I'm part-way through and whew.
This is exactly what these people accuse "SJWs" of doing, living in such a comfortable world that they have to make up problems out of thin air.
The inherent flaw in the discussion seems to be people conflating skill at a game with understanding of game design. You don't need to be good at a game to be able to talk about it with authority. However, a basic knowledge of game design will likely bring a certain level of competency in all games. I think the problem facing game critics today isn't that they're bad at games, but that many of them either know fuck all about games or are exceptionally bad at articulating/not allowed to articulate what they know about games. On topic: Cuphead is relevant to literally none of this, besides some dude being bad at Cuphead or something. The discussion about game difficulty seems entirely unrelated to the discussion about game journos being kinda shit at their job which seems entirely unrelated to Cuphead existing. But I will say on game difficulty that to me there seems like a 100% pragmatic solution that solves the problem entirely which is basically just what Darkest Dungeon does: give a plethora of sliders and options but the moment you deviate from the intended vision of the developer give a little pop up letting the player know.
I have literally never seen anyone in the whole Twitter clusterfuck say this though, so maybe everyone just thinks I'm talking out my arse.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52920506]The inherent flaw in the discussion seems to be people conflating skill at a game with understanding of game design. You don't need to be good at a game to be able to talk about it with authority. However, a basic knowledge of game design will likely bring a certain level of competency in all games. I think the problem facing game critics today isn't that they're bad at games, but that many of them either know fuck all about games or are exceptionally bad at articulating/not allowed to articulate what they know about games. On topic: Cuphead is relevant to literally none of this, besides some dude being bad at Cuphead or something. The discussion about game difficulty seems entirely unrelated to the discussion about game journos being kinda shit at their job which seems entirely unrelated to Cuphead existing. But I will say on game difficulty that to me there seems like a 100% pragmatic solution that solves the problem entirely which is basically just what Darkest Dungeon does: give a plethora of sliders and options but the moment you deviate from the intended vision of the developer give a little pop up letting the player know.
I have literally never seen anyone in the whole Twitter clusterfuck say this though, so maybe everyone just thinks I'm talking out my arse.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the reason that we don't see much actual discussion of game design in these instances of outrage is that the outrage isn't about games at all, at least not beyond a surface level.
Beyond just not having to do with Cuphead or game journos despite supposedly being about both, when you drill down to it- it seems to just be people getting outraged for the sake of being outraged. Maybe it's because it makes people feel like they're included of some social ingroup that lets them look down on the 'normies' or 'non-Gamers'.
It's like being a fan of a football team for people who don't like sports, except instead of Chelsea and Manchester it's 'Gamers' and 'SJWs'.
It's pretty disheartening to see just how easy it is for people to take advantage of other's ingroup-outgroup biases, often times without even conscientiously doing so. It seems that being divisive and confrontational is just as natural to us as breathing; and with the misinformative capacity of the internet, that tendency has become a lot more dangerous.
I didn't really pay attention to the Cuphead controversy that much but I think I dropped in to say I would expect a games journalist to complete a tutorial like I would expect a car journalist to be able to drive a car. I think that's as far as I discussed it, I don't clearly remember.
Regardless, this video gave me a little bit to think about. I'll have to self-reflect a bit on it.
most of gaming culture has an obsession with being the underdog so its not surprising theres people drumming up controversy because it feeds into that desire to be cool and rebellious
I decided that I wanted a fresh perspective. So I decided to, as best as I could, objectively read the articles presented.
[url]https://venturebeat.com/2017/08/24/cuphead-hands-on-my-26-minutes-of-shame-with-an-old-time-cartoon-game/[/url]
This is the article by the journalist who sucked at Cuphead. This stands up under scrutiny when reading it in the light of the video; he admits he sucked, and he praises the game's difficulty and recognizes that it would be a fun game. Fair enough. I don't agree with harassing the guy, I just laughed at the video and moved on, and this article is respectable in itself.
That article links to this article, which is a follow-up by the same guy.
[url]https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/08/the-deanbeat-our-cuphead-runneth-over/[/url]
Most of this article is well reasoned. It outlines his experiences, his frustrations, and his triumphs in relation to what he lived in the wake of that video. This is all subjective, so it's fair and he can write these things. However, one thing caught my attention:
[quote]Another game journalist (and some say “shitlord”) saw my video. He clipped it to the 2.5 minutes of the most damning inept gameplay, and he posted it to his followers. He used me to condemn all game journalists, raising the smoldering issues around Gamergate and its focus on game journalism ethics. His post was political propaganda for the disenfranchised gamers, the sort who went from Gamergate to the alt-right and elected Donald Trump as president.[/quote]
That last line linked to yet another article by the same guy. Now, I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that he was claiming that Gamergate was the sole reason that Donald Trump was elected. So I decided to carefully read the linked article as best I could.
