• 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.

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

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
5,069
3,413
1,580
Where did I say that?
oh c'mon

Criticising the game agenda is legitimate criticism. Seeing the obvious political agenda in character designs and dialogues takes away from the immersion and the scenes and dialogues are normally not of the highest quality (the cringe in the bigot Sandwich scene is over the top).

The fact that some people like to pretend that the agenda doesn't exist even when the creator himself says that it exists, and they act all holier than thou criticising "both sides" when they are obviously in one side and always criticizing the same side, makes it incredibly disingenuous when people try to claim that the political agenda isn't a valid criticism.
Bigot sandwich is the result of having to insert your political agenda on the game. It comes across as irrelevant, unnecessary, cringe and preachy. It takes you away from the immersion, like many many other political strings you can see in the game. When you experience a narrative based media, the best thing that can happen is that you immerse in that media without noticing the strings of the puppeteers.

But SJW polítics is so cringe and so bombastic and propagandistic in it's nature, it's impossible for it to not affect the experience.

That scene would simply don't exist if it wasn't for the need of the creator of doing a politically charged scene in which the poor lesbians suffer some bigotry but they react with stunningness and bravery. It's just fanservice for SJW.
That's what most SJW apologists do, sadly. If you criticize SJW agenda, it must be because you hate women and are afraid of gay people, etc... It's an ad hominem meant to disqualify your opinion by invalidating you as a person.

Also they inevitably ask you: why do you care so much? All while they care at least as much to even retort to this ad hominem extremes just because someone criticizes a political agenda.
Imagine still believing that people are criticizing the game because there are gay people on it.

It's the ultimate strawman.



-I don't like how they killed this beloved character, his death could have been wrote much better.

-You're mad they killed your favourite character? Grow up, you're so inmature!

It really makes you think.
You don't hate women.
You don't hate gay people.
You don't hate trans peole.
You're left leaning.

You have 2 examples of how this agenda ruins the game. Abby being She-Hulk and bigot sandwich.
All your other plot point have absolutely nothing to do with an agenda.

So I ask again, how is this agenda ruining the game?
 

Strategize

Member
Apr 23, 2020
322
582
290
Would either of those things somehow magically make the plot, pacing or world-building in any way better?
For alot of people yes. Because what's happening is alot of people are using their dislike of the events, to then try to backwards justify their dislike by picking apart the "logic" with both fair and unfair complaints. Therefore making their opinion seem more objective instead of subjective. You can try to pick apart the first game aswell, but people don't because they subjectively like the story that's been told.

The more you feel for Abby, the better the story works for people, simple as. On surface attractiveness can play a big part in that for people, consciously or subconsciously.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bartski

bishopcruz

Member
Dec 6, 2006
3,739
217
1,235
Miami, FL
For alot of people yes. Because what's happening is alot of people are using their dislike of the events, to then try to backwards justify their dislike by picking apart the "logic" with both fair and unfair complaints. Therefore making their opinion seem more objective instead of subjective. You can try to pick apart the first game aswell, but people don't because they subjectively like the story that's been told.
Well there is plenty to pick apart in the first game as well, but generally speaking outside of the fireflies and Ellie scenario being contrived as all hell most of it doesn't take you out of the game, and a lot of it is just gameplay conceits like magically appearing infected and the like. But the more you dig into the first game, the better the script gets. Each meeting with a new set of survivors has its own theme that ties into the season, early pacing issues are more or less gone by the end of the game. Each character is memorable and well-drawn. And the story never got in its own way. A great script and title gets better the more you dig into it.

Now you aren't wrong in that when someone doesn't like a story being told, the flaws stand out more. But you can also say that because the flaws stand out more that IS part of the reason that someone might not like the story being told. When you are pulled out of the story it can be VERY hard to get back in, and to ND's credit the strength of the acting and directing in particular scenes almost pulled it off. The opening is a mess, and it's a mess I noticed from the first moment I played it, the jumping backward and forwards in time within the same day to maximize the shock took me out of the story, for example. Yet all the contrivances were given a pass in the moments where Ashley Johnson acted her ASS off and was able to pull me into the scene, and those that followed, only for pacing to again rear its ugly head in Seattle.
The more you feel for Abby, the better the story works for people, simple as. On surface attractiveness can play a big part in that for people, consciously or subconsciously.
Oh absolutely, and I would take it a step farther in saying that there is likely a correlation with how you felt about Joel's actions at the end of TLoU1 and how well the story works for you.

