and you immediately went to those things must come at a price of a good story telling... hmmm.
Nowhere did I say it needs to be forced into every case with no exception.

In the case of TLOU2, the original had an already diverse cast so why it continuing to be diverse would be somehow considered "pushing an agenda".

 

[InterMusketeer]

Nowhere did I say it needs to be forced into every case with no exception.

Good, because maybe now you can address RobinGaming's argument that "If it ever gets to the point where an agenda intervenes with the quality of a story, or it stops appealing to me, my response will be simple: I'm not buying the game." instead of whatever it is you had dreamed up in your head.

 

[plasmawave]

Good, because maybe now you can address RobinGaming's argument that "If it ever gets to the point where an agenda intervenes with the quality of a story, or it stops appealing to me, my response will be simple: I'm not buying the game." instead of whatever it is you had dreamed up in your head.

Did I say that? No.
But he sure thinks pandering to specific group of people over him is a problem.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

And if there ISN'T an agenda, people still complain. FarCry 5 ... It amazs

Good thing that's not happening, isn't it? You can drop your whataboutism. We are discussing the current situation that we have right now and not the made up hypothetical world scenario.

And who would want to endorse Trump's ideology to begin with?

Except I didn't say that did I? Wishing for inclusivity and diversity is not an agenda, and you immediately went to those things must come at a price of a good story telling... hmmm.
Nowhere did I say it needs to be forced into every case with no exception.

How about all the people that elected him President? Everything you say demonstrates clearly how entrenched you are and how you find it impossible to escape the bubble you've found yourself in. There are other people out there with different opinions, and I know you think they're not of any consequence but I'm afraid they are. You honestly believe your position is correct and NO ONE has the right to disagree ... I mean, who would want to endorse someone you don't like anyway?

 

[plasmawave]

And if there ISN'T an agenda, people still complain. FarCry 5 ... It amazs


How about all the people that elected him President? Everything you say demonstrates clearly how entrenched you are and how you find it impossible to escape the bubble you've found yourself in. There are other people out there with different opinions, and I know you think they're not of any consequence but I'm afraid they are. You honestly believe your position is correct and NO ONE has the right to disagree ... I mean, who would want to endorse someone you don't like anyway?

Are you against inclusiveness and diversity or not? That's the question. That is what this whole thing ultimately boils down to.

 

[Cosmogony]

Good thing that's not happening, isn't it? You can drop your whataboutism.

You have just said that it's a good thing Naughty Dog is not pushing a Trump-friendly agenda. Thanks for proving my point in the clearest terms possible. Agendas are great, as long as they coincide with your worldview. If they don't coincide then, quote, it is "Good thing that's not happening, isn't it?". Very eloquent indeed.

We are discussing the current situation that we have right now and not the made up hypothetical world scenario.

And I have expressed how I feel about the current TLoU2 situation a number of times and in explicit terms and that hasn't stopped you from misrepresenting my position on repeated occasions. Will you look at that.

Except I didn't say that did I? Wishing for inclusivity and diversity is not an agenda,

It is the very definition of an agenda. It's not the only agenda around, mind you. But it most certainly ticks all of the boxes.

and you immediately went to those things must come with a price of a good story telling... hmmm.

This habit of yours of systematically misrepresenting my position is getting tiresome. If you are unable to understand the stance, just say so. No shame in that. There's no need to make things up - the reason why you never directly quote me in support of your specific accusations. I have explicitly said that creators can do whatever the hell they feel like and they do not owe me an explanation. If , however, they make creative choices based on real-world political motivations and those choices hurt the quality of the product, then, yes, I am going to call them out. No ifs about it. But like I've said countless times now, that is not my assessment of the TLoU2 situation.

Nowhere did I say it needs to be forced into every case with no exception.

Great. What is the deciding factor, then? When should it be forced and when should it not?

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Did I say that? No.

OK. So you're speaking for yourself and you are disputing claims people are putting forward on your behalf..

But he sure thinks pandering to specific group of people over him is a problem.

..and now you're speaking for how someone else is thinking and putting forward claims on their behalf.

I see a double standard here.

Whilst I'm here, can you tell me if you are planning to provide the substantiation to your earlier claims that I asked of?
I note you've made other replies but consider the possibility that you're still preparing a comprehensive response to my own. Just curious.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

Are you against inclusiveness and diversity or not? That's the question. That is what this whole thing ultimately boils down to.

As I've said many times, I'm all for diversity as long as it's natural and not forced into the narrative for political reasons. Watch the vid again in case you've not quite understood what it's about.

 

[plasmawave]

As I've said many times, I'm all for diversity as long as it's natural and not forced into the narrative for political reasons. Watch the vid again in case you've not quite understood what it's about.

How is ND forcing diversity in their games? The video doesn't tell me anything.

