Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[BrawlMan]

Well, it got good reviews so I'm not sure what your point is beyond it still didn't get the sales they hoped for.

It's called Critical Dissonance. Positive reviews in the 8, 9, or 10 (when the game itself is more a 5/6 in the vanilla version & a 7 in the DE version) don't mean a damn thing if the sale weren't good. If the sales were as good as most of the reviews there would be a DmC2 and not a DMC5. That's a fact. I don't know how I can put this any other way.

This is a reason I wanted a different series to talk about. I beat Devil May Cry over 10 years ago and I don't remember much, I remember Dante's attitude and it still seems like it was fairly in like with DmC, he just developed more as a character since then.

You not remembering is on you. If you want to remember everything, or what is important I suggest you pick up the HD collection and play 1 or 3 (The Switch Version has style switching which makes it even better). 3 still has the best story (and the story is excellent) followed by 5. Or at the very least look at DMC commentary or review videos from King J. Grim, Champion Analysis, Foxcade, or Sphere Hunter. Or the Vergil Effect video from Digital Dream Club. All are on YouTube.

Then lets change series to something else.

Okay, save that one for a complete different topic. I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Worgen]

Propaganda tries to force belief in something, and leaves no room for making up your own mind. It doesn't give you the evidence, it just demands that you believe. It tells you "this is what you should believe. Everything else is wrong. Trust me". For example, trying to show any nation as a wonderful perfect place without mention of the flaws. Kind of like how Tom Clancy books are all "America can do no wrong. Our enemies are just horrible people who love killing innocent civilians and hate Americans, specifically, but just trust us on that because we're not going to examine their motivations at all".

I actually felt insulted the last time I read a Tom Clancy book because of how little time they spent on the motivations of the antagonist. It was actually just the narrator saying "He was a fanatic. He hated Americans", and that was it. No explanation why. That's propaganda.

To include "politics" in a game would mean viewing an issue from multiple sides, where you can see why people might come to different beliefs about a subject. This is something propaganda would never do.

For example, in a certain metal gear game, the antagonist is all about survival of the fittest. The cutscenes before, during, and after the fight are all about the guy explaining how he wants to create a war to burn America to the ground so that a new breed of stronger people can come out the other side. When the protagonist wins, the antagonist says "See? I was right. You were stronger, so your will gets to remain while mine dies off". So does that mean the antagonist is right? If he had carried out his plan, would it have worked out for the better? Since this was averted, would the problems of America continue to fester, like he had forseen? Those questions remain unanswered. It allows the player to make up their own mind. That's politics, as opposed to propaganda.

I agree with your definition but I think part of it is still subjective to the viewer and it tends to be squishier for social subjects. Like if you see a female who is able to hold her own with the men in the world, is that propaganda or politics? Or a happily married gay couple, is that propaganda? What about old disney movies were it was pretty common to have gay coded characters who were always the bad guys?

Even looking at something that looks like clear propaganda can be a bit tricky, like COD WW2, that plot seems like textbook propaganda where America can do no wrong, but at the same time it does show allied solders dying a lot, the old WW2 propaganda movies actually forbade showing dead US troops.

I watched a bit of it, maybe up to the half-way point, and I think this actually supports my point. The choice to uphold the "status-quo" at the benefit of the ruling class (Gwyn and the gods) and to the detriment of your people "the age of man" is presented as just that. A choice. You could choose to either do it or not. The game doesn't try to force that there's one right answer. Giving the player a choice is a way to keep something from being "propaganda".

You should finish watching it, he actually goes over how someone could have the opposite interpretation of the game, depending on their political leanings.

I think when evaluating the inclusion of politics in games, one should think about whether or not the inclusion serves the narrative in any way. Does this inclusion matter? Does it enhance the narrative? Is it necessary to the plot? If it doesn't, it might be seen as an annoying attempt to shove a belief down a throat.

For these examples, no, I don't think it matters, nor does it enhance the narrative, nor is it necessary to the plot. If you didn't pay attention to the lore (that you have to watch youtube videos and read comics to understand), you'd have no clue. So why was it included?

