Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Gian-Reto

Member
  • Content Count

    1533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7096 Excellent

About Gian-Reto

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Information

  • Role
    Programmer
  • Interests
    Art
    Design
    Production
    Programming

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Sure, I am not trying to speak for everyone. Also, I do recognize the success of the newer Bond iteration. What I MIGHT not agree on is the reason why they have been moderately to very successfull. Lets get this straight: the last few Bond movies before the Daniel Craig ones were godaweful. They were crap. They were the old Bond movies going down a very bad direction where there was no more return from. So as said, a Reboot was needed. And THAT probably was the biggest reason why the Daniel Craig Bonds have been received so positively, maybe even by some fans who liked the old, pre-90's Bonds better. Now, you can certainly say that was a "mission successfull". Sure, yeah, it did what the reboot set out to do, prevent Bond movies from slipping even more into Comic territory. I still do think a return to the old formula before "need moar gadgets" became the mantras in the 90's would have been the better idea. But sure, that is my opinion, I am not denying that. Just never, ever go from "It has been successfull" to "it has been successfull because of X" without pouring a whole mountain of salt on the whole thing (Probably should make sure I follow this rule myself ) Because else you could go with the "SJW's ruined star wars" and "it was a fan boycott" interpretation of why "Solo" failed so hard... when, as far as I understand it, the biggest contributing factors probably was "5 months after the last SW movie", "Rumours about a troubled production leaking", and the fact that movie apparently wasn't that well received even by movie critiques who often are very forgiving towards big hollywood productions. And, of course, extensive re-shoots after swapping out the director mid production... which, according to some sources, almost doubled the production cost. Probably everything contributed to the loss... Just like in case of the Bond movies, probably everything contributed to the success, probably the movies DID strike some modern tastes... but at the same time also didn't had to live up to the same standarts because of a decade of substandart Bond movies lowering expectations. Trying to emphasize one over the other is then just personal opinion. As to BF V... well, lets wait and see. Something the hardcore nerds and people to invested in this whole nerd culture infight often forget is that most buyers of a normie-series like BF (which is, like many of the console shooters, not that niche) probably don't watch youtube trailers, don't care about E3, or have any idea of the internet outrage going on at the moment. So it is going to be interesting to see how the general gaming population reacts. I also don't think the sales are going to be impacted much by the female protagonist, or whatever it is (could be an NPC for all we know). Or by multiplayer skins. Or by cringy moral grandstanding on Twitter or cringy E3 trailers. As long as the quality of the end product is good, and the game is fun even with whatever has been shoved in there, its going to sell. Especially when the target is the general non-niche audience that will not give a damn about historical accuray and just want to blow up stuff with cool graphics, probably skipping all the cutscenes anyway.
  2. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Sure, there are cases where a game (or movie) was all the better for being completly subverted. But: in this case the original being subverted was probably bad (arguably the case with the '99 and '02 Bond movies). And the new movie probably was doing something clever and original (Arguably not the case in the new bond movies... they are played way to straight and cookie cutter to be clever and original, and they neither subvert the genre nor the Bond movies in general. Trashing on the Bond series injokes like with the stirred drink, or with Bond no longer being a fan of gadgets is not really "subverting" Bond movies... the bad guy being the good guy for once would be subverting it. The british government being the bad guy would be subverting it) I think we can agree on this: if the result is good, only the most rabid of old fans are salty about it. Even then, they probably will watch it / play it and get over their saltiness... or at least grudginlgy agree that its a good movie / good game, if not one that should be counted amongst the classics of the series. Problem with many of the highly divisive movies or games that tried a 180 is that they are simply not good enough to be above this kind of criticism, or not good enough so only the most rabid fans complain about it. "Subverting" an existing IP has often become the new "let's do something original" in the age of total risk avoidance. Instead of spacing releases more out (do we need yearly releases of some IPs?), or jugling more IPs at the same time (some big publishers seem to be concentrated on half a dozen never ending series now), in many cases devs and publisher try to make one IP into whatever is the hotness at the moment. I am not sure what to think of all the FPSes out there now tacking on a Battle Royale mode.... and I knew pretty well what to think of the Zombie mode many FPSes tacked on when that was all the rage: it was BS, IMO. So oftentimes games are not "subverted" as much as bent into shape for the newest fads in the game industry. Which sometimes means they "break" under the stress. It's probably not that the movie or game would be BETTER in quality if it stayed more true to its roots. If a publisher releases a bad product, it would still be bad if it would at least stay true to the originals. But then it would at least serve as a throwback to old times for longtime fans, which probably would be more forgiving.
