• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7056 Excellent

About Gian-Reto

  • Rank
  1. And always remember: never store data on just one drive. Ideally you have a mirrored RAID of at least 2 drives you store your data to constantly online with your PC, and regularly backup the data to a mirrored RAID drive you take offline afterwards. If that sound to expensive (it kinda is), at least have a second drive to your data drive that you can make regular backups to and take offline as soon as the backup is done. This way you loose less data should one of the drives fail, and you have some safety net should your PC be affected by a cryptolocker attack. The latter might be somewhat paranoid given these attacks are sometimes blown out of proportion, but if you ARE affected one day, you will be happy that at least your data is restorable... paying as far as I know is not a safe way to get your data back (aside from you supporting criminals). USB Thumbdrives on the other hand are among the worst devices as long time data stores. Depending on the quality, and how you handle them, the are only reliable in getting broken after a year max. Sometimes you can make the drive usable again by completly wiping and formatting it, if its a software problem. But your data is then gone too of course. So moving away from storing data on thumbdrives -> very good idea IMO. If you have an external HD, and buy a SATA HD and an external drive bay casing separately, you have a very good chance the HD is still going strong when the external casing will inevitable fail one day. Buy a new drive casing and plonk the drive into that.
  2. Sounds.... fishy, to say the least. I think with that elevator pitch you wouldn't get 1$ from me. But hey, I am no VC Investor, some of those seem to invest solely on recognizable names and trust. Or some shady analysts words. One more reason why I never get those people, but maybe you have the name (or proven track record)... Maybe if you add A LITTLE BIT of fluff to that elevator pitch, you'd get at least 50% of that 1M from investors... but again, what do I know. As to the AAA games. I think Hodgeman said everything that has to be said. I'll still add some points to it. Modern AAA games cost too much, true. But not (only) because of the fat. Certainly you could cut some suits not really contributing to the end goal with some restructuring and leaner corporate structures... but then many game developers already try that (see Valves (in)famous flat hierarchy). Certainly you could cut out some middlemen driving cost up *cough*publishers*cough*... but then sometimes thes DO add quite some value for their cost, besides ruining games with unfullfillable demands. Modern AAA games are so expensive because they feel a user demand for visual quality spiralling out of control (when most gamers probably would be satisfied with "good" looking games running without bugs instead of an insane looking bugfest), because game designers feel pressurized to create everything but the kitchen sink games (as much as I love (and hate... man, this combat system is both great and terrible) Horizon Zero Dawn, a lot of the side activities could have been cut and I wouldn't have minded... and this is even one of the more focussed "open world" games), because game companies feel they need to sell 100M copies else the publisher deems their product a failure and their company might be axed (thus creating a spiral of more and more expensive marketing driving up the amount of copies that have to be sold). I think we have seen a market for AA games, smaller and less expensive games opening up in the last few years while the GTAs and Arkham games of this world continue to get more expensive and buggier. This market has always been there, its just growing as gamers grow tired of the money grab schemes and buggy games released to early by the big AAA studios. Suddenly games are getting more attention that were niche some years back... But these 1-10M budget games will most probably never reach the 10x RoI like GTA V did. They simply lack the marketing reach to pull that off. Lastly, we regularly see in some of the biggest AAA games what happens when you try to trim TOO MUCH. Buggy games released too early. Poor Ports done by cheap outsourced sweatshops. Don't think any of these bugfests will ever reach 10x RoI... or if they do, only for a single installement in which the name of the series is run into the ground (see Arkham Knight). So maybe you are able to turn 1M into 10M... I would doubt the "easely" unless its some kind of drug trafficking or money loundering scheme. Even casinos don't do this easely AFAIK. Has Zynga ever reached 10x RoI? Maybe, but then that was more of a casino business than a game developer. And if we look at the longtime figures you can forget about the 10x RoI. But go on, convince me with a little bit mor indepth elevator pitch.
