• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Neil Druckmann has being getting transphobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic messages

Dick Jones

Member
Mar 7, 2015
1,646
4,352
830
Delta City
I had no doubt that you would highlight only the trans part and ignore the rest.
See, I have no issue with trans or lesbian characters, I'd play a trans/lesbian story game if it was good.
I had no issues in playing Life in strange 1 and 2.
The issue is when you put all that stuff I mentioned into a single post-apocalyptic zombie game making it crystal clear what you are trying to tell.
So choosing whether to put a trans person in a game is not political now unless it's set in a post apocalyptic zombie game? So Sony Bend can't put a trans character into Days Gone 2 but Guerilla Games can put one in Horizon: Forbidden West even though it is a post apocalyptic game there are no zombies.

Based on your description of politics in gaming, every decision made by developers is political. In the real world lesbians aren't political, there are women who are attracted to women. Why do you view them as political?
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Jon Neu

Rikoi

Member
Jun 23, 2020
731
1,158
380
So choosing whether to put a trans person in a game is not political now unless it's set in a post apocalyptic zombie game? So Sony Bend can't put a trans character into Days Gone 2 but Guerilla Games can put one in Horizon: Forbidden West even though it is a post apocalyptic game there are no zombies.

Based on your description of politics in gaming, every decision made by developers is political. In the real world lesbians aren't political, there are women who are attracted to women. Why do you view them as political?
At this point I think you are just trolling because you can see you failed at your argument.
Let's see: it's not realistic to put multiple LGBT characters, a woman on steroids, a pregnant woman on the frontline when you should stay back because it's dangerous for a woman in her condition all on the same game unless you are trying to tell something.
On top of this author of the game decides that it's good storytelling to
kill the main "white father" character of the first game
, and weird phrases like bigot sandwiches that are trying to tell the player something.
I kept it short, because it seems you can't understand more than 5 phrases at the same time but can only focus on the trans word.
 
Last edited:

Dick Jones

Member
Mar 7, 2015
1,646
4,352
830
Delta City
At this point I think you are just trolling because you can see you failed at your argument.
Let's see: it's not realistic to put multiple LGBT characters, a woman on steroids, a pregnant woman on the frontline when you should stay back because it's dangerous for a woman in her condition all on the same game unless you are trying to tell something.
On top of this author of the game decides that it's good storytelling to kill the main "white father" character of the first game, and weird phrases like bigot sandwiches that are trying to tell the player something.
I kept it short, because it seems you can't understand more than 5 phrases at the same time but can only focus on the trans word.

Multiple lesbians in the game. It's the same number as the first game. 2 lesbians. In fact the first game had more gay characters, Bill and his partner.

Woman on steroids. If it's a thing about steroids not working at that stage I point to the big fucker on Scars Island. The difference is Abby sleeps beside a gym and was driven for 5 years.

I believe the pregnant woman on the frontline was moving from one site to another, I'm open to correction. If I were you I'd be more angry about moving a heavily pregnant woman from Seattle to Jackson and back than the front line part.

Ellie needed motivation for the revenge aspect. Could have built up to it better I've no issue with people complaining about the speed of it that the person's demise. I would have preferred it built up.

Bigot sandwich, I agree it is a terrible line but it's one line in a very long game. I have said earlier today in this thread that the line was shite and what i would have preferred, and also would have been okay with another poster altering the wording of the barman Seth.

Last thing, not realistic? It's a game set in a world with people infected by mushrooms. If you can show me how that's realistic in this world I'm all ears.

There is an old video on Youtube by Max Landis 'The Death and Return of Superman'. In it he mentioned his father asking him what kills vampires and Max lists stake through the heart, garlic, sunlight, and his father cuts him off and says no you can kill vampires anyway you want because they don't fucking exist. The game is fiction and in their reality Abby's alleged steroids work.
 

Ozrimandias

Member
Jun 21, 2018
924
1,036
430
Welcome to the internet.

You can find people doing “death threats” to anybody for any reason. They’re obviously not real and are just people trolling and insulting someone. That’s why this type of news are just a big nothingburger.
No sorry, the "Welcome to the internet" it isn't funny anymore, all this kind of hate you found it in the past in some troll forums and stuff but now, is just everywhere.
 

bishopcruz

Member
Dec 6, 2006
3,739
217
1,235
Miami, FL
Multiple lesbians in the game. It's the same number as the first game. 2 lesbians. In fact the first game had more gay characters, Bill and his partner.

Woman on steroids. If it's a thing about steroids not working at that stage I point to the big fucker on Scars Island. The difference is Abby sleeps beside a gym and was driven for 5 years.

I believe the pregnant woman on the frontline was moving from one site to another, I'm open to correction. If I were you I'd be more angry about moving a heavily pregnant woman from Seattle to Jackson and back than the front line part.

Ellie needed motivation for the revenge aspect. Could have built up to it better I've no issue with people complaining about the speed of it that the person's demise. I would have preferred it built up.

Bigot sandwich, I agree it is a terrible line but it's one line in a very long game. I have said earlier today in this thread that the line was shite and what i would have preferred, and also would have been okay with another poster altering the wording of the barman Seth.

Last thing, not realistic? It's a game set in a world with people infected by mushrooms. If you can show me how that's realistic in this world I'm all ears.

There is an old video on Youtube by Max Landis 'The Death and Return of Superman'. In it he mentioned his father asking him what kills vampires and Max lists stake through the heart, garlic, sunlight, and his father cuts him off and says no you can kill vampires anyway you want because they don't fucking exist. The game is fiction and in their reality Abby's alleged steroids work.
Dina was not heavily pregnant, she didn't even know she was pregnant until just before she made it to Seattle.

Mel was VERY pregnant, she decided to first go out on roads that are apparently so unsafe that less than 60 seconds from the entrance to their headquarters dozens of enemies are waiting in ambush and there is no backup. After that she somehow walked her ass across the city to get to the Aquarium.

And the Landis quote. You want to use that in regards to the zombies? Cool. Problem is that PEOPLE in the Last of Us are supposed to be the same as people in our world, with the exception of gameplay. They at the very most have a cinematic level of survival. There is a base level of realism in the game with the fungus being the one difference.
 