  3. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Absolutely... but then, you can stay true to your roots and change quite a lot. If you actually know and aknowledge your roots, that is. And don't follow stupid industry fads, like many in the entertainment industry, movies and games alike, often do. I am not so sure how the team responsible for the newest batch of Bond movies worked, but I guess that either a) they weren't aware that comedy and humour actually was the most important pillar of the older Bond movies (very unlikely) b) felt like all the funny moments that could fit into an agent movie had already been done to death (unlikely) c) looked at how successfull other properties had been, and just copied that (more likely) There would have been plenty of room for change without making Bond into another dreary "brown military shooter" which took itself way too serious. And I guess there were plenty of good balck haired actors on the market that would have fitted the role better than Daniel Craig. If we are talking about "more successful than the 70's Bonds", that would be an achievement, as these movies were actually pretty dope for the time and it was kind of the peak of its popularity. Of course we need to adjust for the smaller size of the movie industry at the time. If we are talking about "bigger than all Bonds since the 80's"... the latter 80's movies actually were already on a down AFAIK. Totally underrated movies IMO, I loved Timothy Dalton and his movies. If we are talking "Better than the last few movies before them"... the 90's movies were a travesty, to be honest. I liked Golden Eye... everything after that was getting increasingly more comical and trashy. The last ones, the '99 and '02 Movies really fitted more into the MCU than the Bond universe. So I am not saying that Bond didn't need a severe reimagination after getting lost in the 90's... its just that probably, it should have been taken back to its roots in the way how it handled itself and its story. You know, more british understatement, less american big action movie, more british humour, less comical grandstanding. The newer Bond movies take it in a different direction altogether. But its simply not "british" enough for my liking. Its not quirky and charming enough, if you get my drift. Its too... "american", for a lack of a better term. To streamlined to modern hollywood conventions. Maybe when interest wanes yet again in some years, and the Bond franchise has to reinvent itself yet again we get something closer to the originals again, who knows? James Bond was a rather old fashioned guy in all eras his movies came out in. So I don't think this is really a valid argument. He wasn't all that hip and modern in the 70's really with his suit and machoism... If it "doesn't fly anymore" probably its time to put the IP on ice for now, and come up with something new that fits in with the current mainstream. I mean, I guess if it would "fly again" in the future (which I am not sure about, but thing have swung back and forth before, so I wouldn't extrapolate from todays sensibilities to future ones really), the whole IP will be rebooted again, and all that is canon today will simply be invalidated... its not that this hasn't been done before. So its not exactly the end of the world for old fans. They can ignore the new stuff until the big reboot comes (Hope dies last). I just again find it tragic that this way, existing IPs get butchered to be fitted into new clothing, while almost no new IP is allowed to really get that big. Just IMO. Reduce "Pretty Different" to "Different" and I agree. There has been changes between the different eras, and between how the actors played Bond. Dalton was a little bit more serious at times... but then, this was just a drier version of the dry british humour of the older Bond movies. I mean, going down the slope in a cello carry case was quite a laugh. Using the extremly expensive cello of the czech musician as a paddle and getting it shot up in the process was also part of that dry humour. The best I have seen in modern Bonds was the stabs at older bonds... "Shaked or stirred" - "do I look like I'd care?". Not exactly that hilarious if you ask me. Just some more meta, self-referential humour that isn't really working that well for me. Timothy Dalton - Sean Connery - Roger Moore -> all of them hard to tell apart from a distance. Hair color helps. But also build and facial structure actually similar in some regards. Craig -> Facial structure might still fit in with the others. Much to muscular build. Blonde hair. if this is a group of 4 people seen from a few meters away, he will stick out like a sore thumb. When it comes to acting, Sean Connery and Roger moores Bond was quite similar. Timothy daltons is a little bit different, true. But Daniel Craigs Bond again sticks out because he acts so much different in many ways to the other, older Bonds. Again, I am not saying the new Bond movies are bad. Some of them actually worked for me, when I watched it under the pretense of "its not a Bond movie". So again, I am hoping for the next reboot to go more into the direction of the the old Bond movies. If it doesn't, well. I will rewatch the old ones instead Don't mean to. It's probably not on my A-List for this year (A new Sould Calibur is coming out, so most of the A-List spots will be filled with that... because those moves will not train themselves. Need to dust off my Siegfried and Nightmare skills), but its certainly on the long list for next year. Well.... Times change, and stay the same at the same time. But that is pseudo-philosophy at its best Evolving an IP is all good and well. But there are limits how far you can and should take it. There is the point were you should probably stop and simply not do it. For an example: I was a big fan of the original Army of Two on the PS3. Yes, it was not the best shooter every. Yes, the story was immature, simplistic and goofy. But it was a fun game to play with the pals in coop. Exactly BECAUSE the whole thing was a stupid immature machoism-fest. We chuckled like small boys at times at how stupid the story was... because it gave that vibe of not taking itself so serious. The 40th hour, the second game in the series on the other hand... one of the biggest disappointments on the PS3. Not only was the stupid humour gone (apparently because fans wished for a more mature tone.... ), but the whole graphics had been tuned into "military brown shooter" territory, and suddenly the games tried to tell its (still stupid) story with a straight face. Yeah, that didn't work well. Because a) suddenly the story became the forefront of the game thanks to not rely on macho tropes so much anymore. And the story was bad. Because b) all the stuff in the game was seen before, better, in all the modern warfare shooters. Now, neither Ao2 nor 40th hour were brilliant or terrible games. Ao2 gave me something unique for a specific way to play (2 player coop with a pal and beers), and 40th hours was decidedly the worse expierience for the specific way to play (focus on a bad story, humour ripped out of the game, drab military shooter optics). It did evolve in a direction that maybe some people wanted. But it also evolved in a direction which took away some of its unique elements. Was it the right way to listen to parts of the fan base and make the game more "mature"? Was it the right way to make it look prettier... and more cookie cutter? Was the writing up to par to make the game rely more on the story telling instead of stupid macho slapstick stunts between missions? As to moving God of war away from its roots... the question is WHY? Why use kratos as a hero in a world that no longer is his (nordic mythology instead of greek one... why not use some nordic hero?), in a gameplay format which breaks a little bit with his old image (from what I have seen he is still a badass, just not as insane as in the old hack'n'slashes), give him a backstory that kind of redefines his image (wasn't he pretty much a walking macho trope before?)