CDPR on Cyberpunk 2077 backlash

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well didn't that one lady in Washington claim for like decades she was black...

Rachel Dolezal? Yeah, she was artifically darkening her skin and wearing dark makeup, perming her hair, whole shebang. That's just the tip of the iceberg, she claims all kinds of crazy whacked out shit about her childhood. Like being raised in a teepee and bow hunting for food, living in South Africa under apartheid, being homeschooled for native heritage, and other shit.

So...she's trans-racial, trans-historical, trans-continental and trans-experiential on top of maybe trans-personal

 

[Abomination]

Remember when Witcher didn't have people of color and they claimed that they were only being lore accurate to the Witcher series, and that including poc would be messing with the source material?

Yeah, and they had a point. It was the Holy Roman Empire attacking what was essentially 4 Polands with interference from Scandinavia. A black person would be an anomaly. It's POSSIBLE a black person could have been in the area, but there's no requirement for one to be there. It was not a BAD thing to not include a member of a demographic if it is highly unlikely a member of that demographic would be present. I didn't see any ire about there not being anyone of Oriental or South-East Asian descent.

...except that The Witcher has brown people in its lore.

Yes, they are from a completely separate location to where the game takes place. A location that is on the literal other side of the Empire.

Rotate Europe 90 degrees counter-clockwise with Hanover as its axle. Poland is now just as far North of Germany as it used to be East. That is where the game is set. Essentially where Denmark is. We all know Denmark was frequented by Africans in the 1400s... why the hell are they obligated to have Africans in a northern European setting?

 

[Hawki]

Admittedly, there could have been more done to better reflect a fantasy world where people of different colors and ethnic backgrounds were represented, but Poland itself is ethnically homogeneous, so it's understandable why the final product is as it is.

Anyone "can" do something in regards to worldbuilding. There's arguably a leg to stand on with Cyberpunk in that it's obstensibly our world in the future, but fantasy settings, by definition, our fantasy. Whatever races/ethnicities/nationalities they choose to take inspiration from is up to them.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

In new Deus Ex you play as a stoic, sleek cyborg man, that don't have to worry about anti-rejection drug shortages, cause his CEO overlord will provide him with anything he needs.

This pretty much highlights perfectly what I said earlier about poseur punk, and the disconnect between contemporary audiences and authentic punk media. Because that's a tremendously facile take on Human Revolution and Mankind Divided. The key term to consider here is "gilded age".

I mean, once you set aside the fact the entire game's based on Jensen not having to worry about neuro shortages, why he doesn't, and why the neuro shortage exists in the first place.

Yes, Human Revolution is more of a 5-minutes-til-midnight take on the genre.
Jensen is still anything BUT a regular Joe in this world, that doesn't have to face the same problems that most augmented people do.

Spoiler

And the later reveal that he isn't even neuropoz dependent, and the explanation why, cements that.

I mean, just like in the original, the aim here was parallels between the protagonist and a certain biblical figure, BUT for someone who wants nitty gritty, just a raggedy cog in the system approach, that might be jarring.

And while i liked atmosphere and the worldbuilding, the plot is really focused. Orbits almost entirely 'round the augmentations issues. Leaving very little place for highlighting other problems this society could face.
Doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad approach; might save the story from spreading itself too thin, but again, for some people, that will be too little.

Point being: If one wants to play as a cog in a nightmarish dystopian machine, instead of a "cool cyber man" on the fringe of the system, better look at indie games, maybe?

Ruiner does it pretty well I think.

Maybe. Haven't played. But like i said, it's an indie game.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Yes, Human Revolution is more of a 5-minutes-til-midnight take on the genre...for some people, that will be too little.

At what I'm getting is preoccupation with aesthetic, opposed to theme or thesis, when defining and qualifying punk media. HR and MD are absolutely punk media in execution, theme, and thesis -- ironic, considering the original is more straightforward conspiracy thriller/dystopian sci-fi with little if any actual punk elements.

 

[Kwak]

Maybe. Haven't played. But like i said, it's an indie game.

Yeah I know, was using it as an example of said indie games that give that experience.

 

[Abomination]

2 original outrage articles and then many posts and blogs supporting said articles. Of course there's going to be disconnect but it's also poisoning the well to infer that people who argue a stance are overreacting as a passing shot.

And 27 outrage against outrage articles, and the many posts and blogs supporting said articles. If we have to count the whole web for one we have to count the whole web for another.

If proposing an idea about a game that's not positive is poisoning the well, then poison it. It's amazing how much we call "game journalism" fake because it's just paid ads giving games 10/10, then get mad when game journalists say anything even remotely lukewarm about videogames.

It's almost as if that whole videogame crocodile movement is still around, and we care more about the videogame tribe liking all the same things we like than any sort of ethics.

What?

No, it's poisoning the well to take opposition to a position, then state the position you are opposing is just over-reacting after you've been arguing against it. Either have a discussion in good faith or don't discuss at all.

Not to mention, these initial articles were on major publications, the responses were from non-publications - but apparently when a lot of voices respond that a stance is flawed it is in turn a flawed response because there are more voices than the original stance? This line of reasoning is absurd.