Dick Jones

Member
Mar 7, 2015
1,646
4,352
830
Delta City
Dina was not heavily pregnant, she didn't even know she was pregnant until just before she made it to Seattle.

Mel was VERY pregnant, she decided to first go out on roads that are apparently so unsafe that less than 60 seconds from the entrance to their headquarters dozens of enemies are waiting in ambush and there is no backup. After that she somehow walked her ass across the city to get to the Aquarium.

And the Landis quote. You want to use that in regards to the zombies? Cool. Problem is that PEOPLE in the Last of Us are supposed to be the same as people in our world, with the exception of gameplay. They at the very most have a cinematic level of survival. There is a base level of realism in the game with the fungus being the one difference.
For clarification, I was talking about Mel going to Jackson and back to Seattle while being pregnant.
 

Jon Neu

..he neus nothing
Jan 21, 2018
3,991
8,336
750
Republic of Catalonia
No sorry, the "Welcome to the internet" it isn't funny anymore, all this kind of hate you found it in the past in some troll forums and stuff but now, is just everywhere.

Not at all, you could find death threats in every social media the very minute they started to exist. I’ve got death threats myself, I’ve got people threatening me with all kinds of violence and calling me all kinds of shit.

Literally you see the death threats Neil or Laura Bailey have received and they are like 5 or 6 people. Imagine trying to make news about “gamers” based on 6 random trolls along the internet.

This is a big pile of nothing.
 
Last edited:
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
I personally don't see a problem here. People have a right to be just as transphobic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic as they want to be. Free speech. If poor old Neil Druckmann doesn't like it, he doesn't have to read his messages. There are consequences to not only being a public figure, but a political and cultural subversive as well.
 

tassletine

Member
Oct 24, 2007
1,349
475
1,195
Multiple lesbians in the game. It's the same number as the first game. 2 lesbians. In fact the first game had more gay characters, Bill and his partner.

Woman on steroids. If it's a thing about steroids not working at that stage I point to the big fucker on Scars Island. The difference is Abby sleeps beside a gym and was driven for 5 years.

I believe the pregnant woman on the frontline was moving from one site to another, I'm open to correction. If I were you I'd be more angry about moving a heavily pregnant woman from Seattle to Jackson and back than the front line part.

Ellie needed motivation for the revenge aspect. Could have built up to it better I've no issue with people complaining about the speed of it that the person's demise. I would have preferred it built up.

Bigot sandwich, I agree it is a terrible line but it's one line in a very long game. I have said earlier today in this thread that the line was shite and what i would have preferred, and also would have been okay with another poster altering the wording of the barman Seth.

Last thing, not realistic? It's a game set in a world with people infected by mushrooms. If you can show me how that's realistic in this world I'm all ears.

There is an old video on Youtube by Max Landis 'The Death and Return of Superman'. In it he mentioned his father asking him what kills vampires and Max lists stake through the heart, garlic, sunlight, and his father cuts him off and says no you can kill vampires anyway you want because they don't fucking exist. The game is fiction and in their reality Abby's alleged steroids work.

What you're ignoring is context. An FPS target audience is 18-30 males (as they are the ones who most like killing stuff) -- so to skew the story in the opposite direction -- makes it automatically political. This is really nothing more than She-RA to the previous years He Man. It's a politically motivated decision to try and make more money.

It's not about the amount of gay characters in the game (etc) but the context in which they are presented. Almost all the female characters here are presented as strong, the men are usually just there to be shot. You should probably also know that the cordyceps fungus is a real thing and there is no logical reason why it couldn't mutate and infect humans -- believe ability is one of the reasons it was chosen.

So yes, regarding context, as Landis pointed out -- you can do anything! -- And given that Landis is the millionaire son of a famous director I think he can IN THAT CONTEXT, do anything -- but if he was a struggling director, without an open door, then he would have to fit right in like everyone else.

And regards Druckman, yes, of course he can do anything, and has -- but in context to the previous game and the audience he nurtured -- he very much can't -- and people are right to call him out on his attention seeking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jon Neu

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,419
2,663
505
34
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
I personally don't see a problem here. People have a right to be just as transphobic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic as they want to be. Free speech. If poor old Neil Druckmann doesn't like it, he doesn't have to read his messages. There are consequences to not only being a public figure, but a political and cultural subversive as well.

Are you having a bad day or do you genuinely mean what you wrote there?
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
I personally don't see a problem here. People have a right to be just as transphobic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic as they want to be. Free speech. If poor old Neil Druckmann doesn't like it, he doesn't have to read his messages. There are consequences to not only being a public figure, but a political and cultural subversive as well.

WTF man. I don't even have...
 

BluRayHiDef

Banned
Aug 21, 2015
4,153
5,618
830
I personally don't see a problem here. People have a right to be just as transphobic, homophobic, and anti-Semitic as they want to be. Free speech. If poor old Neil Druckmann doesn't like it, he doesn't have to read his messages. There are consequences to not only being a public figure, but a political and cultural subversive as well.
Yes, people have a right to be bigots. However, people also have a right to criticize and expose bigots (as long as the bigots' privacies aren't being violated, such as their spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, home privacy, etc).

What you don't understand is that free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, protects people from being punished by the government for expressing themselves but it doesn't protect people from being criticized and exposed for doing so.
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
Yes, people have a right to be bigots. However, people also have a right to criticize and expose bigots (as long as the bigots' privacies aren't being violated, such as their spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, home privacy, etc).

What you don't understand is that free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, protects people from being punished by the government for expressing themselves but it doesn't protect people from being criticized and exposed for doing so.

Nobody said otherwise. People can call Druckmann names, and Druckmann can whine about it in public if he wants. Win-win.

But with regard to what people said, I don't see the problem with it. If you want to subvert society, culture, or politics, you have to be prepared to get called out on it.
 

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,419
2,663
505
34
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
Of course I meant it. People have a right to free speech. People have a right to have phobias. On what basis do you disagree?