[url]https://venturebeat.com/2016/02/12/the-deanbeat-farewell-to-gamergate/[/url]
Before I proceed, I need to make two things perfectly clear. First, some people engaged with Gamergate did in fact engage in harassment. This is demonstrably true. There are recorded comments of wishing death, hate, and generally mean sentiments on people being accused. I accept that this happened, and it is never justifiable under any circumstances, especially not here. Second, I'm assuming that I'm entirely new to Gamergate and that I know literally nothing at all. I'm assuming that this article is the first exposure I'm ever getting of Gamergate, and that I'm critically reading it as such.
This article is very well written. Nearly every claim is sourced; every quote, every occurrence on the presented timeline, every related incident. Nearly everything is there and referenced against a concrete factual source as a thing that has historically and demonstrably happened. Honestly, I commend the author for going through the trouble to source his claims.
Everything, except two things: One, the central thesis of the entire article (that the Gamergate movement was built upon a self-perpetuating lie), from which the rest of the article and the implications it contends it has on gaming culture springs forth, is not referenced or linked to. It proves every single claim in the article except for the most important one. Two, this article makes absolutely no reference to Donald Trump or the alt-right.
So, as somebody who has no understanding of Gamergate at all, I'm left with a few questions. The author implied a link between this movement known as "Gamergate" and the rise of the alt-right, Donald Trump, and ostensibly white supremacy in our modern political climate. What is the nature of this link, and how does it pertain to Cuphead? Everything linked in the article that was supposed to explain how Gamergate and Donald Trump were linked is sourced, except for the central claim that this movement was founded on a deliberate concealment or misinterpretation of the singular instigating action, the "raison d'être" of Gamergate. Why is this information not being explained to us? How does this information pertain to the link between Donald Trump, Gamergate, and Cuphead?
This is where I get lost. I do not have answers to these questions, and it leads me to the conclusion that I fundamentally don't understand what the author is intending by sharing this information, because the arguments as the author presented are foggy. I am unable to deduce what the author truly meant because of the lack of information given.
The video's arguments are well-sourced and stand up under scrutiny; the idea that the perceived outrage of SJWs towards Cuphead (at least insofar as Gaming Journalists go), is largely imagined. However, the rabbit hole that this video lead me down, in regards to the journalist who unwittingly started this whole Cuphead debacle, is legitimately confusing to me. I am logically unable to arrive at any concrete conclusions in regards to his true intention and meaning.
The video's arguments do not stand up to scrutiny because the journalist made a complete ass of himself on twitter and youtube until such time as he was forced to actually play the game again and address his inability to play it directly amongst other games he always routinely played badly and gave quite different reviews for accordingly. He was literally forced into objectivity when his bullshit failed to pass muster, incidentally which had nothing to do with gamergate or any other issue other than his own lack of agency on both addressing his issues and his previous take.
Making up an "objective playthrough" article a [I]week after being called on your bullshit[/I] to then call it a political diatribe and invoke Donald Trump is [I]cowardice[/I] at best and the exact reason gamergate was ever a thing at all .
The video is the same thing; it is entirely valid in bringing up "these people" as utter bullshit (because it is), the video spends the next 16 minutes tripping over its own dick by doing the very thing it was created for in the first place; blanketing a supposed demographic with an all encompassing label and motif that doesn't even apply. Pretty sure OmegaSin's subscriber do not speak for all of gamingdom or even his own opinion, yet apparently according to this completely objective video everyone whom is subscribed to the man agrees with him 100% otherwise why would they be subscribed to him aka, this video is guilty of the very thing it's bitching about so shrilly in amazing monotone.
Moreover the point wasn't whether Takahashi was good at the game or not, the point was Takahashi was slated to give the game a [I]full preview and review[/I] despite being unable to actually play the game and therefore actually experience the content thereof until such time as he was called on his absurdly inept playthough. He did not give the final review because the venue changed to someone else.
If you can't do a fireball motion, your review of Tekken is lacking and incomplete. It is literally missing context and agency. You can still fill a page full of fancy words saying nothing describing all the things you can see and do, but the moment you slap an "objective" [I]score[/I] on the game, you are lying, which Takahashi was fully prepared to do, which his employer was completely fine with.