Why did the Harry Potter author try to make one of the characters black, and another gay, years after the books had been written and the lore had been established? Same thing.

That's the thing, anything outside the 'norm' can be seen as trying to shove a belief down someones throat. The game itself doesn't really have a plot, its a hero shooter. But Blizzard put out these character vides and comics to flesh out the cast and they decided to make two of the characters gay. It has no impact on gameplay, but people were still up in arms about it and they did use the argument that Blizzard was shoving the gays down everyone's throats. These things do flesh out the characters and the world so I don't see what is bad about their inclusions.

I don't know enough about the Harry Potter thing to speak much on it. I don't know any of the black thing, I did hear something about a character who was originally black but got recast when she got a speaking roll that set her up with... Freckle... kid... And I heard that making Dumble Dore gay was handed with as much nuance as a bull at a mouse convention for mice that have fetishes for bulls. (HA) But I don't have enough knowledge to speak on it.

 

[SilentPony]

Propaganda tries to force belief in something, and leaves no room for making up your own mind. It doesn't give you the evidence, it just demands that you believe. It tells you "this is what you should believe. Everything else is wrong. Trust me". For example, trying to show any nation as a wonderful perfect place without mention of the flaws. Kind of like how Tom Clancy books are all "America can do no wrong. Our enemies are just horrible people who love killing innocent civilians and hate Americans, specifically, but just trust us on that because we're not going to examine their motivations at all".

I actually felt insulted the last time I read a Tom Clancy book because of how little time they spent on the motivations of the antagonist. It was actually just the narrator saying "He was a fanatic. He hated Americans", and that was it. No explanation why. That's propaganda.

To include "politics" in a game would mean viewing an issue from multiple sides, where you can see why people might come to different beliefs about a subject. At the very least, it'd be a fair and nuanced criticism, as opposed to "this is just wrong". These are things that propaganda would never do.

Okay so what's the difference between propaganda and what we consider to be self-evident truths? Bioshock Infinite has the antagonists being sexist, racists religious fanatics. It openly shows that killing black people because they're black is just wrong, full stop. Is that propaganda? At no point are you shown the alternate side that yeah maybe blacks and bullets are natural allies.

I mean people tongue-in-cheek joke that Thanos did nothing wrong, but that's just an evolution of the Empire did nothing wrong, which is just an evolution of Hitler did nothing wrong. People can do wrong. Political views can be wrong/evil. Not everything is morally gray, nor does every side deserve the same consideration

 

[Worgen]

Okay so what's the difference between propaganda and what we consider to be self-evident truths? Bioshock Infinite has the antagonists being sexist, racists religious fanatics. It openly shows that killing black people because they're black is just wrong, full stop. Is that propaganda? At no point are you shown the alternate side that yeah maybe blacks and bullets are natural allies.

I mean people tongue-in-cheek joke that Thanos did nothing wrong, but that's just an evolution of the Empire did nothing wrong, which is just an evolution of Hitler did nothing wrong. People can do wrong. Political views can be wrong/evil. Not everything is morally gray, nor does every side deserve the same consideration

The weird thing about Infinite is they actually do kinda do that with the whole revolution thing that happens and then the Vox Populi going on killing sprees. To the point where they actually had to tone it down in the DLC by showing that Daisy Fitzroy wasn't as bloodthirsty as she seemed in the normal story and was told she had to do this to give additional motivation to Elizabeth.

 

[SilentPony]

The weird thing about Infinite is they actually do kinda do that with the whole revolution thing that happens and then the Vox Populi going on killing sprees. To the point where they actually had to tone it down in the DLC by showing that Daisy Fitzroy wasn't as bloodthirsty as she seemed in the normal story and was told she had to do this to give additional motivation to Elizabeth.