Well it is up to you what you do with your time on earth. I used to be very angry at this world until I realized it was me I should be most angry with and my limited time is not worth being toxic and in rage all the time.

I don't expect you to understand now, but there is still time. Funnily enough the game helped me a little bit with understanding other perspectives, seeing parallels between me and others and also reducing my anger.

It is weird how people can play the same game and take completely different things from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub Boss

Azurro

Member
Jun 11, 2018
1,758
3,092
420
Yes, people have a right to be bigots. However, people also have a right to criticize and expose bigots (as long as the bigots' privacies aren't being violated, such as their spousal privilege, doctor-patient privilege, home privacy, etc).

What you don't understand is that free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, protects people from being punished by the government for expressing themselves but it doesn't protect people from being criticized and exposed for doing so.

I am not going to defend people posting those nasty things, I won't, but I also think that you don't understand what you are posting there either. The extreme left uses this tactic all the time: censoring people is ok as long as it's my side that does it, that's what that line of "government can's censor you but we can do whatever we want to you" reduces to, and that is an attitude that is not ok, it is basically the beginnings of a fascist movement.

It's why the extreme left wants to abolish laws guaranteeing equality because they want to be able to legally discriminate and be racist, as long as it's against the race they want. Crazy people.
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
Well it is up to you what you do with your time on earth. I used to be very angry at this world until I realized it was me I should be most angry with and my limited time is not worth being toxic and in rage all the time.

I don't expect you to understand now, but there is still time. Funnily enough the game helped me a little bit with understanding other perspectives, seeing parallels between me and others and also reducing my anger.

It is weird how people can play the same game and take completely different things from it.

See, I disagree with you. Hatred and anger are completely natural, and people usually feel such strong emotions for a very good reason. Just as there is nothing wrong with loving, there is nothing wrong with hating. In fact, it's beneficial to hate things that are harmful to you, your family, and your community. It's not always a good idea to ignore that or pretend you're to blame for the emotions you feel. People are very much justified to hate and feel rage for many of the things going on in society.

Neil Druckmann is a subversive, and it is natural to hate those who would attempt to subvert your culture, people, or society in general.
 
  • Thoughtful
  • Like
Reactions: Vick and CloudNull

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
Of course you don't. It's impossible to argue with pure logic.

The fact you "don't see a problem" here with that rhetoric being used means you basically do not condemn people slinging vile shit on internet. It's therefore enabling the status-quo by omission pretty much.
People being transphobic, homophobic, antisemitic, nationalist, racist is a big societal problem of education causing hate, anger, violence and your stance is that it's pretty much OK. Yeah, fuck that and this status-quo BS.

There's a difference in pure "free speech" logic and what we as society should enable based on speech being freely said. Every right comes with obligations and consequences.
You say shit like this to a person, you get punched in the face. You say it on TV, you'll lose audience.
Shit like this on Twitter - we should be condemning it, cause it's not OK to be a vile asshole in a civilised society. And you don't have to be an SJW-leftie to strive for a bare fucking minimum.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Feb 19, 2014
10,413
4,925
665
Irrelevant
TLOU 2 was surgically crafted to incite. You'd have to be a complete idiot to release a product like that and not brace yourself for the shockwave.

So either Neil's a moron, or he knew this was coming and now he's just looking for attention.
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
The fact you "don't see a problem" here with that rhetoric being used means you basically do not condemn people slinging vile shit on internet. It's therefore enabling the status-quo by omission pretty much.
People being transphobic, homophobic, antisemitic, nationalist, racist is a big societal problem of education causing hate, anger, violence and your stance is that it's pretty much OK. Yeah, fuck that and this status-quo BS.

There's a difference in pure "free speech" logic and what we as society should enable based on speech being freely said. Every right comes with obligations and consequences.
You say shit like this to a person, you get punched in the face. You say it on TV, you'll lose audience.
Shit like this on Twitter - we should be condemning it, cause it's not OK to be a vile asshole in a civilised society. And you don't have to be an SJW-leftie to strive for a bare fucking minimum.

No, why would I condemn people for exercising their right to free speech? Why would I condemn people for disliking a subversive and letting him know it? Why is it a problem if someone doesn't approve of transsexuals or homosexuals? Why is it a "societal problem" if people want to be antisemitic, nationalist, or racist? If someone wants to hate those things, why should I care? Isn't that their right?

What you consider "vile" I consider free speech. This idea that people have to see the world your way or keep their mouths shut is offensive to a good many people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CloudNull

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
No, why would I condemn people for exercising their right to free speech? Why would I condemn people for disliking a subversive and letting him know it? Why is it a problem if someone doesn't approve of transsexuals or homosexuals? Why is it a "societal problem" if people want to be antisemitic, nationalist, or racist? If someone wants to hate those things, why should I care? Isn't that their right?

What you consider "vile" I consider free speech. This idea that people have to see the world your way or keep their mouths shut is offensive to a good many people.

The fact that you position your tacit enablement of bigotry, racism, transphobia etc. behind the right for free speech and diminish clear societal problems is exactly why people say GAF is alt-right.

I'm not sorry that a world not judging people by their birth defects, color of skin, race, nationality, sexual orientation etc.. and frivolously fling charged insults victims is offending enablers like you. Choosing to hate a person for these innate principles instead of character and what they do is what Nazis and racists and other supremacy groups do. Not seeing a problem is being part of it.
 

faraany3k

Member
Jan 14, 2018
117
119
405
I absolutely hate this argument that those who gemerally not like this game are bigots. I mean they turned the whole zombie infested thriller into a Romcom Teenage Drama. What do they expect.

It is like saying that people who hate Call of Duty, hate American army.
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
The fact that you position your tacit enablement of bigotry, racism, transphobia etc. behind the right for free speech and diminish clear societal problems is exactly why people say GAF is alt-right.

I'm not sorry that a world not judging people by their birth defects, color of skin, race, nationality, sexual orientation etc.. and frivolously fling charged insults victims is offending enablers like you. Choosing to hate a person for these innate principles instead of character and what they do is what Nazis and racists and other supremacy groups do. Not seeing a problem is being part of it.