When's the last time you watched a football game announced and cast by a rowing team? You think a rowing team can give you an accurate play-by-play and properly convey what each team is attempting to do on the field?
I'm so happy I missed the outrage-bullshit about Cuphead until now. Only thing I knew of was Dean Takahashi being shit at videogames. :v:
This is just stupid, the "racist and ableist" -shit makes me think of how historically accurate stuff should have non-accurate stuff in them because of diversity or some shit.
So AlphaOmegaSin dug up some irrelevant shit to make a video about, in which he rants about SJWs doing SJW things while committing multiple fallacies. And then this guy Shaun comes along to make a video about the previous video, in which he rants about, uh, anti-SJW Gamers (capital G) doing anti-SJW Gamer things and committing multiple fallacies, all while committing exactly the same fallacies himself.
Is it some kind of multi-layered meta-irony going on? Am I missing deep social commentary in Shaun calling out 'these people' on using 'these people' fallacy?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;52921077]
[QUOTE]Another game journalist (and some say “shitlord”) saw my video. He clipped it to the 2.5 minutes of the most damning inept gameplay, and he posted it to his followers. He used me to condemn all game journalists, raising the smoldering issues around Gamergate and its focus on game journalism ethics. His post was political propaganda for the disenfranchised gamers, the sort who went from Gamergate to the alt-right and elected Donald Trump as president.[/Quote]
That last line linked to yet another article by the same guy. Now, I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that he was claiming that Gamergate was the sole reason that Donald Trump was elected. So I decided to carefully read the linked article as best I could.
[url]https://venturebeat.com/2016/02/12/the-deanbeat-farewell-to-gamergate/[/url]
Everything, except two things: One, the central thesis of the entire article (that the Gamergate movement was built upon a self-perpetuating lie), from which the rest of the article and the implications it contends it has on gaming culture springs forth, is not referenced or linked to. It proves every single claim in the article except for the most important one. [B]Two, this article makes absolutely no reference to Donald Trump or the alt-right.[/B][/QUOTE]
I think the connection the first writer was trying to make was that the selective editing of his video followed by the use of it to "condemn all game journalists", followed by the politicizing of it, was the sort of behavior that lead to Trump being elected and therefore that the people involved were the sort of people who went from doing that to joining the alt-right and electing Donald Trump.
I dont really agree with the reasoning but it makes more sense in that context, and through it we can see how the writer believed an article that highlights the repeated behavior might have served as further corroboration.
[editline]25th November 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=gudman;52921368]So AlphaOmegaSin dug up some irrelevant shit to make a video about, in which he rants about SJWs doing SJW things while committing multiple fallacies. And then this guy Shaun comes along to make a video about the previous video, in which he rants about, uh, anti-SJW Gamers (capital G) doing anti-SJW Gamer things and committing multiple fallacies, all while committing exactly the same fallacies himself.
Is it some kind of multi-layered meta-irony going on? Am I missing deep social commentary in Shaun calling out 'these people' on using 'these people' fallacy?[/QUOTE]
AlphaOmegaSin is an actual person. The people who commented on his video and were involved in the twitter discussion around the fake outrage were actual people. The point of the video was that 'these people', in reference to the supposed SJWs, never existed. There were no anti-SJW gamer things because there were no SJWs, it was fake outrage based on misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=Zyler;52921381]AlphaOmegaSin is an actual person. The people who commented on his video and were involved in the twitter discussion around the fake outrage were actual people. The point of the video was that 'these people', in reference to the supposed SJWs, never existed. There were no anti-SJW gamer things because there were no SJWs, it was fake outrage based on misunderstanding.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my point was exactly that the Shaun's video is just as pointless as OmegaSin's. One brought non-existent controversy to people's attention, the other one did the same and 'debunked' it, revealing that it's non-existent, commenting on 'gamers' in the process. I just don't see the subject of both videos, seems to me like digging for scraps by both.
It seems Shaun totally ignored that one article that SGTNAPALM mentioned, with that mention of GamerGate and Donald Trump that came out of nowhere, which was most of the controversy if I remember correctly specially because how coward it is.
Another thing that Shaun also seemed to ignore was the second most heated article during the Cuphead Outrage: This marvelous Piece!
[url]https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/videogame-culture-needs-to-stop-fetishizing-skill.html[/url]
Remember this one?
This one i remember being talked a lot on twitter and here too in the thread of The Dean Takahashi article, because of how stupid it was.
I mean yeah, you dont have to be a videogame master to be a Journalist, but if you're gonna be reviewing games at least you gotta understand some basic mecanics.