  3. Well, lets be honest here. With the information given by the OP, I have my doubts if the topic opener has any of these. Thus while being a "professional game dev" on paper because working 100% just on his own games, he might be operating more akin to how a hobby game dev operates. This might be too harsh, as the guy might have done his homework, has a solid business plan, done market research and all... but without any information about prior work in the game industry, I guess his business contacts are nonexistent, which already works against him according to your own words. Now, even with ALL of that in place, the odds are still bad. You could say that is because the business plan sucks ("creating me-too content for mobile" is not a good business plan after all), his market research is faulty ("flappy bird was a hit so lets emulate that" is not how market research works), his contacts are not helping or he is using them wrongly.... not saying this is true for the TO, just giving examples on what might influence the odds. But even if that all was spot on, this market is crowded enough that for a small dev the result might still be a failure. If somebody does this for 2 years and complains about the sky falling I would suspect somebody got into the whole Idie dev thing with the wrong expectations at least, even IF everything else might be in place. Even the best Indie company with the best game might have to face some failures before one of their games sticks. The same is true for AAA companys, for them a failure might still make enough money to keep the lights on (or not, enough big studios went out of business after a failed title)... for an Indie without the magic of big marketing spending powers a failure might result in no money at all. So after all I think you have to realize that being an Indie dev will always be a rollercoaster ride. And I think the "do it because you want to" phrase is perfectly suitable to summarize this for people new to the industry expecting a stable income. Unless you are working as an employee for an existing studio, developing games is a high risk job with low average payoff. Just like base jumping of buildings for a living, you should only do that if you REALLY love the trade enough that you put up with the stress, risk, and low wage just to live your dream. Look, I am pretty sure there are examples that prove me wrong. I would dare to say those are the outliers, not the norm. In addition, if somebody starts their business up and can reach a steady income within 2 years, he most probably is not one of the Indie devs flogging any kind of "trending" me-too products on the mobile store. Those tend to be guys that had a good product FIRST and then built a company around that product (as opposed to many start-up hipsters today that start a company and then spend the next years sitting around in circle trying to come up with an idea to sell), tend to be busy building a product worth selling instead of worrying about ARPUS and what other fancy words are thrown around by the big data hungry suits in the mobile casino business these days (not saying monetization isn't important, but maybe, just maybe, make sure what you are trying to cash in on is of actual worth to anyone first), and MOST PROBABLY have a lot of expierience, either working as an employee in the industry, working in other industries in a role as project lead or entrepreneur, or at least have seen more of the world than the usual 20-something has. Most probably these guys have a plan B, so will not be contributing to the "sky is falling" Indieapocalypse hype train when their investment isn't paying of immidiatly, instead they have savings or are able to work on some paid gigs while they analyze their failure and pivot in a different direction. Minecraft is a good example. The result of 10+ years of hard work, and some pretty talented people that went through a lot of learning and try and error to get it right. Flappy bird is a bad example, AFAIK this games success is down to luck, nothing else. The guy who started Zynga apparently failed with 3 other companys before founding Zynga... now I do not think he is a role model, after all his company was a badly disguised casino not really that interested in their longterm relationship with their customers (even if I was okay with that, I question why he didn't cash in before the heist had to run into the downward slope inevitably, took the money and ran). But it does highlight that most successes are built on the back of failures. So yeah, sure, you can carve out better odds at paying the bills with a life as an Indie developers with expierience and hard work. If you are in it for the money, you are in the wrong industry.
  4. @Khatharr: While I do agree with many of your statements, that leaves out the fact that there are a F*ckton of games on thes storefront nowadays that are what Valve now classifies as "fake games". Games that never have been made to be real functional games, just simple scams to abuse loopholes. Are these a problem if looked at with your world view? Probably not. They still clog up the store and benefit no-one (besides, jsut maybe, the dev, and then the store owner). And there IS the fact you leave out one simple thing: someone else has to do the work so you can just use your clever search strategy and get the good games without the effort. So these guys have no right to complain that the current situation makes their "job" of finding the good games harder? They are not paid by you or Valve or anyone to do their job, and even if they were, they had all the right in the world to complain about a situation which makes finding good games harder than finding gold in the earth, for the guy that does not just want to leech, but add some new finds to the general list of good games. And then we as a group of mostly hardcore gamers who spend a lot of time informing us about the games that are worth the money often forget that many less hardcore gamers still buy games based on the box art or some other metric we know is stupid (for example based on earlier titles in the series... did this myself back when I bought CoD:MW3). Sure they should invest more time when making ANY purchase. Sure they get exactly out what they put in in effort. Still, lets not forget about the "casual plebs" Some people blow the situation out of proportion, yes. The situation is still a problem for many people. I don't think any SANE person would want to go back to walled gardens and publishers having to vouch for devs to get them unto any platform besides PC. SOME regulation doesn't hurt. As usual, ANY of the extremes is bad. Overregulation just as much as completly open markets. I guess we still need to find the golden middle ground. But letting markets run wild usually is not leading anywhere good, IMO. EDIT: watched a totalbiscuit youtube vid yesterday that seems relevant to the topic: He makes a ton of good points.
