2 hours ago, Kavik Kang said:

The KGB/FSB is larger than all other intelligence agencies in the world combined and has a presence in every nation on Earth.  A "social justice campaign" is always the result of the activities of Soviet/Russian intelligence.

I'm curious to know more about this.  I wouldn't be surprised if the KGB was the largest during the cold-war, but is it still to this day?  If so could you provide some sources?  I'm not casting doubt on what you've said by asking for a source, I'm just genuinely interested.

2 hours ago, JoeJ said:

What i mean about motivation is: It's unclear to me if the origin of this debate is racism, just utilizing the pretext of diversity without background, or if it's truly just the latter.

I'm one of those that didn't like the trailer either and Michael Aganier's posts had a good indication of what is wrong with it.

What if you go eat to the same burger house 5 times in a row and you eat the same burger (as analogy to the older BFs). The 6th time, you ask for a burger, but you get a salad (as the new BFs that are being changed). It's basically the same thing as saying "look fatty, you've been eating too much burgers, take a salad, it's good for your health". How the hell can't you see how moralizing is that?

I see many people jumping on personal attacks like "they are men boys who can't accept women in their games". Okay. So what is wrong with me liking games with men combatants only? Now, don't answer to that, because that's the definition of moralizing. There's nothing wrong with games with women. It's you that are trying to give me something I never asked, not the other way around.

I think the take away point from this thread should be reiterated.

EA put a woman in the trailer to attract female players. End of debate.

The reason ID made doom guy a white male is because most people who were interested in video games and owned a computer capable of player doom were white males. Had it been black women then Doom guy would have been back Doom woman.

The same goes for recent star wars, its just a coincidence that those movies also stink.

In the entertainment industry diversity == more money. Good content helps too.

45 minutes ago, Bob Marl said:

What if you go eat to the same burger house 5 times in a row and you eat the same burger (as analogy to the older BFs). The 6th time, you ask for a burger, but you get a salad (as the new BFs that are being changed). It's basically the same thing as saying "look fatty, you've been eating too much burgers, take a salad, it's good for your health". How the hell can't you see how moralizing is that?

You can't expect if you liked the game XY, that you'll like the game XY 2. I agree they should make this game with a new name, not Battlefield, because it seems to different from previous titles. But if they decide to reuse their established brand fur guaranteed sales it's their decision. Of course they'll listen to your complaints i guess. But we've seen those things going as far as sending death treats to developers, and now we see complaints close to racism. Some people act as if it would be their right an upcoming game has to be how they want it to be. They react toxic - voting with their wallets is not enough. This is hard to understand, if it's just about something like a damn game. 

45 minutes ago, Bob Marl said:

It's you that are trying to give me something I never asked, not the other way around.

This is what i mean: As if they'd have to do what you expect from them.

45 minutes ago, Bob Marl said:

I see many people jumping on personal attacks like "they are men boys who can't accept women in their games". Okay. So what is wrong with me liking games with men combatants only? Now, don't answer to that, because that's the definition of moralizing. There's nothing wrong with games with women. It's you that are trying to give me something I never asked, not the other way around.

Asking a question but forbidding an answer is like saying: "I'm wrong, so don't argue with me further." I don't want to moralize you, i want to understand the origin of your anger. Is it that you don't wanna shoot woman? Anyways - you're a game developer, so take advantage and make a men only game. You should be happy a new niche market opens up for you.

56 minutes ago, JoeJ said:

You can't expect if you liked the game XY, that you'll like the game XY 2.

You're right, but Battlefield ins't at it's second iteration. After 5+ battlefield games, I can expect the series to continue in the same direction.

56 minutes ago, JoeJ said:

But we've seen those things going as far as sending death treats to developers,

A minority of extremists is not representative of the group.

56 minutes ago, JoeJ said:

Asking a question but forbidding an answer is like saying: "I'm wrong, so don't argue with me further." I don't want to moralize you, i want to understand the origin of your anger. Is it that you don't wanna shoot woman? Anyways - you're a game developer, so take advantage and make a men only game. You should be happy a new niche market opens up for you.