... Why not take a fresh hero for a fresh start? Will there really be all that many GoW fans that will buy the game now that its out and actually good, that wouldn't have bought a not-GoW game if the same game came out under a different name with a different hero? Probably there are these fanboys that simply buy everything with the right label at the front, but are there really enough to justify using an existing IP? On the flipside I do understand that worldbuilding an IPs world takes time, and quite some investment. Using an existing IP can help bring an already wuite elaborate world with it. So its not like I am against creating different games in the same universe. I am not particuarly against "God of War: Dad edition"... I am just not sure this should be seen as the "Reboot" of the series, instead of a side-story, which it actually is. There is not "Culture"... we are living in the time of the sub-sub-subculture. Ask two guys what the current culture is and you get two different answers. Its not general culture or tastes that have changed... its just that after some years of overuse, something gets boring for a time. Culture hasn't shifted away from finding Zombies cool - they simply were overused in games and other media to the point were you got the urge to throw up every time a new Zombie game was anounced. Culture hasn't shifted away from strategy games - the strategy market just hasn't grown the same way as other markets, thus the mainstream gaming industry has dropped it like a hot potato. Culture hasn't shifted away from single player games - its just that creating a multiplayer campaign is expensive and you cannot sell players just as much digital doodas for that. Throw a GoW hack'n'slash throwback on the market today, make it good and nostalgic... fans will eat it up. Sure not in the same numbers as when this was the hot new stuff. But then the 3rd person open(ish) world adventure game has been done to death too, so the new GoW:Dad edition is not exactly all that hot and new. Besides being a good AAA game for a change, and bringing back and old IP in some form (which is probably answering my WHY? question above). Can you have a dialogue when bad apples on both sides turn it into a shouting contest? Are you ready to be educated yourself when you are trying to educate others? Are you sure your perspectives are informed enough? How do you prevent any kind of "dialogue" in this heated situation to be misinterpreted as another "attack"? Again, this isn't the end goal to just segregate society into people who don't get along to have some artificial peace. My perspective is to let the heat cool down before even trying to have discussions again. If you ever had a fight with a good friend, was there any point in trying to tal it through with him or her while both where still angry? Didn't you first have to cool down yourself, and give the other one the space he/she needed to cool down also? So you could start the discussion again rationally, instead of shouting at each other? Again, if you think that provocations lead to anything good in an environment that has already heated up to a boiling point... I don't know what to say. You want to make the world a better place by force. Good luck with that, really. Yes, I am misinterpreting your words slightly for dramatic effects... in hope that my points gets understood better. I do understand that SOME people will always take everything as a provocation and will be always offended by something. Which is why I hope society will learn to interpret the noise of outrage warriors on the internet as what it is. Noise by a vocal minority. But there is an economy of scale behind outrage. And at the point where enough people are outraged at something that a slight provocation can blow up big time... you probably should ease off and let things slide for now.
  4. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    I think at this point the devs themselves twittering probably has become the bigger problem than anything else. Of course one of the devs had to virtue signal. While I personally simply found the twitter message only slightly cringy, probably will send the signal to the anti-SJWs that the whole thing isn't blown out of proportion (which it probably still isn't, there is always someone who posts crap on twitter...), or give them the justification in their own eyes at least to keep attacking the game. Yeah... if I was Dice, or EA, I probably would tell devs to either stay off twitter or social media, post as anon or have them go through PR and legal with every post to get approvement. Especially when posting from an official account... but even so, if its a name people recognise, probably would want them to only post pre-approved stuff. At this point, EVERY communication which goes into social issues territory, attacks part of the fanbase (or the trolls), or can else somehow misconstrued as provocation probably will only make matters worse. But then lets see where this goes... Battlefield will probably still sell no matter the dislikes, so I don't expect much to come out of this anyway. Compared to the "CoD goes to space" game the reason for the dislikes, and the twitter nonsense it sparked is very much "nerd drama", whereas even the normie players of CoD probably where not that much into CoD becoming a space shooter. IPs should evolve, but stay true to their roots. James Bond is a bad example: the newer Bonds shed lots of old fans (me included) because its no longer a Bond movie. 1) James Bond actors always looked similar. Which gave the series a nice continuity throughout its long runtime. Not the most important complaint, but for me, Bond has black hair and looks like Sean Connery or Roger Moore. 2) James Bond Movies where always filled with witty humour and never took themselves very serious. The new ones don't do that for me, really. They are way too much "gritty military shooter", and don't even try to be witty or funny. 3) Daniel Craig is not a british gentleman. At least not in that role. It looks like they wanted to break with the old Bond with all their might, and achieved that. The resulting movies would be passable as 009 (or whatever other 00-number you want to give this new agent) movies. I still would think they would probably be better of without trying to have anything to do with the 007 movies, because of the stark contrast in tone. Again, the new movies aren't for me, but they are not terrible movies (at least some of them are actually not that bad)... and agreed, after the bad turn the series took after Golden Eye, something had to be done. I still don't think this is how an IP should evolve. Loosing what made it great is a good way to kill an IP in the long run... and it wasn't just violence and the british secret service stuff that made Bond great... other series have done that in the meantime. It was the unique combination of violence, agent shenanigans, and witty humour sparkled with a little bit of gadgets (just not the big serving we got with the 90's movies) that made Bond movies Bond movies. The newer Bond movies are a dime in a dozen compared with movies like the Bourne series, for example. I am still a little bit torn about the new God of War. Sure, it looks gorgeous, and must be a blast to play. Don't know if I want to babysit another sidekick character for hours, but then must be one of the less annoying sidekicks. But it just feels like a game that tries to sell itself on a name it does no longer really deserves to carry, given how far it has evolved away from the originals. Just like the Bond movies. The original God of War games were cartoony, brutal, and in your face. This seems to be much more