[QUOTE=rutolfus;52921774]It seems Shaun totally ignored that one article that SGTNAPALM mentioned, with that mention of GamerGate and Donald Trump that came out of nowhere, which was most of the controversy if I remember correctly specially because how coward it is.
Another thing that Shaun also seemed to ignore was the second most heated article during the Cuphead Outrage: This marvelous Piece!
[url]https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/videogame-culture-needs-to-stop-fetishizing-skill.html[/url]
Remember this one?
This one i remember being talked a lot on twitter and here too in the thread of The Dean Takahashi article, because of how stupid it was.
I mean yeah, you dont have to be a videogame master to be a Journalist, but if you're gonna be reviewing games at least you gotta understand some basic mecanics.[/QUOTE]
Please explain exactly what's wrong with this article because the part you're referring to (I think) is this:
[quote]When a reviewer has trouble playing a game, the instant reaction by many crowds boils down to “If you can’t play this game, why are you in games criticism?” The implication isn’t hard to find: There is an assumption that in order to be a good games critic, you have to be good at games.
It’s a bad assumption, to put it simply. [/quote]
This is a debatable argument, not damning evidence that games journalism is bad.
I could even pick up the argument right here like this:
[quote]This is true because Journalists should reflect their audience and some people are not gonna be able to play well, in fact there's a huge amount of games and apps that have simple mechanics or require strategy/tactics and no mechanical skill and so there are gamers who might never have been exposed to the need of doing a jump & dash before because they play on a touch screen.[/quote]
[quote]Yeah but there should be a skill floor because they'll miss out on a lot of art and mechanics and they're not gonna be showing off the game well.[/quote]
[quote]That would make its way into the review, the players with low skill level will know that they're probably not going to be able to enjoy all the game and that seems important. What if your skill floor is not even across consoles? What if you're a pc guy who's gonna be reviewing a game made to use a controller without having used the xbox controller much? There are also emerging genres like mobas and VR games that people have never seen before, and these are average people that represent most of the gaming population. Imagine if they got a pro LoL player to review Dota 2 as soon as it came out, he would say things like 'The shop is different from league's shop' or 'Couriers are a great addition' and use a whole bunch of terms and jargon that the average person wouldn't make heads or tails of. He would be reviewing the game as a MOBA and not as a game. (if you get what I mean) This fake review of differences between LoL and DOTA I wrote is pretty shitty and reflects my lack of knowledge of Dota 2 because I don't play it. I NEED a reviewer that sucks at Dota 2 or that hasn't played it much or hasn't played it yet to tell me what it's like.[/quote]
See? It's a pretty good jumping off point and whether I'm right or wrong in the end it was a discussion about games and skill and it was good.
The article's point seems to be that high or low difficulty isn't inherently good/bad and that critics can continue being good/bad at them.
[QUOTE=01271;52921958]
The article's point seems to be that high or low difficulty isn't inherently good/bad and that critics can continue being good/bad at them.[/QUOTE]
That's all fine and dandy but remember that you're defending someone who couldn't even finish the first level, yet was being paid to write about the game. That's like me writing a review about a car when I can't even get it to start and drive away. Making this a discussion about skill is stupid as all hell because you're trying to argue that being bad at a core part of your job is not necessarily a detriment.
[quote]I NEED a reviewer that sucks at Dota 2 or that hasn't played it much or hasn't played it yet to tell me what it's like.[/quote]
Bollocks. You don't NEED a reviewer that sucks at Dota 2, you need a reviewer that can properly convey the core mechanics in an understandable and clear way. Which is what any reviewer worth their salt should be able to do anyway.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52921995]Bollocks. You don't NEED a reviewer that sucks at Dota 2, you need a reviewer that can properly convey the core mechanics in an understandable and clear way. Which is what any reviewer worth their salt should be able to do anyway.[/QUOTE]
Brad at Giant Bomb. DOTA-obsessed nerd boy.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52921995]Bollocks. You don't NEED a reviewer that sucks at Dota 2, you need a reviewer that can properly convey the core mechanics in an understandable and clear way. Which is what any reviewer worth their salt should be able to do anyway.[/QUOTE]
See, this is an argument now. This stuff works & the mentioned article isn't an attack on cuphead.
It's good.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;52922006]Brad at Giant Bomb. DOTA-obsessed nerd boy.[/QUOTE]
and also lovely tall boy Ben Pack who is arguably more obsessed than brad about dota
Well Sir Whoopsalot basically said what i was gonna say!
And yeah, that basically he did this article Defending Dean, while blaming it on how Videogame Culture fetishizes skill.