But I don't see those things as a societal problem. If someone wants to be a bigot or racist or transphobe, that's their right. Welcome to reality. People have opinions, and they aren't always going to correspond with yours. I find your intolerance more of a societal problem than their opinions. And I don't really care if GAF is seen as alt-right. Why should I assume that to be a bad thing? People who hate the alt-right most - commies, Antifas, SJWs - are the biggest threat to this country. Far bigger than the alt-right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vick and CloudNull

Ellery

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,419
2,663
505
34
Manches, Amsterdam, Berlin
I absolutely hate this argument that those who gemerally not like this game are bigots. I mean they turned the whole zombie infested thriller into a Romcom Teenage Drama. What do they expect.

It is like saying that people who hate Call of Duty, hate American army.

Well if people are insulting the developers and voice actors directly with hateful language and vile imagery ... that is a difference to disliking the game.
There is nothing wrong with disliking the game, but it says a lot about the people posting those things (that Neil Druckmann received) on social media.

I have seen plenty of people saying they can't connect to the story and they are thrown off by the pacing. That's cool. Completely fair. There are plenty of things I don't like, but I don't go on social media attacking creators for something personal outside the game. I couldn't even imagine to begin to be that little of a man threatening violence to someone who created something that is completely optional to my life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sol_bad

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
But I don't see those things as a societal problem. If someone wants to be a bigot or racist or transphobe, that's their right. Welcome to reality. People have opinions, and they aren't always going to correspond with yours. I find your intolerance more of a societal problem than their opinions. And I don't really care if GAF is seen as alt-right. Why should I assume that to be a bad thing? People who hate the alt-right most - commies, Antifas, SJWs - are the biggest threat to this country. Far bigger than the alt-right.

Yeah your logic is so fucking great all right....

First-of-all, you don't choose how you seea certain well-documented problem, there is objective facts vs Fake News cover eyes and ears personal takes. And the fact is that without society you woudn't be a bigot, nationalist etc.. witout exposure to different societies and cultures you wouldn't have bigotry. That's how Nazis tried to solve the problem - ethnic cleansing, Gattaca-level uniformity. So the problem is societal by definition as it doesn't exist witout one, unlike mental health which can exist within an individual alone.

Second you don't CHOOSE to be a racist. You always say that it's a personal choice but that doesn't hold any water either. You don't get Morpheus with two pills asking whether you rather be a racist or not. These things are results of personal experiences and biases: taught, enabled, infleunced and transferred to you by, you guessed it - society. School, parents, surroundings, enounters with other people is what determines your levels of bigotry, racism, transphobia etc...

So your definition of "reality" is warped and your idea that people hating alt-right are SJWs and Antifas and not, you know, moderate people is telling exactly where you stand.

PS. Oh and by the way alt-right is where most people usually place such lovely groups like Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, bigots and other shmuck of the Earth. You not caring that NeoGAF is seen as alt-right, not assuming it's a "bad thing" clearly states that you also enable these groups as well. So yeah, you can fuck off with that "not seeing a problem" BS you trying to spin. Clearly an "SJW" who put lesbian couple in the game and a transgender character is a bigger problem than an army of harassers cause they only express their hatred for the game in their bigotry.
 

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
15,852
15,767
920
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
Yeah your logic is so fucking great all right....

First-of-all, you don't choose how you seea certain well-documented problem, there is objective facts vs Fake News cover eyes and ears personal takes. And the fact is that without society you woudn't be a bigot, nationalist etc.. witout exposure to different societies and cultures you wouldn't have bigotry. That's how Nazis tried to solve the problem - ethnic cleansing, Gattaca-level uniformity. So the problem is societal by definition as it doesn't exist witout one, unlike mental health which can exist within an individual alone.

Second you don't CHOOSE to be a racist. You always say that it's a personal choice but that doesn't hold any water either. You don't get Morpheus with two pills asking whether you rather be a racist or not. These things are results of personal experiences and biases: taught, enabled, infleunced and transferred to you by, you guessed it - society. School, parents, surroundings, enounters with other people is what determines your levels of bigotry, racism, transphobia etc...

So your definition of "reality" is warped and your idea that people hating alt-right are SJWs and Antifas and not, you know, moderate people is telling exactly where you stand.

PS. Oh and by the way alt-right is where most people usually place such lovely groups like Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, bigots and other shmuck of the Earth. You not caring that NeoGAF is seen as alt-right, not assuming it's a "bad thing" clearly states that you also enable these groups as well. So yeah, you can fuck off with that "not seeing a problem" BS you trying to spin. Clearly an "SJW" who put lesbian couple in the game and a transgender character is a bigger problem than an army of harassers cause they only express their hatred for the game in their bigotry.

Pretty much everything you said is incorrect. Racism is nothing but an extension of in-group preference. People are born preferring to associate with and be around their in-group. Has absolutely zero to do with society and everything to do with biology. Even animals out in the wild exhibit the same behavior, in preferring to group together with their own kind for defensive purposes. Are animals "muh racist!" for wanting to be around their own kind? No, of course not. They're just following millions of years of evolutionary instinct.

And what's wrong with being a nationalist? Why shouldn't people want the best for their nation? Why is it even wrong for someone to want a nation, or to protect their nation?

Have you ever really bothered to think about any of this Marxist brainwashing of yours? Have you ever really bothered to question it? Doesn't seem like you have. All you are doing is just repeating dogma you heard in the public indoctrination system and Bolshevik controlled media, without understanding any of it. I couldn't care less what people think about the alt-right. In my eyes, the masses are asses, so if they don't like something, that automatically lends it a measure of credibility.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: Vick and CloudNull

Dick Jones

Member
Mar 7, 2015
1,646
4,352
830
Delta City
What you're ignoring is context. An FPS target audience is 18-30 males (as they are the ones who most like killing stuff) -- so to skew the story in the opposite direction -- makes it automatically political. This is really nothing more than She-RA to the previous years He Man. It's a politically motivated decision to try and make more money.