serious, and less mindless fun. And given the quality of at least the new god of war, its kind of a shame it couldn't stand on its own two feet with a new protagonist, and a new IP. But then I guess that is the industries reaction to any risk nowadays... slap a recognizable name on the product and hope this alone will make up for any shortcomings it might have, and sell extra copies if it turns out good. Again, not wanting to trash on God of War... probably will pick that one up, and I say this as someone who didn't own the originals as I wasn't that interested in the mindless Hack'n'slash it seemed to be. I was using the internet pretty often since 95, and have seen it grow. It has always been toxic. And that has only become an issue when more and more normal people joined the internets. But I digress. I was more talking about some of the events going on in the gaming space in the last few years. I am happy I didn't pay too much attention to some of the drama back then, but still, I believe what we see today is still the aftereffect of that. There is a clear trace of provocations (some clearly not meant as such) and toxic reactions over the years. These 'symptoms' have become the cause by now, like in any feud. Again, its a hen and egg question. Did they dig when they complained (why dig in the first place?), or did the complained because they already knew him? Anyway, that is not really that interesting. I think important to note is eastern europe. These people usually are not the most progressive minded (not meant in a bad way, and not all of course), they are attack hamsters sometimes (well, if you had to endure oppression by a superpower for 40 years and keep quiet, you'd probably wouldn't sit on your mouth now that your country gives you some freedom of expression), and sure enough, it isn't a region with a ton of PoC.... So many people come to these games with a different mindset and don't seem to understand that national pecularities can and will influence how a dev develops games and markets them, even when he tries to go global. Yes. But again, there is now a history of bad blood for 4 years at least on both sides. This will not end in a year or two, even if we try to let it die. Do you have a better approach though? I am willing to listen and change my opinion. I don't see any other option, but then, I am not claiming to be all knowing
  5. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well... maybe the issue then is how the people unaffected get educated about it. Because I see a lot of people actually open to hear the reasonable complaints being kind of "turned off" listening by the slapfest of the bad apples on both sides, AND big business and media co-opting the debate and making big headlines out of it. Sometimes, an alarmist article blaming and shaming people does more harm than good. Again, what I have seen is that personal contact and common interest do way more to help different groups understand each other than all this lecturing and activism. Right. But I don't think the female character alone was ever the issue to begin with. a) if the whole historical correctness angle wouldn't be there, it couldn't be used... thus making the game look more cartoony, using a fantasy world, making it clear that this is alternate history b) if the game would be a new IP, you would have to deal with less fanboism -> hence why changing existing IPs to accomodate more diversity has to be done very carefully IMO c) if the whole environment would have been soured by years of pointless slapfests in the media and on youtube, people would probably react less toxic and you would just hear one or two people mutter something about "that katana and robot arm is not historical" - that shit wasn't as much an issue 10 years ago, at least I cannot remember it to be. Again, for the time being I think not provoking and not letting provocations get to you is the important thing, then hopefully both sides will cool down a little bit. And yes, I do believe the most stupid thing will be seen as a provocation at the moment. As the silly trailer to a series as chronically unhistorical as BF shows. I would be damned if I could find a real unbiased source on the matter that I would trust. I mostly pieced it together from clearly biased sources. Just read the gaming press, watch some anti-SJW youtube videos, mix it, divide by two, and you get something close to the truth. Sorry, not going to link to something that I don't fully trust. The gist of it, removing as much bias as I can: the guy at the top of the studio was a controversial figure during the GG controversy, obviously very involved. He headed a Czech studio to develop a first person RPG set in mediaval bohemia that was really using historical accuray as its main feature. The game quickly got critisized for not having PoC and, as far as I remember, not enough women in it. The studio, especially the guy at the top, started a counterattack mocking the guys complaining about it. Historically accurate angle was used as defense. The whole thing exploded as it always does, gaming press started writing pieces on him, anti-SJW squad came to the defense, ugly slapfest ensued. The result was the game came out unchanged, was a huge success for a relatively small game from a small studio, and apparently was decent, if not brilliant. Questions got raised if the game would have gotten just as much flak for what could be seen as a minor issue in a small game from eastern europe if the guy at the top wouldn't have been wellknown from GG. That is pretty much the gist of it, trying to be as unbiased as I can. If you want the version with more flavour, again, your probably can google it. was all the rage for a month or so, and the internet is still filled with the remains of that dumpster fire. And I found it important to point out that a lot of "historically inaccurate" are not about gender or race. In case of the BF5 Trailer, after having looked into it more it seems the female soldier and the black british soldier are only about 1/4 ofwhat probably triggered people to dislike because of "historical inaccuray"... one of the british soldiers in the european theater has a katana on his back - and again, then we have robot-arm lady shooting a rifle with a pretty primitive prostetic arm. And that doesn't even go into the full overthetopness of the whole cutscene... which in my case was easing me off a little bit because all of this probably was meant to be not taken seriously at all... looked like fortnite without the cartoon graphics... seems it still managed to trigger some people even more. No, its not a provocative trailer. But people are on edge because this whole "SJW vs. anti-SJW" thing was never allowed to die down by both sides. Its still being fed by the media and youtube channels every day, just check for yourself. The solution to THAT problem is when people no longer care, there will be no money more in trying to rile up people for clicks. And to make people not care anymore... yeah, you kinda have to let it die down. Kinda let more things just go instead of reacting to it. Because this loop is being fed by reactions. And it has escalated to a point where I am no longer sure there are ANY reactions that can help to de-escalate. ESPECIALLY when all these reactions often come in the heat of the moment, where even the official reps of game devs and movie studios sometimes write stuff they probably would regret having written months later. I hope at least they regret it. Look, I understand some people wanting to change the world. I understand some people feeling the other is in the wrong, and wanting to either shut them down or convince them. But I don't think any of this can happen. This has escalated way beyond what can be contained. If you think otherwise, and want to do something against it, good luck to you. You will need it.