  5. When I read the OP, I guess we are talking about mobile games. My 2 cents: move over to PC or Console, and let the mobile sector alone for now. Mobile Games are dead for devs that cannot compete with the likes of King or the other top 5 or 10 in terms of ads and market research. True, there are the lucky guys like the flappy bird dev, but way to many shovelware and to little moderation by Apple and Google to ever be able to muscle you way to a good position with hard work alone. While Steam has also become a cesspool of shovelware garbage and bad devs trying to make a quick buck, at least Steam seems to be moving in to do something about it... at the speed of a glacier, mind you. But in contrast to Google and Apple their thing is games front and center, thus if their games market suffers, they suffer. Same with the Console e-stores really. Sony has left some pretty shady games unto their platform as of lately, but I would guess that at some point they will also have to step in and put some measures in to stop the flood of garbage. Additionally AFAIK it is still not such a no-questions-asked thing to publish a console game like it is on the mobile app stores. Just let the mobile market run its course, and either be on the right side of the fence when it finally collapses, or swoop back in when it starts to cool down again. I would guess a lot of the shady business does NOT pay out as well as the garbage devs might think, and a small change by the platform holder or the worldwide economy will destroy the loopholes they are currently trying to abuse (like Steam rolling back their trading card system. Now if they also change the rules for achievements (like capping the amount of max achievements per game, or something like that), the bad devs will have to go back to putting ads into their games and try to maximize play time per player). This ain't the Indieapocalypse if you ask me... its a liberal market running wild, and platform holders being slow in recognizing that they need to regulate it to some extent or risk people loosing interest in said market. I know I lost a lot of interest in Steam. Besides the flood of garbage its the flood of bad ports, and me not really being interested in all the Steam side functions... but certainly, having to wade through a sea of garbage to find the pearls if I for once not search for a specific game certainly does not make me want to start up a steam store search. Back to my Retro games and the few PS4 diamonds I guess. EDIT: Oh, and another thing.... You know how many startup companys will make a profit within 2 years? Almost none. When you build up your own company, you have to be ready to go through multiple years of negative figures while you try to find the winning formula, make connections and find clients. Maybe you (and many others I guess) went into this with the wrong idea? I know, there will be guys who prove my point wrong because they managed to make a profit within 6 months, but for MOST startups, that ain't the case. Even high profile startups like facebook where in the red for 5+ years while they cranked up their business and muscled their way to the top. You should have savings in your bank account to pay the bills for multiple years, a steady stream of income either with a day job or occasional side gigs for clients, or just the ability to live dirt cheap to even consider starting up your own company... else you are just hoping for having luck and winning the lottery, which is never a wise decision. On the flipside that means you need patience... more patience than most people could have, to see your company slowly grow to a profitable entity. 2 years of famine is nothing in the world of self employment... its just a sign that your probably have to re-adjust the way you do business to not eat into your savings another year. Maybe read "the lean startup"... the core principle of that is to try a lot, fail quickly and pivot in a different direction if you do. If you do mobile development, I guess you can crank out a game within 3-6 months. If you have not found the winning formula for 2 years you either have tried 4 times already and now know a lot about what NOT to do in the current mobile app store ecosystem, or you did something wrong (like spending too long on a title, or trying the same thing over and over again). IMO of course....
  6. While I do think the whole "transfer of wealth" thing has some merit (After all, the colonies DID get robbed of natural resources), and we haven't even touched yet on the whole story of slave trade and forced labour, the "The colonization is the reason for <insert current day problem here>" is way to easy to be the full truth. Truth is, many countries in africa collapsed in the last few years. IF that happened because of bagage from their past, either because of inequality left behind by the abrupt end of the era of colonization, the radical revolutionary groups that formed because of colonization, arbritrary country borders or a society probably not ready for the technology and social structures left behind by the colonists, or if there is actually still older bagage to blame, like tribal structures that are still in effect today, or simply the usual problem of a continent with so many cultures and languages living in so many different countries next to each other, is anyones guess. If you truly want to understand the struggle of modern day africa, you need to read WAY more than just the history of colonization. Reducing the african people to victims of colonization IMO is wrong. They deserve more than that. Now, there are radicals in africa that still beat the "evil europeans" and "colonists took our wealth" drum.... and sure, at least there is some merit to the second one. And no matter the retoric, europe HAS to have a strong interest in africa being able to overcome the struggles and start to prosper, no matter what part of the political spectrum you are on. But lets not forget this: radicals are EVERYWHERE. Just because there is some truth in someones arguments doesn't mean he does not try to abuse them for their own good. There has been a form of professional victimhood being fostered in some parts of africa, MAINLY among the wealthy politicians who try to extort money from europe the same way they steal the wealth of their own people. If I see an african millionaire bitch about how europeans are the reason africa is poor... well, are YOU really speaking for africa now? Is it not rather people like YOU who are the main reason african people have trouble earning enough money to feed their kids, with your 30 cars and shiny uniform? Really... there have been wrongs in the past, not all of them ever got redeemed, but blaming the misfortune of african people today on that alone is like saying the romans are responsible for the dark ages. They and the downfall of their empire certainly contributed to that. But just like with africa, there are so much more factors going into this that I question the value of singling that one contribution out, unless there is a different agenda behind it.