As for attractiveness, I agree to a point, but it goes both ways. If Abby was a man she'd be getting far fewer passes for her actions than she does now, even with saving the kids. Practically no one would like her. Her design also speaks to those who rail against the conventionally attractive characters in gaming as well. Had she looked like say, Eva in MGS3 or even Kassandra in AC Odyssey you'd have complaints about that from the same people praising her looks now. People hate her for her actions in the intro, people attack her looks because it is an easy avenue to do so.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant & GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
11,327
13,717
1,195
theconclave.net
For alot of people yes. Because what's happening is alot of people are using their dislike of the events, to then try to backwards justify their dislike by picking apart the "logic" with both fair and unfair complaints. Therefore making their opinion seem more objective instead of subjective. You can try to pick apart the first game aswell, but people don't because they subjectively like the story that's been told.

The more you feel for Abby, the better the story works for people, simple as. On surface attractiveness can play a big part in that for people, consciously or subconsciously.
Whom exactly are you hoping to convince? I didn't read any of the leaks, and I don't have much of an issue with Abby because its pretty much apparent that she's a gym rat based on her story-line. I don't think prettying her up would somehow magically make people dislike her character less for the way she brutally killed Joel. You say that there's 'alot (sic)' of people out there, but tbh you sound like a drive-by apologist. It's largely a poorly written game, that despite a few memorable flashback scenes, just doesn't hold up that all well when push comes to shove, in a number of ways from the plot, the narrative structure, the pacing and incongruous characterisation.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,466
5,811
1,245
"Invested in the culture war?"

Wake up. People are being blacklisted, professionally and socially ostracized, their livelihoods threatened in the industries they occupy, for doing nothing but taking positions on this (by your estimation) innocuous "culture war". People are so invested because unfortunately it's gotten to the point where their very livelihoods are at risk if they dare to question things that goes against a particular ideological grain.....if you make a modicum in suggestion of impropriety......you're done. People always like to try to equate the anti-SJWs to the SJWs......yet I never see the former making concerted attempts to destroy the lives of those they object to, trying to leave their professional prospects in tatters, their social reputations as well, as the latter do. Show me where anti-SJWs are taking such collective initiative to destroy others because their ideology isn't being adhered to and is (heaven forbid) being challenged.

It's not healthy to interrogate all media for political bias, but it is imperative and very healthy to call it out when it's blatantly apparent, especially in this day and age, and as it is with TLoU II. And in doing such, people DON'T deserve to have their personal lives destroyed by the pathetic self-righteous sycophantic virtue-signaling mobs who believe they don't have the responsibility to substantiate their positions, merely proclaim it superior based on the ambiguity of their own moral grandstanding before taking such initiative. Piss off with this shit and stop attempting to downplay it.

This should bother anyone with a reasonable head on their shoulders a great deal, as it does me. Unfortunate (yet not entirely unsurprising) that it doesn't you, among others on this board.


Right. :pie_eyeroll:

Do you agree that agendas can exist, or not? If so, how do you make the distinction between an agenda existing and such motivations as "we don't like diversity"? On what basis do you claim that, knowing nothing of the person who is making the argument? Do you believe that agendas can be harmful? If so, what's the distinction from those that aren't? It all seems to be very simplistic to you people. Agenda=not liking something. Done. Wow, what insight.

Here's a little clue for you guys: agendas exist. They can be benign, and they can be malignant. Just because someone calls out an agenda doesn't automatically equate their issue with an agenda with what that agenda is pushing. People can fully support the cause of an agenda and at the same time oppose it because it is harming that cause in manner of its execution. Agendas and the ideologies behind them are separate issues!
So basically I was bang on the money about you being invested in the culture wars and the only thing I got "wrong" is that in your addled mind you can't ever be invested enough because it poses an existential threat to civilization....

So basically a right-leaning mirror of your average Resetera poster.... Yay for horseshoe theory!

Sorry, there are no winners in the game for losers that is IdPol. You are not part of a solution, you are just another problem for us sane folks to deal with.