It's not about the amount of gay characters in the game (etc) but the context in which they are presented. Almost all the female characters here are presented as strong, the men are usually just there to be shot. You should probably also know that the cordyceps fungus is a real thing and there is no logical reason why it couldn't mutate and infect humans -- believe ability is one of the reasons it was chosen.

So yes, regarding context, as Landis pointed out -- you can do anything! -- And given that Landis is the millionaire son of a famous director I think he can IN THAT CONTEXT, do anything -- but if he was a struggling director, without an open door, then he would have to fit right in like everyone else.

And regards Druckman, yes, of course he can do anything, and has -- but in context to the previous game and the audience he nurtured -- he very much can't -- and people are right to call him out on his attention seeking.
So for you context matters when the characters are gay but if Ellie was Ethan and Dina was still Dina then no context is needed. No one in the real world should give a shit whether someone is gay or not, why should you? Gay people dont need to justify their existence to you or anyone.

You are on the context of presenting lesbians. Ellie was confirmed a lesbian in the first game. So 50% of the lesbians in this game were already known and it was telegraphed that Ellie would have a girlfriend. If the aim of games is males between 18-30, then 2 nearly 20 year olds women getting it on would be a plus for straight males. Evidence is Pornhub. You said by including women characters is ND's aiming to make more money. Every business has that aim to make more money.

Does strong women in media offends you? Did you watch Ripley in Alien and get confused why they didn't give context to the viewer why a woman survived in the end and not a man? Or is it just gaming? In that case when Nintendo didn't provide any context for Samus in Metroid the ending must have baffled you.

Maybe you mean the developers should only draw from their own backgrounds. Druckmann is Jewish but never provided any context as to why Joel or Ellie weren't Jewish like him. Why didn't he give context?

Is it the bait and switch employed by the sequel to play as one character and they changed it? TLOU did that too. I booted up the game and was playing as Sarah, why did they change character to Joel and later in the game changed to Ellie. The game had a quick early death that came out of nowhere, completely different to the sequel right?

The audience the first game nurtured was okay playing as a 14 year old for part of the game but playing two 19 year olds is a bridge too far.
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
Pretty much everything you said is incorrect. Racism is nothing but an extension of in-group preference. People are born preferring to associate with and be around their in-group. Has absolutely zero to do with society and everything to do with biology. Even animals out in the wild exhibit the same behavior, in preferring to group together with their own kind for defensive purposes. Are animals "muh racist!" for wanting to be around their own kind? No, of course not. They're just following millions of years of evolutionary instinct.

And what's wrong with being a nationalist? Why shouldn't people want the best for their nation? Why is it even wrong for someone to want a nation, or to protect their nation?

Have you ever really bothered to think about any of this Marxist brainwashing of yours? Have you ever really bothered to question it? Doesn't seem like you have. All you are doing is just repeating dogma you heard in the public indoctrination system and Bolshevik controlled media, without understanding any of it. I couldn't care less what people think about the alt-right. In my eyes, the masses are asses, so if they don't like something, that automatically lends it a measure of credibility.

Yeah as someone educated mostly in Russia I'm not going to get into "Did you ever question Marxism brainwashing" BS. I was born in country of pretty much all white people and no gays. And yet I can still think for myself and call out bigotry and racism when I see it,

And then based on white sheep hating black sheep animal instinct argument you want to make a case for nationalism (not patriotism)? Nice stance there buddy, you sure would do well in Nurenberg trials with that cover. What's wrong with gassing Jews and gays in our country of dominantly white people, cause my group is better than yours? Nazi party is nationalist party, full of supremacists, member of same ethnic group of white heterosexuals! So yeah there's plenty of wrong being done from people just feeling like their nation is superior to others. It's not like we were given cognitive ability to overcome and rationalise animal instincts which is the thing that kept us alive among much more capable predators.

By the way, it's not Marxism to want a more inclusive society, what is this strawman? I think a large majority people wouldn't agree to be labeled as racist, sexist and homophobic. Or at least they'd change the tune quite quickly when some of their friends turn out to be people of color, gay or else. So it's not uber-left crushing your rights, it's your uber-rightness seeing Marxism everywhere to fight.

So don't bother asking "innocent" "deep" quesitons. I've seen propaganda and manipulation at work. These questions are not innocent, it's a common line of deflection and all they do is mask your inner hatred as they have all been answered before and you're not as great a philisopher you think you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bartski
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
Yeah as someone educated mostly in Russia I'm not going to get into "Did you ever question Marxism brainwashing" BS. I was born in country of pretty much all white people and no gays. And yet I can still think for myself and call out bigotry and racism when I see it,

And then based on white sheep hating black sheep animal instinct argument you want to make a case for nationalism (not patriotism)? Nice stance there buddy, you sure would do well in Nurenberg trials with that cover. What's wrong with gassing Jews and gays in our country of dominantly white people, cause my group is better than yours? Nazi party is nationalist party, full of supremacists, member of same ethnic group of white heterosexuals! So yeah there's plenty of wrong being done from people just feeling like their nation is superior to others. It's not like we were given cognitive ability to overcome and rationalise animal instincts which is the thing that kept us alive among much more capable predators.

By the way, it's not Marxism to want a more inclusive society, what is this strawman? I think a large majority people wouldn't agree to be labeled as racist, sexist and homophobic. Or at least they'd change the tune quite quickly when some of their friends turn out to be people of color, gay or else. So it's not uber-left crushing your rights, it's your uber-rightness seeing Marxism everywhere to fight.

So don't bother asking "innocent" "deep" quesitons. I've seen propaganda and manipulation at work. These questions are not innocent, it's a common line of deflection and all they do is mask your inner hatred as they have all been answered before and you're not as great a philisopher you think you are.

Where you were educated is irrelevant. You're still spouting Marxist talking points. Muh Nazis. Muh racism. Muh inclusion. Muh homosexuals. Muh antisemitism. Muh white supremacists. Do you honestly think you are saying anything new or original?
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
Where you were educated is irrelevant. You're still spouting Marxist talking points. Muh Nazis. Muh racism. Muh inclusion. Muh homosexuals. Muh antisemitism. Muh white supremacists. Do you honestly think you are saying anything new or original?