  7. Look, I see where you are coming from, and I myself have though long about the topic, because if ANYTHING worries me about the current state of things (I might be on the verge of turning into an old geezer, but as of now I don't think the "everything was better back in the day" has any merit as a general statement), its how the extremes seem to get louder and louder and the reasonable people in the middle seem to get quieter and quieter. While there IS a lot of people kinda flocking to the extremes because of different external factors, mostly these extremes have demagoges leading them very effective at what they do. They are loud, and often much louder than the more reasonable people. I think for every extremist movement, left or rightwing, we can come up with some names that are feeding the fire. Sometimes to see the world burn, sometimes in an false attempt to "fight fire with fire", not recognizing that all they do is to burn the woods down. These demagoges often live from conflict. They will take EVERYTHING and spin it into an attack on their side and incite their sheeps to fight back. Thus, as much as it hurts, as long as these sheeps are not herded into attacking the civil rights of other people, or even worse, attack them in the virtual or physical world, the best thing to do is to ignore them. Don't feed the trolls that have taken over our media, and often enough our political landscape. Hopefully their campaign of hate will run out of fuel, and they sink back into the obscurity from where they came. If more than just the usual hatemob trolling forum posts or comment sections, there is a point where its time to report to the police and let them handle it. Sure, not much can be done against anonymous attackers on the internet. But then that is the price we pay for freedom of speech on the internet. People will voice opinions you disagree with (which is something that is good), and some will go totally overboard with it (which is bad).
  8. Maybe open another thread, leave out video material that just distracts from the topic, do not refer to comments to a single video (which might have as well been victim to a troll attack by a hatemob thus containing non-representative hatecomments by a vocal minority), but make your question as clear as possible: "What do people outside of europe think of europe in regards to the history of colonization?" Of course, you will get political discussions, you will get rather extreme viewpoints... the more extreme viewpoints are almost always more vocal. Also, be aware talking of "Europe" is just about as effective as talking of the "USA". In the latter case, yes its officially a single country, but boy will you be surprised about how different the average texan and the average guy from california (californian?) thinks. Boy is the country divided into extremes. Europe is not even officially a country. Yes, there is the EU, but this is a quite shaky construct. The outlook and problems of people in the different countries are vastly different. IF anyone, online or offline, gives you s*** because he hates europeans, feel free to ignore him. If anything, by not taking into account a) that europe as such is a continent and not country, b) most european countries never participated in the colonization, c) european countries got oppressed by other european countries just as often as non-european ones, d) the people that did the crime are long dead and e) he didn't even bother to ask for YOUR opinion on the matter, he just has shown that he is not worth talking to. Its one thing to raise awareness about the negative consequences of colonialism, and wanting people to talk about that. To complain about the people claiming colonialism not having had negative consequences or spreading other lies. But hating on a continent because of that just shows that this is just the kind of person that the person complains about. Ignore such people...
  9. @ferrous is spot on on this. Swastikas are banned in germany. As much as this can lead to ridicolous results (like the lego recreation of the Bismark having had to have the swastikas hidden with paper when shown in germany), that has become a staple of german laws and is pretty well known internationally by now. Neighbouring countries have laws in place that go into the same direction. Swastikas AFAIK are not directly outlawed in Switzerland, but "racist symbols" are, and if somebody takes you to court over it the court will most probably not rule in your favour if you use swastikas in public. I think the US actually is rather an exception than the rule in the western world in allowing swastikas to be shown in public. Personally... meh. I am no fan of altering history (as I think I have stated often enough by now), but if changing logos and flags are the only alterations done to prevent getting into legal hot waters, I can live with that. We all know what a white circle with a red border, filled with any kind of black symbol stands for. Personally I would like to see the same treatment for ALL the countries flags, something some chinese games nowadays do. Which sounds like the perfect solution to the problem. After all, if we see an M4 Sherman duking it out with a Pz4, with a star symbol on the sherman and a cross symbol on the Pz4, we kinda grasp the meaning of it. As long as the history is not altered in a game claiming to be more or less historically accurate, I can live with that one compromise. I think you can achieve that with altered symbols, as long as people still get who is who. Is it somewhat ridicolous? Yeah... but really, IMO at least this is not such a big deal.