  6. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well, SOME people seem to either like to forget that, or simply chose to ignore it. It might be an old truism, but its sadly again what this whole conflict needs. More people in middle calling others to calm the F-Word down. What else can you do in a time and day when the truth gets ever more murky thanks to "modern technology" and the internet? Not that the truth was ever that safe from manipulation, but again. What do you do in an age when everything you read is easier to manipulate than ever before? In the end all you do is pick your truth if you are not very sceptical about what your read and believe. Sure I have a stance. I might even think MY stance is more valid than someone elses stance. But I do not think I have a right to force my stance on someone else... outside of a democratic process, that is. The legal system, the political system. That is what should be used to tackle REAL issues in the REAL world. You know, gays not being allowed to marry and all that. Hopefully a vote will, someday, make this a non-issue. If someone has a different opinion, for example on gay rights... I don't think I will change his mind by being rude to him, or obnoxious. A lot of the social justice movement of the last few years has been trying to shout over other people for various reasons. I don't think this will lead anywhere good. I see the rise of the right here in europe, and worldwide as a reaction to overreaching leftist activism and politics. As someone who would like to see society slowly moving into a more progressive future, that worries me... at the same time, I have become increasingly fed up with the left in my country, and in other parts of the world. They seemed to be bogged down by petty infighting about who is the most oppressed, seemed to follow the same stupid demagogues as the rightwing, just their mirror twins, at times, all while making the same "politics for the chosen few" I detested some rightwing parties for a long time (insert underprivileged for overprivileged). I see the same rich guys at the top of the left trying to capitalize the whole thing as on the right side. So if you ask me if I think Racism and Sexism is still a problem? Yes, sure. I am also sure it not only affects a few protected classes, but everyone. Some more than others in certain regions of the world. Some less. But most of all I don't believe naive activism and shortsighted politics can help against it. What the world needs is societal change, and that a) cannot be forced outside of a dictatorship (and even there might lead to unwanted results), and b) takes a lot of time... you can stop someone from being racist in public sure. You cannot control his thoughts though. That takes way longer to wane, maybe generations. Look, I do understand everyone closer to the topic not being able to step back and take a deep breath. In the end I do not think that hyperbole and grandstanding will help the issue to become a non-issue though, IMO. Only people reaching out hands to people not on their side, that might not see them as humans (yet) will. Because in a lot of cases I think missing respect and empathy comes from missing contact with people different to them. Disagree with me all you like - I prefer to find good people on both sides and listen and talk to them, and try to distance myself from the negativity of the toxic elements on both sides (if I manage to do that... I am a geek at heart, with all the fanboism that comes with it). That will naturally call for a more sceptical stance toward both sides.
  7. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    I fear you, and many others on both side fall prey to modern times and its greatest myth: that there is still one universal truth... and everyone who doesn't believe it is the lunatic. For a lot of people worldwide, equality has been achieved. Is that right? Wrong? Who will be able to prove either side of the argument right or wrong in a world where everything can verified on the internet, thus a lot of lying politicians and media got caught and both politics and media have a trouble with people questioning everything from their direction now... yet at the other hand, its easy like never before to falsify information on the internet. You probably are just as much living in your own information bubble like what you probably see as "mysoginists" raving against feminism. Some people have proven (again, if you believe their proof) that the algorithms used on Youtube, Facebook and twitter to get people more engaged are just giving them the information that fortify their already existing worldview, unless they go out of their way to challenge it. And a normal person usually does not do that, so ... liberal bubble <-> conservative bubble. When the two meet after years of not having dealt with each other, you can bet bad things happen as they have such a different view of the world and what is actually going on that they will be totally at odds with each other. Hence calling something "pure ignorance" just shows that you yourself probably are too involved in the topic... and yeah, I am aware that I am guilty of that just like everyone else. No one is a saint here, we all have our biases. I hope she was brushing up her CV the next day? That pretty much sounds like no place ANYONE would want to work, male or female. She probably only saw half of the abuse happening there, with the male victims not speaking up because of stupid "men don't complain but suck it up" coping strategies when they are to afraid to punch another dude in the face (which is what that Boss would have deserved). Not saying that isn't really gross and bad but really: that is just toxic work environments. They exist, they need to stamped out. Going against abuse based on gender is the wrong way to do it IMO. Maybe there is not one answer, but many. And I think the problem is that by now, many of those guys on "the other side" from yours have many good reasons to feel humilated or angry. This stupid slapfight has been going on for years now in the gaming space and there have been many shots fired from both sides. If you think your side has done no harm -> see the "bubble theory" I was talking about above. Each sides chosen "Media" has a habbit of downplaying their own attack dogs shenigans while trying to paint the opposition in the worst ever light. The media, including parts of the "Mainstream media" (whatever that is), the gaming press, and a lot of youtube basically lives off this stupid slapfight. Nothing makes good money like controversy. So they feed into the loop with endless articles and youtube videos ever so slightly bending the truth, to provoke the other side into another stupid attack. All for the clicks, and the ad money. IMO some activist group also live of this money making scheme, but then I have no proof, and they might be just rabid attack dogs by nature. If you REALLY want to know WHY... maybe talk to some of the less extreme proponents of the other side. Lay aside your ideological beliefs and simply listen. You might be surprised to find people who return the favour and listen to you (if you can stick to "common grounds parlance" instead of liberal buzzwords probably though). So I guess what you are looking for are just shooter games that do not involve killing people? Or soldiers fighting in a war? Isn't Splatoon something that goes into that direction, altough that is aimed at kids? Or am I off in a wrong direction here? Well, see, at this point you need to explain how the expierience of men and women fighting in a war differ. Both probably fear for their life, want to kill people either to save themselves, their families, or because of some deluded national pride or religious zeal. Hows that going to differ between a male and female protagonist? Is it that you want the developer to insert ADDITIONAL story elements to actually MAKE a difference... or do you think there would be a natural difference in the expierience? How is that going to make much difference when solving a murder mystery case? Unless we are talking about mundane everyday perspectives where gender ROLES play a... pardon the pun... role, a male and female protagonist, from where I stand, will act the exact same way given the same