The fact that you say any of this is Marxist is all anyone needs to know. I don't need to say anything new to Nazi-apologiser, cause those arguments have been done and cases closed.
In fact I don't need to see this BS at all, so good luck talking to other people or living in a "gasp" society as it walks past you in all its diversity.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2017
825
1,168
440
Mark Zuckerberg has probably received all of the same type of hate messages x 100. Nobody can criticize Facebook anymore!
 
Jun 29, 2020
44
41
105
The fact that you say any of this is Marxist is all anyone needs to know from your trolling and position. Good luck talking to other people or living in a "gasp" society as it walks past you.

Of course it's Marxist. These various "isms" that society is guilty of are all manufactured by Bolsheviks to divide and conquer a society with. They are tools of subversion and demoralization. None of this crap existed until Marxists gained control over the media and education systems of Western countries. There was no such thing as "white guilt" before Marxism existed. You and all of your talking points are products of Marxist brainwashing. None of it based on reality. It's unreality.
 

tassletine

Member
Oct 24, 2007
1,349
475
1,195
So for you context matters when the characters are gay but if Ellie was Ethan and Dina was still Dina then no context is needed. No one in the real world should give a shit whether someone is gay or not, why should you? Gay people dont need to justify their existence to you or anyone.

You are on the context of presenting lesbians. Ellie was confirmed a lesbian in the first game. So 50% of the lesbians in this game were already known and it was telegraphed that Ellie would have a girlfriend. If the aim of games is males between 18-30, then 2 nearly 20 year olds women getting it on would be a plus for straight males. Evidence is Pornhub. You said by including women characters is ND's aiming to make more money. Every business has that aim to make more money.

Does strong women in media offends you? Did you watch Ripley in Alien and get confused why they didn't give context to the viewer why a woman survived in the end and not a man? Or is it just gaming? In that case when Nintendo didn't provide any context for Samus in Metroid the ending must have baffled you.

Maybe you mean the developers should only draw from their own backgrounds. Druckmann is Jewish but never provided any context as to why Joel or Ellie weren't Jewish like him. Why didn't he give context?

Is it the bait and switch employed by the sequel to play as one character and they changed it? TLOU did that too. I booted up the game and was playing as Sarah, why did they change character to Joel and later in the game changed to Ellie. The game had a quick early death that came out of nowhere, completely different to the sequel right?

The audience the first game nurtured was okay playing as a 14 year old for part of the game but playing two 19 year olds is a bridge too far.
I don’t really understand where this is coming from. No. Strong women don’t offend me but there weren’t many in this game as most of the women here are portrayed as overly emotional, delusional or weak willed. I liked this game a great deal but found the storytelling to be hyperbolic and was deliberately trying to be controversial — which seems to be your point too.
It seemed like it was written precisely so these sorts of points should be bought up and to try and stir up controversy —, trying to make us feel guilty or something. That’s fine, but I’d rather the game actually had something to say beneath the hysterical attention getting.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Member
Dec 26, 2008
10,907
4,796
1,400
Spain
The fact that you position your tacit enablement of bigotry, racism, transphobia etc. behind the right for free speech and diminish clear societal problems is exactly why people say GAF is alt-right.

I think it's telling that you believe that allowing people to freely express themselves enables bigotry. And I find concerning that you have accepted a discourse that preaches word and tone policing as a solution for societal ills. Instead, all it does is camouflage the problems and while on a short term basis it appears to be effective as no evident displays of bigotry are seen, it is not effective at addressing those ills.

Overtly racist language has been no longer acceptable in society for quite awhile. Have things changed? Is racism over yet? Studies about the effectiveness of racial diversity programs in business show that kind of heavy handed approach breeds contempt and is hardly effective. Everytime you chastise a bigot and police their speech you reinforce their bigotry.

I would prefer the left to move towards fact-based approaches that are actually effective. Earlier this year, a study about the effectiveness of deep canvassing vs namecalling and labeling was published and it turns out that censoring and public shaming do not really work. The problem is, if you can't publically vilify people, well that's half the fun of it so obviously resetera and other progressive boards were quick to reject the study. Just like conservatives do when they hear about climate change.

Right now, you are not improving things, You are just doing what makes you feel good, what you've been trained to do to signal that you're one of the good ones and he's one of the bad ones.
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
I think it's telling that you believe that allowing people to freely express themselves enables bigotry. And I find concerning that you have accepted a discourse that preaches word and tone policing as a solution for societal ills. Instead, all it does is camouflage the problems and while on a short term basis it appears to be effective as no evident displays of bigotry are seen, it is not effective at addressing those ills.

Overtly racist language has been no longer acceptable in society for quite awhile. Have things changed? Is racism over yet? Studies about the effectiveness of racial diversity programs in business show that kind of heavy handed approach breeds contempt and is hardly effective. Everytime you chastise a bigot and police their speech you reinforce their bigotry.

I would prefer the left to move towards fact-based approaches that are actually effective. Earlier this year, a study about the effectiveness of deep canvassing vs namecalling and labeling was published and it turns out that censoring and public shaming do not really work. The problem is, if you can't publically vilify people, well that's half the fun of it so obviously resetera and other progressive boards were quick to reject the study. Just like conservatives do when they hear about climate change.

Right now, you are not improving things, You are just doing what makes you feel good, what you've been trained to do to signal that you're one of the good ones and he's one of the bad ones.

What are you talking about? Of course things are better today than they were 20 or God forbid 50 years ago. If not for white people then for minorities for sure, in terms of acceptance and rights.

And yeah, societal change doesn't work through just forbidding insults and getting immediate result. Nobody in their right mind talks about solving racism overnight. It works by making them uncool, unpopular and condemned so bigots today may feel repressed but once generations move on and people with those convictions die out we rotate to a better normal of morality.

Education is always key as well as exposure to different worldviews and biases in schools, universities etc.