  10. Well, if that would be the result in most cases, I would be very happy. I would LOVE to see more young ones eager to read up on history and not just limit it to the heavely moderated history lessons they get in school (which many of them most probably will sleep through). My personal expierience when I was a teenager in school was different. I was on of a very tiny set of students interested enough to pick up the history book WITHOUT being forced to by the teacher. I had read the whole book in classes by the time the class maybe finished one chapter. I am certain I was not the only history fan in the class. The only one looking forward to the history lessons (because I could read the history book without anyone complaining about it ). The vast majority of the class on the other hand... they loathed it. So this is school, and sure enough, a game might give a teenager more incentive to actually open a book for once. I am still sceptical if that is the reaction with most of them. Sure enough, many will not even NOT open a history book, but also completly ignore any kind of historical context delivered by the game. I fear in the middle there is a small group which might pick up the historical context, and not question it enough... that might not be bad in all cases. It just makes me uneasy when I hear history being distorted in any kind of media and people not questioning it. Its one of the reason the emergence of fake news channels on the internet and even in traditional media worries me quite a bit. Look, I am aware that in this occasion, history buffs might actually end up voicing the same complaint as some more shady people do. To me, that is NOT a reason to not voice the complaint... if anything, that is just more of a reason to not only complain, but also talk about how you imagine the game could improve on it. Because this is were I would expect a racist to have a very different solution to the same "problem" (paraphrases because its not a problem to everyone). I don't want to have diversity removed. Because, besides other things, that would also be bad for historical accuray. It was called "World War" for a reason, and not "European war" or whatever. All I am saying is that I think there are better ways to get a historical accurate game with a diverse set of genders and ethnicities represented. And sure enough, my interest is historical accuray first and foremost. I am happy to compromise on it for the sake of other valid interests, like diversity in games. But a compromise should be a compromise. And I feel the current one is not a good one from where I stand as a fan of historical accurate content. Again, in the instance of the CoD multiplayer, I do not argue that this is the most important thing to cater for. I am just saying from where I stand, it could have been done better without compromising on diversity too much. Lets just agree to disagree on this one. I am a hardcore believer in equal rights. I have my opinion on it, you seem to have yours. I see where this opinion is coming from, and I respect that, even if I cannot agree with you on this. Well, I am sorry I didn't knew that this is a strawman for rightwing people (assuming that is what you mean)... I am usually not partaking in this left vs. right flamewars, so I am not aware of all the different strawman tactics of both sides. All I am doing is voicing my own opinion. As usual, feel free to disagree with my opinion. But don't start assuming where that opinion is coming from without looking at ALL I have been saying in this thread. But this is getting way offtopic of this threads topic if you ask me. And yes, I might have started that tangent. Something to discuss in another topic, if anyone wishes to have this discussion.
  11. Sure, I can understand that. But why then not call it what it is? A fantasy world? Why call it WW2? Or not call it "WW2 in an alternate history"? Or just make it abundant clear without calling it out like wolfenstein does? Nobody takes Wolfenstein as factual history... because its just so comical ridicolous, in a good way. Oh, and just to address this: people wanting history being told as it was back in the day has NOTHING to do with people embracing the ideologies or politics of that day. What it HAS to do with is that everything in history can teach us something. If you strip stuff out of history you strip out part of what people can learn from history. So because something wrong has been done in the 40's, lets no longer talk about and forget it? And yes, I understand when people grow tired of it and no longer want to hear about it. That is why fantasy worlds have been created. To get relief from the real world, which was and always will be a mixed bag of awesome and aweful. Altering history as told is a dangerous thing. Its what happened in nazi germany, its what happened in soviet russia, and to be honest it happens EVERYWHERE all the time, to some degree. Its not always ill willed or even voluntary... and yes, you could say I blow this out of proportions, this is just entertainment... but in a day and age where some kids are CONSTANTLY being blasted by media, while most probably never looking at an actual history book unless forced to, every small inaccuray is becoming dangerous. That is my opinion at least. Feel free to call me alarmist or anything. I never said I disdain diversity. I question if the implementation of diversity currently being used is the best way to achieve more diversity in games. And I am pretty much aware that the fault lies not with the call for diversity itself, or the people doing the implementation most of the time. Still, BECAUSE the devs are already at their limits with budget, resources and all the demands thrown at them, diversity becomes yet another demand that might be one too much.... just as not overstepping about 100 other red lines for SOME people (who might not even be the customers of the game), as actually finishing and shipping the game within the scarce resources the dev gets for all of this.