personality and abilities. Its because in exceptional situations like wartime gender roles will usually be pushed to the back, IF both genders are used in the same capacity (which they historically have not, but today are in some countries). I get that the "I need to protect my family" trope is aimed at men. What is your alternative that would suit women more, would allow for the same amount of mayhem to happen, and would be acceptable for both liberals and conservatives, men and women to some (if in the last category lesser) extent? Because that is what this trope is. An inoffensive way to justify unjustifiable acts of brutality by the protagonist while making him look like a good guy. The dreaded "Male gaze"... yeah, I will probably just sign out on that because I have not much good to say. Before I do that, let me tell you this... ask for more godd stuff for the "female gaze" instead of being annoyed that guys get good toys too. Industry probaby should make more toys for women, agreed. Trying to sour the "boys toys" so to speak with toxic feminist language will only provoke one reaction. And you can guess which one that is. EDIT: And I don't mean "toys" as in "Sexobjects", even though the theory seems to be mainly concerned with that. I mean it in the sense of "stuff X finds good/attractive" As a closing statement to a way to long answer: I think the answer is to get more NEW game dev companies creating NEW games that cater to NEW markets. Asking the current top dogs that are good at what they do, but will start from scratch if asked to cater to a wholy different market probably will only end in tears. As much as it pains me to say that (ugh, the yearly CoD / FIFA -ware from EA) Well. Let me tell you something: you are probably as ignorant about the world outside of your own country as I am about the world inside of your country (or the world outside of mine). That said, lets continue... Gay rights are a problem everywhere, right. But sadly you cannot force the world to become a better place. Most of this mess is currently going on BECAUSE some people want to force the world to become a better place. Mostly out of good intentions (or so I hope), but what do they say about good intentions: the road to hell is paved with it. Gay rights are an issue everywhere. But sadly we are talking about games here, and games are a business. A business that tries to put saving the world above making money will be out of business soon. Why would many businesses want to cater to homosexual people in the first place? So IF you want to be successfull in other parts of the world, you have to respect the norms that these parts have... and in case if China (a big market), or Russia (not such a big market money wise, still sizable), advocating for gay rights will get you quickly banned from the market. The stance of most european nations on gay rights might not differ that much from the liberal stance in the US... when it comes to race relations however, you are probably in a different place. Again, our racism is 99% white people against white people. Outside of France, and UK maybe... but the farther east you get, the "whiter" the general population will get, because immigrants from africa seldom end up there. And the farther south you get, the more anti-immigrant the current climate becomes... there is a reason why the five star movement seems to be winning in italy big time, and only the redical parties seem to have a chance in Greece. So again. Europe is not the US. The government systems differ, the problems differ, the ethnic composition differs. Now, there is a time and place to talk about RL issues, and there is a time and place to simply have fun and switch off the brain (or keep it processing fantasy worlds). Is a game someone plays to have fun the right place to lecture him? Probably not. There are ways to address these issues "in-world", in which case its no longer a game lecturing about RL issues and more a game that takes inspirations from reallife issues, that MIGHT just cause one or the other player to think about the actual reallife issues that inspired it... You know, instead of homosexuals not being able to marry, make it two fantasy races forbidden to marry? Instead of lecturing people about how bad atomic bombs are... come up with Hex cannons that render whole cities uninhabitable (real example from BoF4)? That will go under the radar of the Kreml thought police for example, that will probably be accepted by the anti-SJW hatemob, and you probably have a higher chance to reach the people where the message is most effective: people not already firmly on your side.
  8. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well, that is actually interesting. Let me ask you this: if its targeted at men, why is it your favorite genre? I guess you are either talking about shooters, or strategy games (as RPGs seem to serve female gamers well enough according to statistics... or am I mistaken here). But isn't what you want rather some games that target women, instead of games that try hard to target everyone, and more often than not, fail at that? Because I can understand that a game like Doom, which is filled with testosterone and manliness until it becomes a caricature again (which I guess is also the aim) would probably not suit the taste of most women, even if they are into shooters. Do you now want Doom changed to become not-so-Doom-and-gloomy-anymore? With a female protagonist, less ugly enemies, or whatever panders to a female demographic? Or do you want another shooter, just as well designed as Doom, but with a female protagonist and less testosterone filled levels and enemies? I think this is the big issue here... minority groups and women ask for more representation... and studios answer by changing existing franchises. ESPECIALLY when these studios struggle anyway with making these games fresh and interesting, and push a new version to the market way to often, that only adds to an already troubled relationship many longterm fans might have with the franchise. Instead of going easy on the yearly schedule for once, milking the franchise less into the ground, and using the time and resources in the meantime to start a new franchise that targets a different demographic. Franchise fatigue is a real thing, if you ask me. Can happen with the best and most consistent of franchises. Watch too many Marvel movies back to back, and you might want to skip one. And then this franchise fetishism is overrated. Actually, in case of some franchises I simply had enough. Instead, I would love something new. Now, as to me playing something targeted at girls... if something gets skinned to appeal to girls, but is in its core still a genre that interest me... I probably wouldn't mind. Variety is the spice of life and all that... and there are only so many drab brown military shooters, or Borderlands clones one can play until one wants to see something different. If its a classical girls game (which is just as stupid stereotypical as the boys games), I probably wouldn't play it. But more because the gameplay probably wouldn't appeal too much to me... and I can understand if its the same for many women. I can relate to practically anything as long as it has emotions that are close to human ones... or if its emotionlessness is somewhat "relatable". Really. I do understand that some people might be struggling with that though. And again, I love my female player characters, and some of the coolest characters I have seen in games and movies have been black, so I don't mind them getting representation. ... As long as it doesn't mean some game dev hacks thinking they can slack on all other aspects of the game because they can sell "diversity" as a feature, white males don't get forcibly sidelined to serve that diversity (what I mean with forcibly: watch a japanese Moe anime where no man is allowed... it looks something between weird and creepy in most cases IMO... because it kind of breaks immersion when the setting is modern day japan... it would be better topp find an environment where the absence of men makes sense. It would be better to find a setting where the absence of whites and males makes sense, in such a game), the player doesn't get lectured about reallife issues, and game devs don't