Yes, we've all been speculating this entire time. The thing is, the end products end up matching the projected outcomes of the speculation.
We can see the twitter outrage mob. That's a fact.
We can see how many of these twitter users have followers in the games industry.
Of those who are in the games industry and have twitter, we can see their bios and we can read their tweets.
9/10 of the dots are connected. The 10th dot is "what exact changes did this person make to the game? How much input did they have and were they listened to?"
Yes, we've all been speculating this entire time. The thing is, the end products end up matching the projected outcomes of the speculation.
We can see the twitter outrage mob. That's a fact.
We can see how many of these twitter users have followers in the games industry.
Of those who are in the games industry and have twitter, we can see their bios and we can read their tweets.
9/10 of the dots are connected. The 10th dot is "what exact changes did this person make to the game? How much input did they have and were they listened to?"
But is that why you bought it? Did that make you more likely to buy it? Because that was my point. Nobody says "I would buy this game, but it's not censored!" or "I'm much more likely to buy this game due to all the neat censorship!"
So unless you say those things, there's no reason to bring up TF2.
Well, in Uncharted, you still play as a white middle-age dude. It's just so happens that you and your white middle-age dude partner both get beaten up by a smaller, brown, woman.
And in TLoU2, the white middle-aged dude gets killed.
So it seems like it's not enough to just NOT play as a white middle-aged dude, the middle-aged white dudes need to be killed or humiliated by the women.
And then when people do exercise their free choice to play as a white middle-aged dude in a game with customization, this happens:
Congratulations to this man: who I have seen on 1,000 video game covers in the past 20 years. You are the new face of Baldur's Gate 3.
www.fanbyte.com
The old CM, Kyle Gaddo recently came clean about what his goals were for the community, and it involved eradicating a certain mindset. Imagine if he worked on a game.
It is more than naive to just assume that everyone has the best of intentions and no ulterior motives.
But is that why you bought it? Did that make you more likely to buy it? Because that was my point. Nobody says "I would buy this game, but it's not censored!" or "I'm much more likely to buy this game due to all the neat censorship!"
So unless you say those things, there's no reason to bring up TF2.
The mercs in TF2 exploding into toys would allow the game to have a lower age rating thus allowing younger people to play it. On top of it just being banned in Germany if it wasn't censored so thus more people got to play it.
Well, in Uncharted, you still play as a white middle-age dude. It's just so happens that you and your white middle-age dude partner both get beaten up by a smaller, brown, woman.
And in TLoU2, the white middle-aged dude gets killed.
So it seems like it's not enough to just NOT play as a white middle-aged dude, the middle-aged white dudes need to be killed or humiliated by the women.
And then when people do exercise their free choice to play as a white middle-aged dude in a game with customization, this happens:
They type of character Nathan Drake is, is all about being an everyman which means getting his ass kicked in certain situations but always getting out of them. Laura Croft got her ass kicked plenty in the reboot.
Oh wow, a whole two examples, obviously there is a genocide against boring white dudes. >.>
I do have to wonder if that is just people using the default or actively being boring twits. Then again most people played male Shep and thus got an inferior Mass Effect experiance.
For example, see the whole "Dark Souls should have an easy mode!" debate... which is what this thread is (or once was) about.
All of it is damaging because it's not done for the purpose of making a better game.
Anything that is not done in service to the game is damaging to it.
An easy mode in Dark Souls wouldn't change your experience of Dark Souls one bit. There's plenty of games with super easy modes that are the hardcorest of the hardcore games.
When are devs actually going to do things that are for the purpose of making a better game regardless of where the criticism comes from? Why does From Software use the exact game design elements in the 3 different IPs that they've made (Souls, Bloodborne, Sekiro) since Demons Souls? There's nothing but horrid game design in the vast majority of AAA games whether we're talking Ghost of Tsushima, Sekiro, God of War, Witcher 3, etc.
Unless the developers tell us exactly why they made the change they did, we can only speculate.
But when someone sees things like TLoU2, they wonder how much was due to Sarkeesian's influence or Druckmann's ideology.
When someone sees Nadine from Uncharted beat up two grown men by herself, people wonder why and how that character came to be.
Then there's the prosthetic-cyborg cricket-bat women in Battlefield V, a game which tanked by Battlefield standards.
And no, Tracer's butt change did not make the game better.