  12. Okay... We are talking of a time in history where segregation of races where the norm. We are talking of a video game skinned as a WW2 game. How - is - this - bad? How is this anything other than historical facts? Really, if you cannot take historical facts, why even play a game with ANY historical background? If you think all of these things practically EVERY country in the world still stood for in the 40's are so bad that you cannot take it, why not voting with your wallet and just leave the game on the shelf? Or is it that you think other players cannot take these facts? Well, maybe we do need a "parental advisory: historical content" on the box. No, I am serious. I am not against people being open that a game CAN hurt someones feelings and these people are informed of the fact. So they can decide for themselves if they still want to play that game. I agree that CoD is free to warp history in any kind or form AS LONG AS THEY MAKE THAT CLEAR to their players. And yeah, its pretty much accepted by now that the multiplayer part of a game with a story or skin based on historical facts usually is least concerned with these facts in favor of gameplay. "I'm guessing people with historical hangups aren't going to be too keen on buying a CoD game in the first place, so that pretty much just leaves the racists. " - Really? You have a pretty low opinion of CoD and the playerbase in this case. Not saying if I think you are right or wrong, but I would guess the people interested in CoD are pretty much your average hardcore gamers. Yes, there are racists among them... just as leftwing ideologists. Black people, female players... and historical buffs. If anything, the dev cannot really make it right because someone WILL be offended anyway. That is why a compromise is needed. Maybe this "customization > historical accuray" IS the best compromise... Okay, can we PLEASE stop this "wehrmacht were nazis", "wehrmacht did terrible things" nonsense right here and now (and just to make it clear: there were nazi party member among the wehrmacht, the wehrmacht did terrible things, not all nazi party members believed in the ideology, and some wehrmacht soldiers actually were heros trying to kill the Führer, with MOST wehrmacht soldiers just being average grunts who just tried to survive a terrible war like everyone else)? That is NOT the topic, its your opinion, and I am trying VERY hard here to not get baited. If you want to discuss that and know MY opinion (which I am sure a lot of people that are interested in history and can look at history without any bias would support), we can open a new topic and discuss our view on history politely. Unless you can convince me how wehrmacht soldiers showing up in a game has anything to do with diversity (other than them NOT showing up would hurt diversity), lets stop this dicussion here. Wow, okay, lets also stop the "privilege" thing here. Again, has nothing to do with the discussion really. Why? Because we are not talking about if diversity is good or bad, if the whole PC movement is good or bad, or if games should be influenced by leftwing ideologies more and more or not. I have my opinion, I am sure you have yours, but the dicussion here is if the push for diversity we currently see is having bad consequences, or if there might be better implementations to this call for diversity. Unless anyones "privilege" has anything to do with the discussion, lets also stop this. Its bait for the other side, if you ask me. Maybe you can explain as to why you think it matters to the discussion, but unless you can, lets keep that part out of it. "And remember, Europe was actually pretty diverse back before WW II, it's something that seems to get overlooked, especially in fantasy games. There were the moors, Poland's population was 1/3 minorities before WWII, heck even one of Napoleon's generals was black. " Yes. The Moors were also in the end driven out of europe by the first crusades (besides some small communities, who had it jsut as hard as the jews at times), the black people in positions of power where unicorns (now THIS would be interesting historical figures to place a story around, people like Dido Elizabeth Belle for example), and minorities were often singled out and opressed in europe. Lets not forget what happened to the armenians. I don't think its so much overlooked as just both sides down- or upplaying it. Europe was neither as christian and white only as the rightwing people claim, nor as multi cultural as some leftwing people might paint it as. Jews had problems with the christians in waves, with them sometimes being tolerated, sometimes being oppressed. Same with the muslim, and all the other minorities. The country I am living in had catholics and protestantic people still fight each other to the death 170 years ago. See how that even happened 30 years ago in Ireland. Europe has a history of strife and oppression. Also of almost impossible co-existence at times. Its a given in an area where so many languages, so many different faiths, and so many cultures live so close to each other. The early parts of the 20th century might have seen big advancements in human rights... the 40's still were NOT the world where political correctness was generally accepted. Actually, before WW2, all over the world people were in SUPPORT of the german nazi party... because their ideology reflected the extremist ideologies that sprung up all over the world in a time of depression and economical strife. But this also going off on a tangent, so I'll stop here.