 An adult can have an opinion without having to justify himself. This isn't an argumentation, this is just what I want. The waiter doesn't asks you why you eat a burger instead a salad. He serves the burger and leaves you alone.

A men only game doesn't mean I exclude anyone from playing it. I can play an adventure game with a female character like Tomb Raider without feeling rejected for not being able to change Lara's sex, and I can also like my war games with males. The argument that no female characters in war games excludes female players is utter bullshit. They were never excluded in the first place.

I'm not denying you the right to understand the origin, but I'm not the person to ask. I am not a psychologist. Try a psychology forum instead.

6 hours ago, Bob Marl said:

You're right, but Battlefield ins't at it's second iteration. After 5+ battlefield games, I can expect the series to continue in the same direction.

Disagree. You can just keep playing the 4th iteration if you dislike the 5th. But after 4 similar games, a developer HAS to make changes. Otherwise it becomes a bit boring, and people would go crazy about missing innovation. We have no direct influence on how those changes look like. We also have no influence about the next album of our favorite musican, or the next movie of our favorite franchise.

I can tell you: As you get older, you'll find games less and less good. You'll start to miss the good old days. I'm not happy with almost any AAA game. One exception in two years maybe. This is not the developers fault, it is just natural and happens to most people.

6 hours ago, Bob Marl said:

A men only game doesn't mean I exclude anyone from playing it.

But woman will likely have no interest in doing so. If you ignore them, other developers will take the piece of the cake, and you'll soon have to shut down your studio. A large developer can't afford to serve niche markets. You need to convince smaller studios to make the games you want.

6 hours ago, Bob Marl said:

I can play an adventure game with a female character like Tomb Raider without feeling rejected for not being able to change Lara's sex

I've had a similar idea over night. My proposal is to add the following check boxes to the Options menu of my next game:

[x] Disable Chromatic Abberation

[x] Force 60 FPS

[x] Replace Female Models With Males 

[x] Disable Mouse Acceleration

[x] Force White Skin Tone

[x] Set FOV to 120

Would you be happy with this? I mean, if giving options is a problem for some players, why not solve it giving them more options?

To prevent SJW from tearing me apart for those discriminating options, i gently hide them between other options. They'll never notice, those better world bastards, hahaha! 

 $$$  $$$  

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

Can you show any proof of that?

Actually yes. I can.

There has been the perfect example a year ago. Its called "Horizon: Zero Dawn".

Ticks every progressive box, apart from attacking conservatives and white males flat out. Yet both sides wanted to claim that the game was actually "on their side"... the videos trying to prove that the game was "feminist" (what ever that means), or that it "wasn't feminist" (as if that would be that important) after its release were hilarious... and a clear sign that the game managed to not offer any obvious angle of attack for outrage warriors from both sides.

Also, the most negative about the game I heard was some "PC Masterracers" complaining the game was overrated (because it wasn't on their platform of choice probably), that its gameplay was taken from other games (like Far Cry)... I have never heard anyone claiming that it was lacking in diversity, nor about heavyhanded SJW-ness.

The best the Anti-SJW crowd managed was some bitching about the tribe the protaginist grows up in being a matriarchy and thus "feminist propaganda"... but just to be laughed at by people from their own side because this was such a weak argument.

This, in my mind, comes down to these factors:

1. The game is actually good. Many of the controversial games tend to be mediocre, or simply average-good at best. In this case the Political Correctness feels like the dev injecting superfluous feature in lacking of any other feature that makes the game stand out. And the lack of it can trigger the lefty outrage warriors even more as they don't like the game anyway.
2. Fictional setting. As much as the game is rooted in a plausible future of our earth, the setting, civilization and characters are all fictional. It is literally taking place after our current civilization, all the political nonesense inclusive, has failed and having been wiped from the earth. Its a clean slate so to speak. Thus it can tackle real world issues without triggering people so much with real life connections.
3. The real life issues tackled actually are abstracted enough to not put blame on any real world organization or living persons. Which is something I really like about most japanese games, and a lot of older games. Resemblances to real world persons and organizations oftentimes were pretty loose, which made it possible for a devout christian to watch a story about an oppressive religion unfold and contemplate without feeling personally attacked. The fantasy setting of course helps here.
4. Well integated diversity. You will find that all the factions in HZD are extremly diverse, covering all ethnicities known to man (well, at least many). Yet the game mentions the fact not once... as the characters live in this ethnically diverse world for all their lives and there shouldn't be a need to bring it up. Its NOT really multicultural though. As the criticism about tribalistic civilizations is the core of its story, if you ask me, this makes sense. Still, seemingly it has done enough to pacify modern progressive sensibilities, without rubbing it in or lecturing people that have a problem with progressivism.
5. Most importantly, the diversity is justified in the story, thus not immersion breaking for anyone. Apart from not being part of a less progressive, and maybe less diverse historical setting, there is a clear story reason WHY all the tribes consist of all the ethnicities that made it into the game. Thus there is one angle of attack less for people who critisize ALL kind of diversity in every media they consume.
6. The Marketing concentrated on the actual gameplay features (attacking robots with a wide variety of tools and strategies), and the main feature of the game, the fantastic world, instead of trying to go for cheap marketing stunts by stirring up controversy. That, in my book, shows the dev were confident in their game being able to sell itself as an entertainment product, and not in need of finding some additional justification as "Art" or "Tool of learning".
7. The game had strong female, and strong male characters. It made sure that everyone got time in the spotlight equally instead of trying to shove some ethnicities or genders to the back to serve some "Equity" goal. And the female lead was just a good character (even if flip flopping from time to time a little bit between different character traits), irrelevant of gender or race. As was the supporting cast.

If you have seen any controversy around the release of HZD that was involving Political correctness and diversity, please provide me a link. I certainly was eagerly awaiting the game, thus have read a lot about it around its release. Maybe I missed something still.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

And why would they hide game features that can attract potential costumers? To not hurt the sensibilities of people that firmly believe the world owes all their attention to them?

Because for some people it might not be a feature, but unecessary padding? Or even a force feed assault of RL BS they want to escape from in their games?

Hey, if its a feature for you, good for you that there are so many progressive and left minded game developers in the US nowadays. You will certainly always find a game that will respect YOUR sensibilities.

Now maybe return the favour to the guys that have different sensibilities, and let them have their own echo chamber were they can consume the media they like without being assaulted by progressive propaganda.

Or just consume a game that doesn't constantly tries to lecture and berate them about anything, left or rightwing, when they just want to forget all the nonsense ploticis going on nowadays.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

Again, can you show any proof that this is a US centric view of the world? Do you think representation equality is only a US (or US 'fans') thing?

Oh yeah, maybe just come over to europe and not stay within the far left echo chamber... at least were I live we certainly have a more relaxed political atmosphere... but mainly because partisan crap like what the US politics has normalized is frowned upon. Such partisans probably would be told to shut up by their own party if they pulled some of those verbal stunts over here.

Also, don't forget that for us, here, racism is not a "Black vs white" issue The people most affected by racism here are all white. Most of them are also fellow europeans, from the south or east. We have an issue with people being against foreign cultures, not so much against people looking different, or speaking other languages. I live in a country were we have 4 official languages. We have one of the highest immigration rates in europe, maybe the world. And it has been like that for a long time.

Our issues with racism and diversity are way, WAY different than what the US faces. Yet the US view on issues gets pushed on us in a lot of different media.

I understand that in the Czech Republic, things look different still. Their biggest historical issue is being invaded by the germans, then the russians, and now living under the constant threat of the aggressor in the east showing new signs of eyeing world domination, or at least conquest in the west, again. Of course they have a very different view on racism and diversity. Especially when their own immigrant issues mostly come from some indigenous european ethnicities like the Roma, which are both facing a lot of issues with racism, yet are not totally innocent because that racism oftentimes is caused by their vandalism and crime.

Now, imagine when I, as someone who has only been to the US once for a day on a trip through Canada, and probably can only point out the most famous states on a map (don't ask were north dakota lies for example... I think its not on any coast?), would try to berate you about the history of your country... even if you wouldn't have a PhD in history, you probably would get a little bit toxic towards me, no?