When has censorship ever made a game better? Have you ever been more likely to purchase a game where a character's exposed skin has been covered up by a skin-tight shadow?
Unless Sarkeesian is the reason TLOU2's story had to be about violence again, then how is the way TLOU2 turned out have anything possibly to do with her? The problem with TLOU2 was that Naughty Dog can't make a game without standard TLOU or Uncharted gameplay and the story had to be pigeon-holed into lending itself towards stealth action gameplay. The strongest segments of TLOU2 are the Joel & Ellie segments, that should've been the whole game, not some revenge trek across the country that the writers literally said wouldn't have made sense for Tess to do in the first game...
There's tons of media content where women beat up guys. Did Sarkeesian make it so Michele Yeoh upstaged Jackie Chan in Supercop nearly 30 years ago?
That BFV trailer actually somewhat piqued my interest in the game hoping it would be lighter in tone and possibly have some different (possibly interesting) abilities. When I found it that it was just more typical Battlefield (that I don't really care for), I lost any of that interest.
Well, in Uncharted, you still play as a white middle-age dude. It's just so happens that you and your white middle-age dude partner both get beaten up by a smaller, brown, woman.
And in TLoU2, the white middle-aged dude gets killed.
So it seems like it's not enough to just NOT play as a white middle-aged dude, the middle-aged white dudes need to be killed or humiliated by the women.
Uncharted is pulp fantasy. You can have girls beat up boys, that happens all the time in martial arts films and many other action movies that obviously aren't going for realism.
Joel needed to die in TLOU2 for the purpose of what I said above, the game had to go someplace story-wise so that standard TLOU2 gameplay was once again the core gameplay. No matter what Naughty Dog decided to do to get that story to go that way wouldn't have made sense. Joel getting killed was the most sensical thing to do if you wanted/needed that plot device to happen. Joel was a bastard and screwed over tons of people, someone wanting to kill Joel fit the "narrative" more than anything else.
They type of character Nathan Drake is, is all about being an everyman which means getting his ass kicked in certain situations but always getting out of them.
The everyman would, especially when fighting 2 on 1, be able to beat up a smaller woman, so that argument isn't gonna fly.
Plus, when did Nathan ever get beat up to a similar extent in any of the other games? I might be wrong, but I don't think Nathan ever even lost a 1v1 fight before.
Good thing I never made the argument that there was a genocide against boring white dudes.
I just took games with known SJW types among them, and showed that they didn't just want "not to play as a white middle-aged dudes", and as a bonus showed how they screech in rage when people play of white dudes of their own volition.
Yes there is. Some of it is done because the artist had a vision and wanted to make good art.
Some of it is done because of ulterior motives and political activism.
I argue there is a strong correlation between ulterior motives and inferior products.
I also argue that, as far as the hobby is concerned, ulterior motives always damage the idea of what the hobby was created to be.
When companies finally stop appealing to, seeking input from, or listening to, non-gamers.
Nobody knows, because nobody knows exactly how much influence she had on the game.
But the fact is, she was there.
Yes there is. Some of it is done because the artist had a vision and wanted to make good art.
Some of it is done because of ulterior motives and political activism.
I argue there is a strong correlation between ulterior motives and inferior products.
I also argue that, as far as the hobby is concerned, ulterior motives always damage the idea of what the hobby was created to be.
The input is not coming from within either to make games better, whether the actual dev team or the "hardcore" gamer. Rockstar fired a dev for trying to fix their shitty ass combat. I could argue keeping stuff "status quo" has hurt gaming far more than listening to some outside voices. The keeping stuff status quo is why TLOU2 is the way it turned out, not because of Sarkeesian. Unless Sarkeesian went up to Naughty Dog when they had this story that had nothing do with revenge or violence and influenced them to change that to revenge and violence (which I'm pretty sure had 0 chance of happening), then it had nothing to do with Sarkeesian. Unless you're trying to actually make that argument, then lay off Sarkeesian ruining TLOU2 right now.
And how are you gonna prove having chicks beat up Drake (an everyman) had ulterior motives and led to an inferior product? The Lost Legacy was a far better Uncharted game than UC4 and starred "brown" women cuz, you know, it actually had action set-pieces you'd expect from an Uncharted game unlike UC4.