  13. And in what way does auto assigning stop you from going the extra mile and integrating more diversity on both the axis and the allies side by giving people appropriate uniforms? Extra work? Yes. And this is exactly my point. A little bit of extra work would make for a much better form of diversity. After some thinking, I will not even go into the whole "calling all german soldiers nazi" thing... obviously this is a very strong opinion of yours, and I respect that. Suffice to say I could go off on a long tangent on what I think about that, but I will not, as this will derail this thread even more. I might agree to the first statement. Yes, only having white dudes play the main roles in video games 24/7 is wrong. Not mainly because more diversity fosters a more divers audience (another thread right there), but because minorities and different genders should be a part of the video game fantasy just as much as they are a part of our everyday reality. Now, there are different ways how this diversity can be achieved. And this is where I question the current "brute force" approach. When we say minorities have to be a part of video games... do they have to be a part of EVERY video game? Or will a game mainly about a part of european history for example not be better served if diversity doesn't force devs to shove in unhistorical diversity... if said game is latter made up for with a game mainly about the history of a different ethnicity? To go off on another tangent, I am pretty excited to hear about some guys in africa starting their own game dev projects. One of those seemed to be an RPG with very strong african influences. Now I would LOVE to play that game, I really think the african culture will make for a very good backdrop for a non-high-fantasy RPG. Will that game have to feature white people for diversities sake? I hope not. Unless it taps into the whole colonial era, that would be out of place... unless the guys decide to create a fantasy world of mixed races, and tone down the african influences... which, for me, would be a shame, because we already have more than enough of these. That might be me, but I don't care much if my player character is white, black, male or female... as long as its a cool character taking part in an awesome story. And to adress the "better than nothing" thing... bad forced diversity being better than no diversity at all doesn't mean we cannot ask for improvements, for a better handling of diversity in video games. For devs to take the topic serious and actually starting to think about it on their own, and not just reacting to external demand from forces which seem to have way to much power over the implementation of the change they are (often rightfully) asking for. A feminist or activist for minorities rights is not a game story writer. It should be up to experts in the subject field to implement these demands As to the "forcing an outfit on a black avatar"... 1) the white avatar also has a limited selection of outfits... equal rights, right?.... 2) is it now racism to depict history as it was (racist, most of the time)?... 3) maybe its the golden middle ground where both sides get a little bit offended (the racists have to see black people in their video game, the liberals have to see the black and white soldiers being separated into their own units), but neither can claim that this is an outrageous act of unhistorical pandering for diversities sake, or white supremacy BS because of missing representation of other ethnicities? You know, a good old compromise both sides try to live with. I know that has gone out of fashion some time ago. The idea with the toggle on the other hand. Yes. And yes again. I talked about this options a page ago. Absolutely agree on that. I guess we live in a sad time where the left and the right have trouble finding an acceptable middle ground, and want to live in their own "safe space bubble" rather than face the reality that people have other opinions than them, and all they can do is accept that and try to live with it. But again, food for a whole new topic. A separate mode would probably be the optimal solution, but unless the server population is big, that might divide the players too much for the matchmaker to handle. A switch from realistic factions to custom avatars could help the problem for this single instance. Will not stop me from lamenting about the devs taking the easy way out, and that more thought should go into how to implement diversity in games. But then, I guess its a compromise I could live with. True that it might actually be implemented... maybe its just not in the beta. Or the guys making the videos left that out of their discussion of the topic for a reason. After all, youtubers often feed on controversy, no matter if rightwing or leftwing.
  14. Well, lazy might be the wrong term anyway. It somehow puts the developers in a bad light when they simply might not have the time and resources, and their publishers / investors pushed them to create a more traditional, less risky product. I feel that is the problem behind many problems in AAA development nowadays. So many interests to take into account yet so little resources to spend. I absolutely agree with everything you said. Yes, I think we SHOULD show diversity as it is in our society. And to add to that, I understand that there is interest to concentrate more on showing the genders /ethnicities that got underrepresented in games with new releases. I absolutely agree. We need more black heroes (not so sure about female ones... 4 of 5 games I will buy for my PS4 this year feature female protagonists... seems like women are already featured as protagonists quite often, but that is besides the point). But I feel like often, instead of giving them their OWN story and their OWN games, they get tacked on. Because again, the AAA industry wants to have their cake and eat it too. When they need to sell the product to EVERYONE, diversity as portrayed by these games will often be a frankensteins monster. I guess we have to look forward to smaller, maybe even Indie releases, to really put minorities and different genders in the spotlight without twisting the diversit into something weird. Or just enjoy the few instances were minorities and different genders are implemented into an AAA game well, like in Horizon Zero dawn (I don't get the whole drama around the matriarchical society of ONE SINGLE faction in the game, really... besides that it handles diversity well IMO).