So once again, defending or saying this language is OK, just like saying racism will always be there is a very backwards stance.
Every time we shave off a little bit of crudeness and baseless phobia it's a win 20 years later. Or shall we go back to n**r and f**t just cause some assholes today are still racist and we get a modicum fun out from it at the expense of other? I guess you haven't played TLOU2 to get the concept of the moral relativity.

And that absolutist statement about solving racism doesn't hold any water either. We didn't solve smoking yet but we did make it very uncool and the numbers did go down significantly. THe key is to make it uncool and condemn people who use that language. You won't fix chain smokers, you will always have weak people, that's just normal but you will prevent new cases by quite a bit. If anyone deserves to marginalised is people who are harmful to others not people who just are.

Also: a lot of people confuse a constant tension that exists between sexes, races, religions etc. and the allowed area which should be allowed to live with that tension vs complete assholery. I do think a lot of people need to toughen up and accept a certain amount of jokes, humor, fun and we don't need to police every word until nobody in the world gets offended. That's where the whole "snowflake" thing coming from: people today have 0-tolerance to even a slightest joke and I'm ready to mock those all-day. But throwing charged insults with malicious undertones is way beyond that line and should be condemned and a "no-problem-here" is not a neutral stance or an acceptable stance - it's actively harmful.
 

Woggleman

Member
Jan 1, 2020
1,653
2,498
430
I fully support CDPR telling haters and the outrage mob to take a hike because an artist should stand behind their work but I do notice that when ND does the same thing it is a problem for people. Both of them are standing up to the outrage brigade at the end of the day.
 

yurinka

Member
Jan 19, 2007
11,451
2,359
1,685
Barcelona, Spain
www.capcom-town.es
At this point I think you are just trolling because you can see you failed at your argument.
Let's see: it's not realistic to put multiple LGBT characters, a woman on steroids, a pregnant woman on the frontline when you should stay back because it's dangerous for a woman in her condition all on the same game unless you are trying to tell something.
On top of this author of the game decides that it's good storytelling to
kill the main "white father" character of the first game
, and weird phrases like bigot sandwiches that are trying to tell the player something.
I kept it short, because it seems you can't understand more than 5 phrases at the same time but can only focus on the trans word.
For me is ok to put some LGTB characters or woman on steroids. Specially when it's a videogame fantasy, doesn't need to be 100% realistic about if that character would have access to the required steroids, diet, etc. needed to be like that. I mean, look at Kratos. He's also on steroids but in the ancient Greek age, but we don't care because a game is just a fantasy.

In my case I don't like that character, but because of what she does and because I don't like her looks, personality and relationship with the other characters. It has some things I like from her but they at the same time feel like a bad copy of Joel or Ellie. I also didn't like the character because felt that the game was trying to force her as a replacement of someone I love and I wanted to have the character that was trying to be replaced or to go back to the other storyline instead of following the game plan of trying to make me like this character. I got that she had her reasons and that in the game the characters are grey instead of being 100% good or bad guys, but I wanted to continue playing with Ellie and Joel. So I didn't like to focus on this character during that long period of the game.

In fact there are two pregnant women in the frontline. I was always worried about them and think 'oh game please keep the pregnant women in a safe place and take care of them'. xDD Something that at least Ellie does after some time.

That white father is also male and (aparently) heterosexual, and the white bigot is also male and white. And there's also a character that looks like Druckmann who spits the father after killing him.

And like in Lost Legacy, where they also moved to main female characers, who also were redesigned to look 'more masculine'/'less femenine'/less sexualized'/'trans friendly', as you prefer. All the male characters are bad guys, dumb guys or end dead. There's a pattern.

Some of my favorite games or movies have a female lead or co-lead character (I don't care about their sex or sexual orientation, I care about if the game and the character is cool), but even if I'm from the left, prodiversity, LGTB friendly I felt that Lost Legacy was almost insulting to white males, something I never experienced before. And I loved Chloe in U2 and Nadine in U4.

And well, in another but related topic they also mentioned that made an effort to make the TLOU2 female characters unatractive to males and trans friendly.
 
Last edited:

Bitmap Frogs

Member
Dec 26, 2008
10,907
4,796
1,400
Spain
Or shall we go back to n**r and f**t just cause some assholes today are still racist and we get a modicum fun out from it at the expense of other

You are free to use whatever language you want to use, but again, research says everytime you go tone policing and try to censor these words you keep reinforcing their beliefs. You have to chose between being effective or being performative.
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
You are free to use whatever language you want to use, but again, research says everytime you go tone policing and try to censor these words you keep reinforcing their beliefs. You have to chose between being effective or being performative.

I do not dispute that telling a racist person to stop saying "n**r" solves anything. I am well familiar with such things. Reasoning and forbidding is not the right way to change perspective etc etc..

However, in the context of allowing such tweets to simply be and run unchecked I revert to my original point that change is mostly generational based on a trove of research evidence. So while you can't retrain a 40-50 year old bigot, or a full-time smoker, if you create a society where their views are marginalised, uncool and not give them platform to spread it, it's the younger generation that gets the benefit when those die out. It happened with views on slavery or serfdom, it happened with womens rights and "belonging in the kitchen", it happens with hardcore smoking and it will happen with censoring abusive words specifically targeting marginalised minorities. There is no need to choose if you can have both long-term effectiveness and immediate if-you-want-to-call-them-so performative gains.

It's not about a person who wrote these tweets, those are already known garbage, it's about showing kids who go on Twitter that if you use this language in a hostile, non-jokey, vile way, you will be condemned and ridiculed. Individuals no matter what choices they make do exist in society and are molded by it so keep societal pressure on. If you accept the status quo, you will have no long-term performance, you will normalise again these bigoted words which only benefit the expression of hatred to these individuals. That's a lose-lose, therefore I stand to what I said to previous poster - his stance is BS and his views are thinly veiled defense of extreme right-wing radicals and not sincere questioning, as the answers already exist and they are not complicated.
 
Jan 29, 2019
4,854
4,936
430
People should not be mean?