I dunno, I guess that part never bothered me. Like yeah they're going on a rampage, but its rampage through basically Sky Hitler's Fortress of pain. There weren't many innocents in Columbia.
The first Bioshock did a much better job as most of Rapture was just people wanting to live a life away from the bullshit of the 60s, not so much the bullshit of black people existing. Andrew Ryan is way more morally gray than Comstock, and Ryan killed his mistress and their unborn child and dumped another mistress when she was disfigured in a bombing.
Comstock and his people where just hysterically over-the-top Confederates, and like the Nazis you should never feel bad fighting the Confederates.

 

[Houseman]

Like if you see a female who is able to hold her own with the men in the world, is that propaganda or politics? Or a happily married gay couple, is that propaganda? What about old disney movies were it was pretty common to have gay coded characters who were always the bad guys?

Depends on the following criteria:
- Does it present "both sides" of an issue?
- Is it criticism, or does it just tell you what to believe?
- Does it give you evidence for the "favored" belief?
- Is it shoe-horned in?
- Is it a straight-up lie?

What would you add/remove to this criteria?

That's the thing, anything outside the 'norm' can be seen as trying to shove a belief down someones throat.

That's why I gave a criteria that could be used to determine whether or not something is "being shoved down a throat". If you judge things by the criteria, which was: "one should think about whether or not the inclusion serves the narrative in any way. Does this inclusion matter? Does it enhance the narrative? Is it necessary to the plot?"- then you arrive at consistent answers.

Your argument is that people who decry politics are inconsistent. Having a criteria would fix that, no?

 

[Worgen]

I dunno, I guess that part never bothered me. Like yeah they're going on a rampage, but its rampage through basically Sky Hitler's Fortress of pain. There weren't many innocents in Columbia.
The first Bioshock did a much better job as most of Rapture was just people wanting to live a life away from the bullshit of the 60s, not so much the bullshit of black people existing. Andrew Ryan is way more morally gray than Comstock, and Ryan killed his mistress and their unborn child and dumped another mistress when she was disfigured in a bombing.
Comstock and his people where just hysterically over-the-top Confederates, and like the Nazis you should never feel bad fighting the Confederates.

Its justified, but its still a very bloody rampage where you end up having to fight them. I disagree with there being less innocents in Columbia, but that was one of the big problems that Infinite had, it was taking place in an active city but the combat was almost completely separated from the city population. You still meet the occasional friendly or at least nonhostile npc but no where near as much as would be expected. That's one of the reasons we got all those articles about cognitive dissidence in regards to it.

The first Bioshock did do a much better job, but to me its because it took place in an already fallen civilization. So they were able to show its rise and fall though almost more of fan interpretation then direct player cause or having to deal with the issue of noncombatants.

 

[Worgen]

Depends on the following criteria:
- Does it present "both sides" of an issue?
- Is it criticism, or does it just tell you what to believe?
- Does it give you evidence for the "favored" belief?
- Is it shoe-horned in?
- Is it a straight-up lie?

What would you add/remove to this criteria?

The problem I see with just a list is that there are a lot of weird nuances to something like this.

• Sometimes there aren't 2 sides to an issue.
• Sometimes its not even really presenting something directly or a belief.
• The difference between something shoe-horned in and natural can be weird when it comes to media since there is litereally a god when it comes to media, the creator.
• What do you mean straight up lie? Like are the people complaining about it lying or is the portrayal a lie?

I think we might be kind of talking past each other. I'm seeing this more as a discussion along the lines of "lets add a gay character" and the reaction of "This gay was shoe-horned in, or keep the gays out of this" or something along those lines. I kinda get the feeling you are talking more along the lines of something more clear cut like government propaganda that portrays one country as purely the good and righteous and others as dirty and to be looked down on.

 

[Houseman]

Okay so what's the difference between propaganda and what we consider to be self-evident truths? Bioshock Infinite has the antagonists being sexist, racists religious fanatics. It openly shows that killing black people because they're black is just wrong, full stop.

Does it? I don't remember that. Can you link to a youtube video or the script or something? Something that shows the game making a statement about racism, saying "killing black people because they're black is just wrong"?