You have just said that it's a good thing Naughty Dog is not pushing a Trump-friendly agenda. Thanks for proving my point in the clearest terms possible. Agendas are great, as long as they coincide with your worldview. If they don't coincide then, quote, it is "Good thing that's not happening, isn't it?". Very eloquent indeed.




And I have expressed how I feel about the current TLoU2 situation a number of times and in explicit terms and that hasn't stopped you from misrepresenting my position on repeated occasions. Will you look at that.



It is the very definition of an agenda. It's not the only agenda around, mind you. But it most certainly ticks all of the boxes.




This habit of yours of systematically misrepresenting my position is getting tiresome. If you are unable to understand the stance, just say so. No shame in that. There's no need to make things up - the reason why you never directly quote me in support of your specific accusations. I have explicitly said that creators can do whatever the hell they feel like and they do not owe me an explanation. If , however, they make creative choices based on real-world political motivations and those choices hurt the quality of the product, then, yes, I am going to call them out. No ifs about it. But like I've said countless times now, that is not my assessment of the TLoU2 situation.



Great. What is the deciding factor, then? When should it be forced and when should it not?

Except I don't consider what ND is doing is pushing an agenda. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

 

[plasmawave]

OK. So you're speaking for yourself and you are disputing claims people are putting forward on your behalf..


..and now you're speaking for how someone else is thinking and putting forward claims on their behalf.

I see a double standard here.

Whilst I'm here, can you tell me if you are planning to provide the substantiation to your earlier claims that I asked of?
I note you've made other replies but consider the possibility that you're still preparing a comprehensive response to my own. Just curious.

He says, in TLOU2, ND is putting gay characters kissing in the forefront to please a specific group of people. And this apparently makes him upset because that's what people are talking about more than the gameplay.
So yeah he thinks those things shouldn't be in the game and should be all about just being entertaining.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

He says, in TLOU2, ND is putting gay characters kissing in the forefront to please a specific group of people. And this apparently makes him upset because that's what people are talking about more than the gameplay.
So yeah he thinks those things shouldn't be in the game and should be all about just being entertaining.

Unfortunately that isn't what was asked for. Forgive me if I was unclear:

Please don't tell me "this is what he is saying" - as this is an interpretation.
Please show me, specifically, in the video being discussed in this thread, where these sentiments are being expressed in the manner you state.

 

[oagboghi2]

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?

There is no hypocrisy here. You can believe in a creator having the freedom to explore their vision and express their ideas, while still disagreeing with the ideas expressed.

Thats like the entire fucking point. Stop playing dumb

 

[Cosmogony]

How is ND forcing diversity in their games? The video doesn't tell me anything.

Except I don't consider what ND is doing is pushing an agenda. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

You have been asked to clarify your position by answering a number of basic questions. You have dodged them all but one. Fair minded people can gauge the depth of your convictions and the willingness to defend them by simply noticing the systematic and deliberate nature of these omissions, which, when coupled with your repeated attempts at misrepresenting the position of your adversaries, does not paint a favourable picture. The questions were simple, straightforward even, but I can definitely see why answering any of them might lead you one inch closer to the epiphany you are so desperately trying to avoid. You seem neither interested nor capable of genuine mature rational debate, which is what I am exclusively interested in. You have a wonderful day.

 

[plasmawave]

Unfortunately that isn't what was asked for. Forgive me if I was unclear:

Please don't tell me "this is what he is saying" - as this is an interpretation.
Please show me, specifically, in the video being discussed in this thread, where these sentiments are being expressed in the manner you state.

18:36.
Most people play games to be entertained and escape reality, not getting pushed an agenda. ND should set their priorities straight and make games for people who wants to just have fun.

You have been asked to clarify your position by answering a number of basic questions. You have dodged them all but one. Fair minded people can gauge the depth of your convictions and the willingness to defend them by simply noticing the systematic and deliberate nature of these omissions, which, when coupled with your repeated attempts at misrepresenting the position of your adversaries, does not paint a favourable picture. The questions were simple, straightforward even, but I can definitely see why answering any of them might lead you one inch closer to the epiphany you are so desperately trying to avoid. You seem neither interested nor capable of genuine mature rational debate, which is what I am exclusively interested in. You have a wonderful day.

Bye!

 

[Barsinister]

Hello all! I am back from work and full of vinegar. I wrote in quite a few threads last night. And I have found what I believe to be the ultimate truism in all of these different kerfuffles. And the truth is that the "progressives" will always obfuscate their intentions behind a wall of victim-hood, name calling and violence in order to achieve their desired ends. Ask them a straight forward question, like in any civil debate, they will never answer it.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

18:36.
Most people play games to be entertained and escape reality, not getting pushed an agenda. ND should set their priorities straight and make games for people who wants to just have fun.

Thank you.
[EDIT: That's not actually a direct quote though. It's admittedly very close, but you've still chosen to replace some of the original words with ones of your own.]

I see significant disparity between that statement and your claims:

He says, in TLOU2, ND is putting gay characters kissing in the forefront to please a specific group of people.