use it as a way to provoke part of their fanbase and the conservative outrage warriors to then play the victim online, I am all for it. Just make it good, and immersive, and don't talk about it longer than about the actual game. Right... and because of that we should strive for as much diversity as possible. Not to replace one with the other because the current political climate say so, to then swing around to white males again when wind changes. I blame the game industry here mostly, because at least in case of AAA studios they can be quite a bunch copycats. Someone has success with something... lets drop what we are doing and start pushing out clones of whatever that other company had success with. Diversity in this case starts to look more and more like such a fad. Everyone in politics and online is crying about it... we will get flak if we make a white male a protagonist -> see all the white male protagonists replaced with women and PoC. With the result that the characters might end up pretty... androgynous. Because the role wasn't written for a woman. With the sometimes justified argument levied at them that they don't have a the backstory of a black person... because that character was only quickly skinned to be black. And here we are again with a NA specific issue. Ther rest of the world might have different issues. Talk to the russians for example. I don't think every russian agrees with the homophobic policies of the Kreml... actually MOST might not agree with it. Still, game devs will remove any kind of homosexual romances and slightest hints at it from games that should be published in russia to pander to those policies. Should the rest of the world also follow suit according to you? Or should the game dev simply not sell the game in Russia? So why should a game from the Czech republic for example be change to cater to NA tastes? Shouldn't you rather ask for the game not to be sold in NA if it really is unsuitable for that audience? Now, few game developers might risk that, because NA is a big market. Some chose to ignore the US though, and some simply have bad enough sales in the US to care about the rest of the world more. So you want to lecture others through their entertainment... yeah, I cannot see why THAT would spark an outrage *sarcasm* Seriously though... as much as you want men to better relate to womens issues... create a documentary about it. Create a specific game about it that tells me on the box it tries to educate me. And I mean educate here, not "educate"... give me facts and intersting trivia, not lecture me. I choose when I want inform myself about others. If a game developer trys to force it on me, I will drop the game like a hot potato, and the game developers other games with it. If its a good game, where the "infotainment" aspect is not overshadowing the game, and its actually declared on the box, I might not only play it but enjoy it. I like to relate to different kinds of people... and aliens. Diversity -> good. Forced diversity -> bad.
  9. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well... lets leave out the US politics then. I only have an outside view on that, so I can hardly comment. That I have seen in the gaming space was a bunch of provocations and counterprovocations, amongst real grievances and real issues people had with certain things. You can say "this side is more in the right", or whatever. Denying the fact that there have been bad apples amongst the "partisans" on both sides would be closing your eyes to the truth. That is why I am repeating myself that gaming has become a very reactive environment. Most of the hate and vitriol that is spewed by a - still - vocal minority is mostly a reaction on past provocation. If you cannot understand that, then you probably will always be puzzled how we got to such a toxic environment. When it all started I don't know. I have my theories, but I rather not get into that. Well... in case of Kingdom come, I wouldn't just call the reactions "complaints". Granted, again, most of that wasn't directed at the game and mostly at certain persons as revenge for past grievances. Still, something I have seen as a gross overreaction to what is, at best, a slight historical innaccuray. From where I stand, I have little difference in tone and motivation between that and those recent attack on BF5, or the attacks on CoD some time ago. Its all part of that toxic activist culture some people have made their way of life... Well, in this case my gripe is all about the rarest wepaons from the last year of the war being used instead of the bog standart bolt action rifle, turning a slow methodical way of fighting into modern warfare, essentially. Or the planes shooting rockets. Or Space Marines in WW1. Or the fact the campaign started of so strong and fresh and then turned into yet another BF campaign that had little to do with WW1 on a gameplay level. Again, I am a historical fetishist. If somebody tells me "historical", I expect something that tries to emulate a bygone era. BF1 is actually the worst offender here for me because of that. To be honest, I am not so sure anymore myself. Not being that immersed into the marketing campaign of BF5 this time, and hearing that BF5 might be a mutliplayer only game, so probably historical references only go skin deep, I have no issues with the whole Avatar thing this time. As long as nobody tries to sell it as "history", I have no issue with historical inaccurays. But to re-iterate what I stated above: this is no longer about isolated incidents. Its a continuation of a nerd war between virtual hooligans. It was when outrage warriors attacked Kingdom come because of the person that spearheaded its development IMO... it might be here. Maybe some people wanted payback for the Kingdom come controversy? And as far as I looked into it, as far as I understand the sides involved, and as far as I know "nerd psychology", this "war" will not end quickly. This will go on for quite a while still. And things will stay this ugly, or become even uglier. Google "Bully hunters" if you haven't heard about this garbage fire. Fighting bullies with counter-bullies, a great idea *sarcasm*. Also a child of this mentality of fighting radicals with more radicals. Well, I give you that for sure: I have an outsiders view. Thus what I see might be tainted by the media and an european mindset. Certainly, race relations are way different over here, so I probably will stop talking about issues I know not so much of. Look into the Kingdom Come issue. Blown out of proportion by the anti-SJW side? Yes sure. But, to be honest, so is this BF5 thing. I haven't seen much more than disparaging youtube videos and some vitriol spewed online yet. Again, from a thirdperson view not the end of the world, just another stupid incident that is turning gaming into an ever more toxic environment. With all that said, maybe you can understand now why I say probably the only solution for game devs is to stop talking about it, and simply ignore this kind of feedback for now. Reduce the budget expecting some lost sales and negative PR, and simply create the games they think will sell. If HZD hasn't been enough of an example, the japanese dev scene is a good example too. They hardly listen to fans outside of japan, for their language barrier, their target market being primarly japan, and, yes, maybe also a latent racism against foreigneirs (altough again, I have no proof either way, and as its not targeted against a minority group in this case, am impartial towards it even if it would be the case). That has hardly ever affected their sales worldwide. Lets not forget, while japanese games usually don't do so well in the US... they do VERY well in europe, and other parts of asia. Some of the weirdest games have stayed in japan, and in some cases this was justified. But apart from that, the only ever outrage I have seen was when a western publisher got the censorship hammer out, instead of telling the japanese producer "we cannot sell that **** over here, get a different publisher to do that for you". This MIGHT rob this garbage fire of its oxygen, and given there are game developers with different political viewpoints, and there is a market, will lead to a "diversity" in games that hopefully cater to everyone.