  15. You are right, a team deathmatch is not realistic. Nor is any FPS really realistic. And yes, that isn't the point of an FPS. But then, what is the point of skinning that game in WW2 uniforms? Why not have fantasy factions and uniforms like in many other successfull FPSes? And why then go on stage an clamour about the WW2 historical aspect when your game cannot really be realistic by design? Consider this: if you create a product that claims to depict history, even if only by not making it abudantly clear what you did is a work of fiction, IMO you have an obligation to not misrepresent history as it took place back then. Doing anything other than that, you are creating propaganda, no matter if intentional or not. You are promoting a wrong image of history. That is why to me, at least, soldiers respawning, which is clear to everyone is not happening in real life, is less of a problem than completly misrepresenting historical factions... BECAUSE those things are 70 years in the past, and not everyone playing that game is reading a history book to know to tell fact from fiction. About BF1. I am NOT calling it a failure as a game. Seems many people enjoyed playing it. Seems it did sell well (altough some comments made me believe the online number dipped quickly, but then IDK really... thirdhand information). All I was saying was that the whole thing is as historical as wolfenstein. There. That was all I said. Seeing the whole team run around with chauchats and BARs that actually work like a charm and without being slowed down by the heavy weapons is just laughable. Now, I can get over that... because as said, its an unrealistic Team deathmatch. I am still a little bit PISSED that Battlefield didn't try to be a little bit more "innovative" (for lack of a better term) and actually try to design their gameplay around the historical event, not bend the historical event to fit the inteded gameplay. Would players like to crawl around in the dirt, firing single shots from slowly reloading rifles at each other? Well, we don't know. But even then, there was the whole storm trooper thing at the end of the war. How awesome would it have been to create classes around stormtroopers, getting access to the fast firing weapons usually used in all modern FPSes, and the martial arts training to actually do the close combat attacks many FPS feature, but paying for that with severly limited range on maps that actually sometimes force stormtroopers to take a different, and longer route, because they are not equipped to fight the normal grunts armed with long range weaponry? So, I do lament that DICE did not have the guts to go the extra mile with the multiplayer setup and gear. The campaign on the other hand really gets me. Biplanes armed with rockets firing at Zeppelins. Come on. That now is wolfenstein level of fantasy alternate history. But as said, I do appreciate the first level of the campaign, I think its a wonderful idea. I maybe wouldn't be so harsh about the general campaign if DICE wouldn't have shown they obviously KNEW how to make a more fittig, more historical campaign for WW1... and then most probably felt they needed to create something more traditional to satisfy the usual FPS tropes. As to the female tank crews... yeah, I mean, its quite historical at least on the russian side. No one besides the player itself has to listen to his own tank crew talking, and you actually don't see tank crews on the vehicles anyway (thanks, age rating...). So even IF some history buff (and maybe some mysagonist, which, lets be honest, are also out there and playing these games) would object to the inclusion of female tank crews... they have the option to never put ANY female tank member on their tanks, and their opponents don't see them if they do. So in my opinion, its the best solution for such a thing. Everyone is happy besides the people on both sides who want to shove their worldview into other peoples faces. The fact that you have to work hard for them is... yeah, not ideal. But then, the free skill IS powerful (which is why premium vehicles coming whith free skill crews is kinda... P2W, if only a little bit), and really, its a start. Maybe, with WoT 2.0 they go the route of armed forces and make gender a part of the crew generator just as name and ethnicity, in case were different ethnicities were historical (the US for example, and yes, you get mixed crews, which is not historical, but I don't care here, because by now it has been made abundantly clear that WoT is not in any form or sense meant as a historically accurate game). Again, as a closing statement, I have to stress that I am NOT saying CoD is in any form obligated to make their multiplayer historically accurate, or they have to treat their multiplayer with the same amount of care as the single player campaign, which DOES have some form of story thus is much more in danger of delivering historical misinformation. And again, I am less concerned about this incident (which even I have to admit is blown out of proportion in the end), and welcome any form of diversity in games which is intelligent and built into the games core... what I am concerned about is the general lazyness and risk avoidance of big AAA releases as of lately, because THAT is why new factors like diversity and inclusiveness become problems. The AAA studios seem to just try and tick boxes, while investing as little as possible to tick those boxes. What could have been an INCREDIBLE expierience for fans and casuals of the topic alike turns into a light skin on top of a generic expierience. Again, talking BF1 here, and not because I think it failed as a game, but because it could have been so much more: We get BF skinned with a WW1 theme. I think a lot of BF1 were happy about a new BF game, they appreciated the different skin and updated graphics. Hell, the first level of the campaign alone most probably was quite a relevation for some because it was so new and unexpected. But it could have been so - much - more than just yet another BF game. It could have been one of the few true WW1 FPSes that are depicting WW1 not only as a skin, but with gameplay, story, characters, everything. And no, I am not talking about a simulator here. I am talking about taking a bold step to balance an expierience true to the reality of WW1, and still making this a fun expierience fans of traditional modern shooters can enjoy. If BF1 would have lived up to that potential... it would have been the first BF game I would have buyed myself and wholly played through. Because I at least am burned out of the ever same modern automatic gun filled shooter... a slower, more tactical expierience where a good bolt action rifle is king, until you meet the machine gun nest and the storm trooper, tweaked for fun, would on the other certainly rekindle my appetite for a shooter. Coming back from this tangent: my problem is not diversity in games (so please stop trying to paint me as a sexist or racist... I am neither, and my posting history should make that clear). My problem is how these new factors are highlighting the problems this industry is already facing. And thus having unintended consequences. Consequences maybe not even the parties pushing so hard for diversity in games wish for.