I was able to google up some images from the game where they say "fight back against the foreign hordes" and things, so that at least presents "their side", and shows what they think they're doing. The game might try to explain racism from the society's perspective, which would be something that propaganda never does. But again, I don't remember.

 

[Houseman]

The problem I see with just a list is that there are a lot of weird nuances to something like this.

• Sometimes there aren't 2 sides to an issue.
• Sometimes its not even really presenting something directly or a belief.
• The difference between something shoe-horned in and natural can be weird when it comes to media since there is litereally a god when it comes to media, the creator.
• What do you mean straight up lie? Like are the people complaining about it lying or is the portrayal a lie?

I think we might be kind of talking past each other. I'm seeing this more as a discussion along the lines of "lets add a gay character" and the reaction of "This gay was shoe-horned in, or keep the gays out of this" or something along those lines

I can restrict myself to the scenario of "lets add a gay character", if you'd like.

Sometimes gay characters are shoe-horned in, especially when their sexuality has nothing to do with the narrative. Is the game about the oppression of minorities? Then by all means, include the story of a gay character. Is it about shooting your opponents faster than they can shoot you? Then it's probably shoe-horned in.

Is this one of those issues where there aren't 2 sides? If it's a controversial issue, then doesn't it, by definition have at least 2 sides? What controversial issue doesn't have 2 sides?

As for whether or not it directly presents a belief, you're right, the mere inclusion of a minority doesn't directly present a belief. I would say that, if it's shoe-horned in, it attempts to push a belief of "this is mainstream. This is normal." Like, attempting to have 50-50 representation of men and women in war, or equal representation of homosexual and heterosexual characters. Neither of those are accurate. That's something I would think is shoe-horned in, for that reason. It can even be an example of "straight up lying" if it attempts to rewrite history with it, like a historical event. Battlefield V is a good example of that, where they attributed the actions of Hungarian troops to a German mother and daughter.

 

[SilentPony]

Does it? I don't remember that. Can you link to a youtube video or the script or something? Something that shows the game making a statement about racism, saying "killing black people because they're black is just wrong"?

I was able to google up some images from the game where they say "fight back against the foreign hordes" and things, so that at least presents "their side", and shows what they think they're doing. The game might try to justify the society's racism, which would be something that propaganda never does. But again, I don't remember.

Well in the very first act an interracial couple is sentenced to death and they hold a raffle over who can throw the first stone(baseball to be fair) and the crime was interracial marriage. It wasn't enough that a black woman married a white man, the white man had committed the sin of marrying a black woman.
Later on you find Comtock's personal journals and he describes Lincoln as the great Betrayer and Divider and how he stole the Negro from his rightful place underneath the white man.

Comstock's side is that blacks should be slaves and its okay to kill them for trying to mingle with whites. Its kinda' hard to sympathize with them. Comstock even refers to the world below Columbia as Sodom and Gomorrah, a biblical reference about two cities so engulfed in sin and debauchery they have to be destroyed and everyone killed. And that's the plot of the game - Comstock is trying to corrupt Elizabeth to the point she'll use her space magic to kill everyone who isn't part of Columbia's white supremicist city.

No pun intended its pretty black and white whose the good side here

 

[Houseman]

Well in the very first act an interracial couple is sentenced to death and they hold a raffle over who can throw the first stone(baseball to be fair) and the crime was interracial marriage. It wasn't enough that a black woman married a white man, the white man had committed the sin of marrying a black woman.
Later on you find Comtock's personal journals and he describes Lincoln as the great Betrayer and Divider and how he stole the Negro from his rightful place underneath the white man.

Comstock's side is that blacks should be slaves and its okay to kill them for trying to mingle with whites. Its kinda' hard to sympathize with them.

None of that is making the statement that "killing black people because they're black is just wrong", though, which is what I had requested. Whether or not you can sympathize and whether or not you think the antagonists are wrong is beside the point.

We're looking to find out whether or not the game makes a propogandistic statement.