  10. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well, in the current climate in the gaming sphere I expect rather the white only game to be back there... but really, it doesn't matter now who gets the shorter stick in this scenario now, no? We probably all would want games to be able to be inclusive, yes? And the environment in gaming to be welcoming to these kind of games, yes? Probably not going to happen in a toxic climate where everyone is screaming bloody murder as soon as they perceive the slightest fault in a new game coming out. As said, a very REACTIVE environment. Where TWO have contributed to make it so toxic... But anyway, probably I am wasting my keyboard keys lifetime here...
  11. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    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.
  12. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    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. 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?
  13. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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.
  14. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Not saying it was successfull. There are many things that can or at least could be criticized and would make sense to europeans. The absence of dark skinned characters in a game about midevial bohemia is about the least important problem such a game can have, and just show the US centricity of the people critisizing the game. Or that they wanted to hit the man, and not his product. Lets not forget this is a product from the Czech Republic, produced to be sold worldwide. Maybe they should have considered not selling it in the US? That is exactly how our current capitalistic system works. Nothing juvenile about it. Vote with your wallet, and your voice will be heard. On the second sentence I partly agree... but then, as I said, in todays insane world even history has become subjective. I am pretty sure what you believe to be how history actually went down would be propagandistic nonsense in parts for me, and the other way around. I guess that we might find common ground somewhere... still, there will be no one reading of history everyone agrees on. Just what finds the most agreement from the most amount of people. As said, this argument can be wielded by both sides, in a civilization so partisan every side has their own news source and their own social scientists they trust. Yes, now we agree on something. And this is why a) game devs should completly ignore criticism like that (be it the "muh representation", or the "its not realistic" kind of criticism) and concentrate on making games run without bugs and actually fun to play b) game devs also should stop virtue signalling to either camp of this culture war (so if you put extra minorities in, or more pronouns... just don't comment on it. And when the partisans pick it up, simply follow suggestion a and ignore it) c) game devs should use a games actual features to promote it, and not try to follow societal fads hoping for easy marketing points. Well... that B-Word is usually thrown around quick and loose nowadays... its getting a little bit old. Maybe... just maybe... if race, gender and "such" would play such a big role in "marketing" (in this case virtue signalling is the better word), it wouldn't get called out so much by one side of the outrage warrior spectrum? You know, again, if these things would be put in the game, and not be used as a marketing instrument so much, the whole "bigotry" you claim would die down quickly? If some devs wouldn't run a virtual victory lap everytime they put in something especially progressive into their game, they wouldn't attract so much hate?
  15. Gian-Reto

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Well, I made my own stance oin this topic clear in the past... But I think its so easy for devs to avoid any kind of fallout... Simply Don't. advertise. your. game. as. historical. when. it. isn't. Will there still be outrage warriors? Of course. But they have a much thinner leg to stand on when the dev comes out and admits flat out that they just produced a random FPS Shooter with a light WW2 skin (or a fantasy RPG with a medieval skin) instead of calling it realistic and integrating BS "history tours" into their fantasy egyptian looking world. On the other hand I had to chuckle hard about the other sides outrage warriors going ballistic over Kingdom Come. Hey, you know, right back at ya... don't like it? Don't buy it! The devs clearly wanted to stick to a realistic depiction of historical bohemia. And they didn't wanted to concentrate on that one black moor that might have found its way into bohemia at the time.... or the few jeanne d'arc stories that survived the times. From what I have heard and seen, it pretty much matches the history I got taught in school about medieveal europe... so call it all the -isms and -phobias you like, I my eyes the dev of that game stuck to history as taught here in europe. Maybe the history taught in school is wrong, yeah. Still historical accurate from what we know about medival bohemia today. Do I think it was the right thing to do? Well, it seems to have financially turned out to be a good idea. All the outrage warriors running amok against it probably should create their own historical RPGs set in bohemia if they don't like it... I am sure they would trigger a lot of the historical accuray outrage warriors as a bonus point. Now, trying to see it from the lens of someone with a different opinion on history... yeah, maybe they could have gone easy on the historical accuray stuff. But then, without that their game probably was just another RPG, decent maybe, but not that earth-shattering as I heard, and who could resist the free marketing of a million outrage warriors selling the game to the ani-SJW crowd... so again, probably shouldn't have ridden the historical accuray train like CoD WW2 shouldn't have. In the end, even history has become subjective nowadays. So really, devs not dealing with a) a long running franchise and b) not trying to sell their game as historically accurate, should do whatever the hell they want. they will get attacked by outrage warriors anyway about something silly. Putting "historically accurate" on your product will just paint an even bigger mark on your products forehead.... so unless you want free marketing to cater to a specific side, you probably should just keep your marketing shills in check.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!