That's basically what he's saying.
He's OK with minority characters... as long as there's no agenda behind it.
...
He thinks showing Ellie kissing a girl at E3 was pandering to a specific group... which somehow is a negative to him.
He wants ND to cater to his "game should be for entertainment and not pushing ageda" needs but catering to the gay community is a big no no.
...
Because he is annoyed to see them being happy for a fair representation?

If you're taking a single sentence 18 minutes into a 20 minute video then I feel you've misrepresented his overall argument and his position. Including contextual statements made immediately prior to the time you've posted.
You appear to have ignored the evidence and context that supports it, and inserted a considerable amount of hearsay into your statements.
The video author was considerate to other views, was not wilfully oblivious to the environment in which his argument would be viewed, and did not rely on reductive logic.

I went into that video a skeptic, but the manner in which the argument was made and presented encouraged me to accept new information and to broaden my view.
The video also provides a good real world example of why the focused pursuit of inclusiveness can result in some concerning outcomes.
Outcomes that, so far, I've yet to see any argument address head on.

 

[plasmawave]

You have been asked to clarify your position by answering a number of basic questions. You have dodged them all but one. Fair minded people can gauge the depth of your convictions and the willingness to defend them by simply noticing the systematic and deliberate nature of these omissions, which, when coupled with your repeated attempts at misrepresenting the position of your adversaries, does not paint a favourable picture. The questions were simple, straightforward even, but I can definitely see why answering any of them might lead you one inch closer to the epiphany you are so desperately trying to avoid. You seem neither interested nor capable of genuine mature rational debate, which is what I am exclusively interested in. You have a wonderful day.

Thank you.
I see significant disparity between that statement and your claims:



If you're taking a single sentence 18 minutes into a 20 minute video then I feel you've misrepresented his overall argument and his position. Including contextual statements made immediately prior to the time you've posted.
You appear to have ignored the evidence and context that supports it, and inserted a considerable amount of hearsay into your statements.
The video author was considerate to other views, was not wilfully oblivious to the environment in which his argument would be viewed, and did not rely on reductive logic.

I went into that video a skeptic, but the manner in which the argument was made and presented encouraged me to accept new information and to broaden my view.
The video also provides a good real world example of why the pursuit of inclusiveness can result in some very concerning outcomes.
Outcomes that, so far, I've yet to see any argument address head on.

It is not based on a single sentence made in the video. It's been made throughout.

He has a problem with fans shipping Chloe and Nadine and ND retweeting those fan art... except shipping favorite characrters happens in pretty much every fandom.
He was annoyed that Nate and Elena had a daughter and not a son.
He was also bothered by their PSX panel which was hosted by a lesbian woman, who was only picked because she's gay (he says), instead of a gameinformer guy from the previous year.

This video comes off incredibly petty.

 

[oagboghi2]

It is not based on a single sentence made in the video. It's been made throughout.

He has a problem with fans shipping Chloe and Nadine and ND retweeting those fan art... except shipping favorite characrters happens in pretty much every fandom.
He was annoyed that Nate and Elena had a daughter and not a son.
He was also bothered by their PSX panel which was hosted by a lesbian woman, who was only picked because she's gay (he says), instead of a gameinformer guy from the previous year.

This video comes off incredibly petty.

Is pointing out tactical, deliberate marketing choices to cater to a specific audience and yes, push an agenda, petty? Seems like he is just being honest

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

It is not based on a single sentence made in the video. It's been made throughout.

Then I would suggest you do what the video author does with their argument: Substantiate your view with multiple pieces of verifiable evidence that supports it, provide context and awareness of your audience, make your own position transparent.

He has a problem with fans shipping Chloe and Nadine and ND retweeting those fan art... except shipping favorite characrters happens in pretty much every fandom.
He was annoyed that Nate and Elena had a daughter and not a son.
He was also bothered by their PSX panel which was hosted by a lesbian woman, who was only picked because she's gay (he says), instead of a gameinformer guy from the previous year.

These are, once again, interpretations. Telling me what was said or meant, not showing me. I had hoped we'd moved beyond this because we understood that interpretations can be unreliable.

My concerns are not addressed, only deepened.
What's been offered has not been an accurate representation of the material your argument is based on.

 

[plasmawave]

Is pointing out tactical, deliberate marketing choices to cater to a specific audience and yes, push an agenda, petty? Seems like he is just being honest

And this is wrong because...?
What makes him think he should be catered first and foremost before the gay community?

 

[plasmawave]

Then do what the video author does with his argument. Substantiate your argument with multiple pieces of verifiable evidence that supports it.


These are, once again, interpretations. Telling me what was said or meant, not showing me. I had hoped we'd moved beyond this.

My concerns are not addressed, only deepened.
What you've offered has not been an accurate representation of the material your argument is based on.
Interpretations can be unreliable and in some cases they can be dishonest.

8:19, 11:40, 12:12