I could re-install the game and play through it again, which I might do, but that'll take me a while

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Sometimes gay characters are shoe-horned in, especially when their sexuality has nothing to do with the narrative. Is the game about the oppression of minorities? Then by all means, include the story of a gay character. Is it about shooting your opponents faster than they can shoot you? Then it's probably shoe-horned in.

In a game about shooting your opponents faster than they can shoot you, any backstory is "shoehorned in".

 

[SilentPony]

None of that is making the statement that "killing black people because they're black is just wrong", though, which is what I had requested. Whether or not you can sympathize and whether or not you think the antagonists are wrong is beside the point.

We're looking to find out whether or not the game makes a propogandistic statement.

I could re-install the game and play through it again, which I might do, but that'll take me a while

Well i'd say its obvious. The hero of the story is trying to stop the bad guy. If the bad guy believes killing blacks because they're black is okay, and the hero disagrees with that, then naturally the hero must think killing blacks for being black is wrong. And I would argue actions can be propaganda just the same as a slogan. If you're taking the stance that you oppose something, you're stance is that something is categorically wrong. And if the definition of propaganda is that no alternative sides be allowed, then actions to stop something driven by opposition to that something are in fact propaganda.

And in the alternate timeline you travel through Booker is the revolutionary hero, not Daisy, and he believed in equality for all and justice and fairness, etc...basically everything Comstock didn't.

 

[Houseman]

Well i'd say its obvious. The hero of the story is trying to stop the bad guy.

Yeah, but not because he's a racist. Isn't he just trying to rescue Elizabeth? Is there any evidence the hero cares about racism either way?

And in the alternate timeline you travel through Booker is the revolutionary hero, not Daisy, and he believed in equality for all and justice and fairness, etc...basically everything Comstock didn't.

If we're allowing alternate timelines, isn't

Spoiler: Bioshock infinite spoilers

Comstock just an alternate-dimension Booker?

So doesn't that kind of undermine the point about the beliefs of the hero?


A better example might be in RDR2, you get positive honor points for killing KKK members. They might be trying to set up a burning cross or something, and you can just kill them even before they finish their skit. That's, I think, a better example of a game making a definite statement over the issue of race. It's propaganda, when checked against the criteria, because it isn't a nuanced view. The game just tells you the KKK is wrong, and you're in the right for killing them.

 

[Worgen]

I can restrict myself to the scenario of "lets add a gay character", if you'd like.

Sometimes gay characters are shoe-horned in, especially when their sexuality has nothing to do with the narrative. Is the game about the oppression of minorities? Then by all means, include the story of a gay character. Is it about shooting your opponents faster than they can shoot you? Then it's probably shoe-horned in.

Is this one of those issues where there aren't 2 sides? If it's a controversial issue, then doesn't it, by definition have at least 2 sides? What controversial issue doesn't have 2 sides?

As for whether or not it directly presents a belief, you're right, the mere inclusion of a minority doesn't directly present a belief. I would say that, if it's shoe-horned in, it attempts to push a belief of "this is mainstream. This is normal." Like, attempting to have 50-50 representation of men and women in war, or equal representation of homosexual and heterosexual characters. Neither of those are accurate. That's something I would think is shoe-horned in, for that reason. It can even be an example of "straight up lying" if it attempts to rewrite history with it, like a historical event. Battlefield V is a good example of that, where they attributed the actions of Hungarian troops to a German mother and daughter.

Ok, that sounds good since that's one of the main angles I'm coming at this from.

By that reasoning then can't we say that pretty much any insertion of sexuality would be out of place? It's pretty common even for games that aren't about sexuality in any way to still give characters a wife or girlfriend or something even if they don't do anything plot wise and really just exist to add personal steaks to the proceedings. Does it really matter if instead of a wife its a husband? Does any plot with a gay character have to be about them overcoming a hostile society that disproves of them?

My go to for a controversial issue that doesn't really have 2 sides is climate change, but I am also thinking of that in the way that one side goes with the evidence that says its a thing and the other side thinks it isn't real since it still snows sometimes. But for this I am completely ignoring the sides that think it is real but totally disagree on what to do about it or the cause or whatever since this is complicated enough as it is.