I'm not sorry that a world not judging people by their birth defects, color of skin, race, nationality, sexual orientation etc.. and frivolously fling charged insults victims is offending enablers like you. Choosing to hate a person for these innate principles instead of character and what they do is what Nazis and racists and other supremacy groups do. Not seeing a problem is being part of it.
That world it mainly outside the big occidental powers, look outside, see where women can't come outside without covering their faces, see where slaves are sold on the open market, talk to people who grew in in countries where the police is really extremely corrupt and violent, ask a woman who had the city where she lived bombed or sacked how she feels, listen the plight of the victims.Those worst case scenarios are what I see unraveling in the streets of the USA, with the full support of the mainstream media (which is the most "surprising" part of the equation, shouldn't the news outlets want to show blood? at least let people know what's really happening out there).

Now look here, I won't argue that modern democracies are perfect by any stretch... But they certainly don't need a Maoist style cultural revolution to get better, crony politicians, even the worst ones, are way better than what goes on in dictatorships. Here people can still lift themselves by the bootstrap if they give it a fair try, no guarantee of success, but still possible. If you get a job and are willing to work hard you will be rewarded, if not, you can walk out and get a better one. No need to go to the University and be fed intersectional non-sense, learn a trade and do something of value, you will not be held back by unbelievable amount of dept.
That's a lose-lose, therefore I stand to what I said to previous poster - his stance is BS and his views are thinly veiled defense of extreme right-wing radicals and not sincere questioning, as the answers already exist and they are not complicated.
Given how things are changing for the better with the likes of you taking control over the streets of major cities in the US. I would say take a look in the mirror, your ideology is used to validate the worst violence, the worst ways of treating each others as humans, the worst of everything in the name of "equality and representation". Blood is on your hands, at least the people on your side, every time they take power the same thing happen, but they keep saying, no not this time, not me I have good intentions, things will be better this time around... then 100 million people die in a cultural revolution (because they "resist" the new ideology).

Having a revolution is no good if you don't care about the well being of the people the revolution is supposedly for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZZZZ

Bitmap Frogs

Member
Dec 26, 2008
10,907
4,796
1,400
Spain
I do not dispute that telling a racist person to stop saying "n**r" solves anything. I am well familiar with such things. Reasoning and forbidding is not the right way to change perspective etc etc..

You say that you are, but you don't appear to really do seeing your posts. You are more interested in namecalling, word-control and tone policing - tools which you agree do not work. So why do you persist? You won't get brownie points in here for doing that. I know old habits die hard but perhaps you oughta start putting some effort into it.

It's not about a person who wrote these tweets, those are already known garbage

Yeah, no. So because you'd rather use techniques that are known not to work, you decide to condemn a chunk of human beings as "known garbage" because you lack the will to fix what's wrong and you'd rather see them vilified: because that's what's easy. You are doing actual harm. But boy bet you like the feeling of condemning people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ashraf’s Lioness

Perfo

Thirteen flew over the cuckoo's nest
Aug 22, 2010
5,759
111
1,025
myfinalfantasycollection.blogspot.it
Usual internet idiots hidden behind a nickname and unsatisfied with their life. Neil D. should just let it go and not giving all this importance and space on its social account to ignorance. The game speaks for itself and the message fully delivered. Moving on...
 

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
You say that you are, but you don't appear to really do seeing your posts. You are more interested in namecalling, word-control and tone policing - tools which you agree do not work. So why do you persist? You won't get brownie points in here for doing that. I know old habits die hard but perhaps you oughta start putting some effort into it.



Yeah, no. So because you'd rather use techniques that are known not to work, you decide to condemn a chunk of human beings as "known garbage" because you lack the will to fix what's wrong and you'd rather see them vilified: because that's what's easy. You are doing actual harm. But boy bet you like the feeling of condemning people.

I never said they don't work, in fact I stated the opposite. The fact that you selectively quote my posts and can't engage on the actual meat of my argument just underlines that you really have no counterargument just repeating that techniques don't work when I literally have examples that they do. So who needs to put more effort?

Misstating what I said doesn't do you any favors, just like the poster above who's fighting a straw man of illusionary revolution I seem to desire workout any evidence.
 

Bitmap Frogs

Member
Dec 26, 2008
10,907
4,796
1,400
Spain
I never said they don't work, in fact I stated the opposite. The fact that you selectively quote my posts and can't engage on the actual meat of my argument .

The meat of your argument is that you're more comfortable with the namecalling and word policing. And they do actual harm - there's people here putting in time to share their experiences in a way it can resonate with people. And from time to time people like you come in, resort to the traditional strategies of vilification and virtue signaling and that hurts progress.

Since you're European and so am I, here's a hint for you: Americans have a different idea of what constitutes free speech. We are alright with things like Germany banning nazi symbols. But to them, freedom of speech is absolute and they cherish it. Back in the 70's I believe, jewish lawers from the ACLU went and worked pro bono defending american nazis and their right to parade swastikas. Everytime you go and try to argue with an American (particularly conservative folks) that when they defend free speech they're actually enabling bad actors, you've lost them. So don't do that.
 
Last edited:

sobaka770

Member
Jun 25, 2013
2,144
2,090
735
Lausanne, Switzerland
The meat of your argument is that you're more comfortable with the namecalling and word policing. And they do actual harm - there's people here putting in time to share their experiences in a way it can resonate with people. And from time to time people like you come in, resort to the traditional strategies of vilification and virtue signaling and that hurts progress.

Since you're European and so am I, here's a hint for you: Americans have a different idea of what constitutes free speech. We are alright with things like Germany banning nazi symbols. But to them, freedom of speech is absolute and they cherish it. Back in the 70's I believe, jewish lawers from the ACLU went and worked pro bono defending american nazis and their right to parade swastikas. Everytime you go and try to argue with an American (particularly conservative folks) that when they defend free speech they're actually enabling bad actors, you've lost them. So don't do that.

I don't mind offending and pointing out people who say the use of racial slurs or bigotry is okay.

As I already said, those people should be marginalised in their bigotry and I think it's a fair stance to take instead of letting them fan the flames of hatred. Once again, standing neutral is being complicit.

And you're once again misrepresenting my points. There's no cohesive argument that needs the use of such language. If you hate the game - just say you hate the game, done.