Same when some Folks, who probably have difficulties finding the Czech Republic on a map try to tell Czech people what etnicithies have historically lived on their land... even IF they might be right, and the Czech guy is wrong, it might look a little bit arrogant, no?

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

I don't see why. They should use whatever aspect of the game sells.

Right. If they don't care about controversy, do that. Free marketing anyway, even if they get attacked by outrage warriors.

.... unless they have to sell so many copies they cannot survive some lost sales because of the controversy, that is.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

History,as written, is absolutely full of bias and propaganda. That's why history research is important. History, for me, is not a belief system. As with other branches of science, we have an accepted view, we have an understanding of where our knowledge is still insufficient and we are open to new data correcting or corroborating the current understanding. Even when confronted with 'propagandistic nonsense', I'd still check whether, maybe, there's something to it.

Okay, I can agree with that. Thus we can agree that there might be different readings of history.

Thus, might there be games existing that tell the same part of history differently? And of course, this might trigger someone. Lets say the russians make a game about their expierience of the 2nd worldwar that downplays their role in the oppression of the eastern eurpoean countries for the next 40 years... while some eastern european countries devs create a game that paints their countries armies allied to the germans as the good guys fighting the oppressive russian invaders.

Probably both interpretations having a core of truth. Both highly triggering for people in one, or the other country. Something we just have to live with, no?

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

On the one hand, I get the feeling that confirmation bias is extremely strong in the general populace's consumption of science information. On the other hand, if you think that scientists, and science in general, is a propaganda machine where they will do whatever to push a given agenda that political parties can use, let me dispel this gross misconception. First, there are many predatory journals which will publish whatever for money, and you will find most of pseudoscients there (which could be more political, but I don't follow much of the social literature). Those are not the places to look for (proper) science. Second, social scientists examine a deeply complex topic, which includes a large number of aspects impossible to analyze in a single study. Each little aspect is investigated, sometimes multiple times, by multiple people giving context, confirmation and weeding out results that are potentially incorrect. Those studies have varying degrees of statistical quality (sample size, variable, confounders), but in the long run we improve. That's why it's important to take any scientific result with context, and have a vague idea of their methodological quality. It's a burden on the media AND readers.

Sadly most of todays population has a deep trust in either their political party, science, or whatever pseudo-religion they follow. Only seeing the faults on the other side.

Which is exactly why the scientific world should be competing LESS, or at least not by selling their scientific results to politicians and the general puplic. Proper scientifical studies getting into unqualified hands and being taken out of context are one of the greatest dangers of today society, given how such studies are often taken as the "word of god" by some people.

And the politician who presents the study is the "pope" interpreting the word of god for them... or the "Expert" they paid to make it look more credible.

Anyway, this goes into the direction of "everything has become subjective in our society" -> which is why history in games is no longer an easy subject to tackle.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

No, it cannot. If you cite whatever bogus source because it agrees with you, it just means your argument is very poor. Pretending otherwise just means lack of argumentation skill. Science, news or the topic is not at fault. It's whoever just wants to see what they already believe confirmed.

And what is the value of scientific results without interpretation? Can any normal person understand a sheet full of genom data?

Everyone who can at least PRETEND to be some kind of authority, and make enough people believe him can abuse science, or history, or whatever the simple man on the street has neither the patience or time to learn about himself, can use it for evil or good. And even if his intentions are pure, and he strives for good, he might still abuse the power to achieve his goal, and up causing evil in society because of his shortsightedness.

In the end, both sides have used the same stupid arguments in the past... different flavour, same stupid argument once your removed the sugarcoating. In the end, all outrage warriors function very similar to each other, no matter if the are progressive or conservative.

Why do you think many are comparing the progressive outrage warriors to the christian crusaders of the jack thompson era trying to ban violence from video games? There are erie similarities once you remove the goals they strive for from the equation.

On 6/1/2018 at 4:08 PM, Mynx said:

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that none of this matters and that "both sides" are "outrage warriors" or that devs are virtue signaling or [whatever other buzzword or cliche "I'm in the middle" statement you want to use here].