Where are you getting your stats or numbers from where media with ulterior motives is generally worse than media without them? And how are you proving media has or doesn't have ulterior motives? You do realize that it's literally been proven that many games couldn't have female protagonists because publishers didn't think the game would sell, these ulterior motives go both ways whether it's for diversity or against it. Just about all forms of commercial media have ulterior motives. It's really only the super independent creators that can make content that is wholly without ulterior motives.
The problem obviously lies with the inability to differentiate between one's political and philosophical views and the success or failure in which a game promotes the producers' intended goals.
The everyman would, especially when fighting 2 on 1, be able to beat up a smaller woman, so that argument isn't gonna fly.
Plus, when did Nathan ever get beat up to a similar extent in any of the other games? I might be wrong, but I don't think Nathan ever even lost a 1v1 fight before.
Good thing I never made the argument that there was a genocide against boring white dudes.
I just took games with known SJW types among them, and showed that they didn't just want "not to play as a white middle-aged dudes", and as a bonus showed how they screech in rage when people play of white dudes of their own volition.
Are those games with known sjw types among them? Cause you probably don't want to list massively successful games, kinda defeats the other argument I'm sure you have "go woke get broke."
If Nathan and his buddy were to get beaten in a 2v1 fight, the victor would probably be much bigger than them, like the Russian guy in The Punisher.
Otherwise people would be complaining "How absurd! How unrealistic!" because it would be, at least in the context of the Uncharted world.
So the outrage would be about the same.
The input is not coming from within either to make games better, whether the actual dev team or the "hardcore" gamer. Rockstar fired a dev for trying to fix their shitty ass combat.
Unless Sarkeesian went up to Naughty Dog when they had this story that had nothing do with revenge or violence and influenced them to change that to revenge and violence (which I'm pretty sure had 0 chance of happening), then it had nothing to do with Sarkeesian. Unless you're trying to actually make that argument, then lay off Sarkeesian ruining TLOU2 right now.
Drukmann was an SJW from the beginning. He always had ulterior motives, which is the point I'm making. It didn't have to come from Sarkeesian, though her presence couldn't have possibly have helped.
I don't have any stats or numbers. But if I wanted to gather data, I'd go over to metacritic and check the user scores (I couldn't trust the "professional" scores, for obvious reasons) for games that have known SJW "infiltrators" vs games that aren't. Like BFV vs CoD:MW or something. TLoU2 vs RDR2. GoW (the latest) vs GoW 3 or something like that.
You do realize that it's literally been proven that many games couldn't have female protagonists because publishers didn't think the game would sell, these ulterior motives go both ways whether it's for diversity or against it.
I agree. Shame on them. Gaming has always had a problem of "outsiders", executives, investors and the like, trying to push their ideas on games while not being gamers themselves.
The point is that Nadine shouldn't have been able to win in a fight against two men.
But she did, because someone was being a political activist and made her a feminist Mary-Sue. And that's no good.
These games were relatively less successful (at least in terms of user ratings) than their predecessors.
But this is what they do. This is how this works. SJWs go after the big and popular things, infiltrate, and then act as activists with their new platform. Uncharted didn't start out this way. Neither did Battlefield or TLoU. They didn't grow to such heights on the basis of feminist ideologies, did they?
Kyle Gaddo and Russ Pitts weren't always in control of The Escapist, were they?
The point is that Nadine shouldn't have been able to win in a fight against two men.
But she did, because someone was being a political activist and made her a feminist Mary-Sue. And that's no good.
Lol, oh man, this is really eating you up isn't it. Nathan being able to take infinite bullets with his regenerating health is fine but a girl beating up 2 men. Blargle blarg, MAH IMMERSION IS RUINED!!
These games were relatively less successful (at least in terms of user ratings) than their predecessors.
But this is what they do. This is how this works. SJWs go after the big and popular things, infiltrate, and then act as activists with their new platform. Uncharted didn't start out this way. Neither did Battlefield or TLoU. They didn't grow to such heights on the basis of feminist ideologies, did they?
Kyle Gaddo and Russ Pitts weren't always in control of The Escapist, were they?
Holy crap, you really have a full conspiracy theory going about this stupid thing. I'm getting the feeling you have some strong opinions about the shape of the earth.
Yeah, you'd think someone with the healing powers of Wolverine wouldn't lose a 2v1 fight to a smaller, weaker opponent, wouldn't you?
Glad you understand.
I dunno, humiliating and killing the white male protagonist from the first game seems pretty anti-status-quo to me.