I would agree that would be shoe-horning in.

 

[SilentPony]

Ok, that sounds good since that's one of the main angles I'm coming at this from.

By that reasoning then can't we say that pretty much any insertion of sexuality would be out of place? It's pretty common even for games that aren't about sexuality in any way to still give characters a wife or girlfriend or something even if they don't do anything plot wise and really just exist to add personal steaks to the proceedings. Does it really matter if instead of a wife its a husband? Does any plot with a gay character have to be about them overcoming a hostile society that disproves of them?

My go to for a controversial issue that doesn't really have 2 sides is climate change, but I am also thinking of that in the way that one side goes with the evidence that says its a thing and the other side thinks it isn't real since it still snows sometimes. But for this I am completely ignoring the sides that think it is real but totally disagree on what to do about it or the cause or whatever since this is complicated enough as it is.

I would agree that would be shoe-horning in.

Doesn't that bring us back to the whole Chekhov's Gun theory? Basically if there's a gun on a mantle it needs to be fired by the 3rd act?
ie if the story establishes a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband with the main character, they need to have a scene together. If we establish their sexuality, there needs to be a love scene. And doesn't have to be pornographic, a simple kiss-fall-to-bed-fade-to-black works. If a character is trans, it needs to be brought up. Details shouldn't be added for detail's sake, only the essentials to tell the story.

Lets take Doom. Its a first person shooting about a for all intents and purposes faceless, speechless protagonist pimping around hell with a shotgun. Any details for the Doom guy that don't come into play beyond that are unnecessary. Doom guys sexuality, gender identity, food preferences, religion, shoe size, hair color, anything that doesn't add to the kill demons story/gameplay doesn't need to be there, and in fact takes away from the story.

 

[Houseman]

By that reasoning then can't we say that pretty much any insertion of sexuality would be out of place?

That's usually how I feel. I used to roll my eyes at how every single action movie protagonist needed to have a sex scene with someone they just met hours ago.

Does it really matter if instead of a wife its a husband?

No. But only one of those things are ever shoe-horned in.

One of the reasons why people complain about one of these things, and not the other, is because the companies just appear to be doing it for brownie points. "See, look, we made this character gay! Look how progressive we are! Look at what a statement we're making! Applaud our politics! Applaud our representation! Specifically, applaud us on Twitter and advertise for us, thanks"

It's one part that, and one part: "We hired a diversity consultant who told us that there's an untapped market of minorities out there that we need to reach, so we shoved in these these changes in order to appeal to that demographic".

There's lazy writing, then there's trying to score points. These things can be both at the same time, but only one of those things are ever both.

Bioshock Infinite is finished installing. I got the Rapture DLC too.

 

[Elfgore]

No. But only one of those things are ever shoe-horned in.

One of the reasons why people complain about one of these things, and not the other, is because the companies just appear to be doing it for brownie points. "See, look, we made this character gay! Look how progressive we are! Look at what a statement we're making! Applaud our politics! Applaud our representation! Specifically, applaud us on Twitter and advertise for us, thanks"

It's one part that, and one part: "We hired a diversity consultant who told us that there's an untapped market of minorities out there that we need to reach, so we shoved in these these changes in order to appeal to that demographic".

There's lazy writing, then there's trying to score points. These things can be both at the same time, but only one of those things are ever both.

Bioshock Infinite is finished installing. I got the Rapture DLC too.

Except one also equals inclusion. Which far outweighs any problems of pandering. Especially when pandering is rampant everywhere else, but only magically becomes a problem when certain groups are pandered to.

 

[Houseman]

Except one also equals inclusion. Which far outweighs any problems of pandering. Especially when pandering is rampant everywhere else, but only magically becomes a problem when certain groups are pandered to.

Perhaps. Inclusion just for inclusion's sake may seem more insulting than not being included at all.
Like the "token" black person who is either a stereotype, or is the first to die, or both.

I'd much rather see meaningful inclusion than shoe-horned in "hey we made this background character gay!"