Don't get me wrong, I can see how someone would see it that way when they're entirely disconnected from any of the issues and see nothing wrong with the existing status quo, but that's privilege blindness at work. For the rest of us this matters. I mean, asking to have characters we like or represent us or that we can associate with in games is an entirely reasonable thing to ask for, don't you think? And being met with extreme opposition and complaints is not a fair response to that request, I would say.

 

Well, at least you see the weakness of your whole ideology... or at least the ideology you seem to champion.

If I would have to say where I stand as an european... I am a bystander, just looking at the whole mess and trying to decide who to root for. I see outrage warriors and toxic behaviour on both sides. I see good people on both sides. I have not idea where it all started, really, because going from the US history to the current political climate in parts of the US is quite a stretch for someone like me. Maybe because I am not involved in it, sure. I sure as hell can understand some of the frustration... maybe a little bit more on the progressive side, in my heart at least...

Asking for representation is all good and well. As far as I can tell it is working, and you get it.

DEMANDING it is the problem here. I have no sympathy for toxic behaviour towards a game dev that just creates a game you seemingly don't like. I don't care if some dev creates a game full of black people... why do you care if its a game full of white people? I don't care if someone ruins another old 80's cartoon (*cough*Thundercats Roar*cough*)... I might bitch and moan a little bit about it, but then I move on and simply spend my money elsewhere. Why do some people have to try to deplatform and slander people for the slightest deviation form their own orthodoxy?

I do not support the guys that want only white males in all the games either. Especially the toxic ones. But see, I see them as just as reactionary as your side in the end. This culture war in nerd culture is really self destructive.

I rather stay out of it.

Look, I can GET that some people seem very keen on representation...  I never have looked for that myself. My heros have been black (Blade), female (Samus Aran, Ripley), non-human (Katt from BoF2), whatever. I do understand that maybe that has to do with representation of MY ethnicity and gender never having been an issue in media.

And while my historical fetischism might bleed saying that, I can understand why people would want to be able to create whatever they want as an avatar in a multiplayer game. I just hope that the historical campaign, if there is one, concentrates on ACTUAL people having fought in the war, many of whom were black. Maybe not in the normandie or in russia. But then, do we really need another game about Normandie or Barbarossa? The Indian soldiers fighting for great britain, or the black US soldiers, and some other region WW2 raged in would certainly deserve a place in a game.

One thing you might want to understand is this: when you say "we are asking to get characters we can associate with"... you do say "I cannot associate with a person that is not my color of skin". You do understand how that sounds to someone else, do you? I know that this is not what you, and probably many on your side of the spectrum mean, but for someone who actual doesn't care about the skin color of other people (thanks to living in a country lacking any history that would breed that kind of thinking), this sounds pretty offputting.

2 hours ago, Bregma said:

Being a straight white male of privilege is good enough for straight white males of privilege.  It should damn well be good enough for all those others too.

Well, as long as they get other games playing as blacks, females, or people without privilege, I don't see the issue?

Not every game has to be for everyone?

And also, most of the games only reach a small niche of players... if the dev wants to make that niche even smaller, why stop him or her? I mean you seemingly dislike that dev anyway, why force him/her to make a decision you seem to think to be better for business?

8 hours ago, JoeJ said:

But woman will likely have no interest in doing so. If you ignore them, other developers will take the piece of the cake, and you'll soon have to shut down your studio. A large developer can't afford to serve niche markets. You need to convince smaller studios to make the games you want.

And that is the issue with AAA games costing 100 millions. When you need to reach everyone and their dog with a console, you need to create a game that appeals to everyone. Which can work, but is hard to pull off.

A small niche Indie game doesn't need to do that. And if they can survive only trying to appeal to half the population... its their business, no?

As for BF... clearly they need to reach everyone who is into military shooters... which might be a large niche, still a niche compared to the total gaming market.

As to smaller games... they exist. Why people get so hung up on what the AAA industry does is beyond me. Just move on and stop giving the AAA studios who seem to disappoint you again and again your money. Swallow your pride, turn down the AAA eyecandy and enjoy the peace and quiet of a small community who hasn't been invaded by reallife politics yet

Thus, if BF isn't for you - maybe try Verdun for example? I hear its a good game. WW1 though, so rather an escape vector from the mess that was BF1 for a historical fetishist.