Drukmann was an SJW from the beginning. He always had ulterior motives, which is the point I'm making. It didn't have to come from Sarkeesian, though her presence couldn't have possibly have helped.
No, there was ONE chick. Not chicks. And it was verses 2 men. Not just Drake. Let's get the facts straight.
Keeping standard stealth action gunplay as the core gameplay loop is more status quo.
The EssJayDubya stuff wasn't the stuff that ruined TLOU2.
Are you seriously upset that a chick beat up 2 "normal" dudes? Nadine is a trained fighter, the guys are not, it makes sense in basic action movie logic. There's so many examples of chicks beating up dudes in action movies it ain't even funny. What ruined UC4 was the game was about a brother that was never mentioned previously, the game had barely any set-pieces, and the gameplay loop changed to a poor man's Metal Gear Solid (bigger levels with stealth action approach vs tightly designed linear encounters/set-pieces). Nadine had nothing to do with bringing down the game.
I don't have any stats or numbers. But if I wanted to gather data, I'd go over to metacritic and check the user scores (I couldn't trust the "professional" scores, for obvious reasons) for games that have known SJW "infiltrators" vs games that aren't. Like BFV vs CoD:MW or something. TLoU2 vs RDR2. GoW (the latest) vs GoW 3 or something like that.
I agree. Shame on them. Gaming has always had a problem of "outsiders", executives, investors and the like, trying to push their ideas on games while not being gamers themselves.
Like Metacritic user scores aren't biased as all hell...
All the people arguing about games being influenced by EssJayDubyas and never saying a thing in all the previous decades of games being made with ulterior motives just scream that they're just upset they are no longer the majority that gets pandered to anymore. I've constantly asked this question to the people who think EssJayDubyas are influencing game development somehow and nobody can answer it:
If the majority of the gaming audience is still the same as it was say 20 years ago then the same games made with the same ulterior motives would still be the top sellers. Why would the pandering change to a different audience then? How have the EssJayDubyas convinced big business to change the product they make that they know will sell less? When in the history of the world have influencers of any kind convinced any company (let alone entire industry) to change their product that will make the companies/industry less money?
The much more logical and simple answer is the gaming audience has changed and the pandering to sell that audience new product has merely changed with the audience vs some conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, you'd think someone with the healing powers of Wolverine wouldn't lose a 2v1 fight to a smaller, weaker opponent, wouldn't you?
Glad you understand.
All the people arguing about games being influenced by EssJayDubyas and never saying a thing in all the previous decades of games being made with ulterior motives
Why would the pandering change to a different audience then? How have the EssJayDubyas convinced big business to change the product they make that they know will sell less?
As I said before, gaming has long had a problem of non-gamers being in charge. Publishers, execs, and the like. I also said before that gaming was just one battleground in a much larger cultural shift. Put the two together, and you have people who ill-understand the hobby making executive decisions to hire people ill-suited for the hobby. Diversity consultants, and the like. They have been convinced, somehow, that they need to market to "a new audience", because they're an untapped goldmine waiting out there. Time will tell if this strategy pays off for them.
You know how some companies are willing to take a hit to push their ideologies?
You think those Gillette "toxic masculinity" commercials helped them sell more razors?
Haha, no. That was never their intention.
It's about "social purpose".
It's about sounding like a good, ethical, green, socially-conscious, progressive brand.
Because someone sitting high up thinks that will work out better for them in the long-term. They see that it works for other companies, so why not them too?
because those companies already have a large part of that demographic already, (Dove and Nike, for example) which makes it easier for them to expand into that area
Look at how many companies came out with solemn black .jpgs in response to George Floyd. You think all those companies really care? Or are they just trying to get you to associate their brand with the right politics?
And if sales have to take a hit in the process, then those are acceptable losses.
2) `O'Sullivan's first law
3) Are regards the boots on the ground, to do the dirty work, what they really want to do is push an agenda. They don't actually care about the company, just like Sarkeesian doesn't really care about gaming. They're similar to religious zealots where the only thing that matters is the cause, and they'll burn down the companies they work for and martyr themselves in the process if that's what it takes. Kyle Gaddo is an example of this, with his clearly stated intentions of an ideological scrubbing.
4) False conclusions from data that includes casual games like Candy Crush and Farmville have mislead executives into thinking that there's suddenly an explosion of girl gamers that they now need to snatch up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