Like i said you dont have to be a video game master, but the fact that Dean literally was not able to understand parts of the tutorial is just a big alarm to me.
This Dante Douglas dude keeps blaming it on this "Skill fetishization" on video games, while other hobbies or professions also "Fetishizes" skill, or better said, it requires a certain amount of skill to do the job.
SJWs are the scapegoat of the internet.
i'm normally a big fan of shaun but struggling to get through this one
dean is not a hill i want shaun to die on, the man gave mass effect 1 a bad review because [I]he didn't know you could put points into skills to level them up[/I]
i think extending criticisms of dean onto all gaming journalism isn't justified, but in terms of dean, it's pretty cut and dry - the mass effect review is a black-and-white example of his view of a game being totally distorted by his total lack of competence at it - to the extent where his view simply isn't useful because it isn't the reality of most people
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;52922709]
i think extending criticisms of dean onto all gaming journalism isn't justified, but in terms of dean, it's pretty cut and dry - the mass effect review is a black-and-white example of his view of a game being totally distorted by his total lack of competence at it - to the extent where his view simply isn't useful because it isn't the reality of most people[/QUOTE]
That may be true, but the video doesn't bring up the mass effect review as an example. It discusses a particular instance wherein one person previewed a game at a convention, sucked at it and was very self-depricating about it and then another entirely separate reviewer did the actual review on the website and praised it for its difficulty- which resulted in a collection of people concluding that there was a contingent of evil 'SJW' videogame journalists who are trying to condemn Cuphead as ableist and racist.
Shaun even states in the video that the argument actually being made in the followup article: that DISCUSSES the idea of there being a zeitgeist of 'player skill' in video game critique as being debatable.
The point was that IT WAS a discussion, not a conspiracy by 'SJW' game websites to call videogames racist or ableist. Shaun isnt 'defending' Dean, or anyone for that matter, he's pointing out this phenomenon of chinese whispers that occurs when a person is bad at a game or brings up a discussion about inclusion in video games while presenting both sides of an issue; and then they get lambasted as 'this person who thinks all video games are racist/sexist/ableist/etc."
The fact that there seems to be no nuance on this issue, and that pointing out inconsistencies in the logic of stupid internet people is immediately interpreted as 'defending' the other side, just seems to serve the point of the video that capital-G Gamers will willfully misinterpret stuff that is perceived as going against their identity.
It's like a football team, where pointing out any error in your own teams logic means you must be working for the other team.
[QUOTE=rutolfus;52921774]It seems Shaun totally ignored that one article that SGTNAPALM mentioned, with that mention of GamerGate and Donald Trump that came out of nowhere, which was most of the controversy if I remember correctly specially because how coward it is.
Another thing that Shaun also seemed to ignore was the second most heated article during the Cuphead Outrage: This marvelous Piece!
[url]https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/09/videogame-culture-needs-to-stop-fetishizing-skill.html[/url]
Remember this one?
This one i remember being talked a lot on twitter and here too in the thread of The Dean Takahashi article, because of how stupid it was.
I mean yeah, you dont have to be a videogame master to be a Journalist, but if you're gonna be reviewing games at least you gotta understand some basic mecanics.[/QUOTE]
I haven't got much to say about skill among journalists but these aren't incidents that you can hold against a large number of people. They weren't turned into a narrative like "Gamers are over" was, they were the most extreme examples of what was an otherwise mundane talking point.
[QUOTE=Mifil;52922660]SFWs are the scapegoat of the internet.[/QUOTE]
Safe for workers? :v:
[QUOTE=TectoImprov;52923304]Safe for workers? :v:[/QUOTE]
Them too.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52922748]Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding what you're writing here, are you trying to say that if an outrage is over nothing, it's just as nothing as the nothing?
Like if someone lost their wallet, thought it was stolen and went on a mad tirade baselessly accusing their friends of stealing it, and then finds it under wedged in their couch cushions I wouldn't say them being a prick retroactively didn't happen.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what made you think of this analogy, but it doesn't work. Firstly, it doesn't work because "someone" didn't just lose their wallet, let's say it actually was stolen (because there actually is a subsection of media that [i]published articles one could really try and interpret as[/i] "cuphead is racist because animation style" as far back as when the game was announced, for instance, Dean's contribution to that is more or less negligible), but it wasn't a wallet, it was a cheap old empty pocket bag nobody cared about (because the topic isn't worth discussing and is misinterpreted to fuck). Next, "someone" didn't go on a mad tirade accusing their friends, they went on a rant over nothing complaining about there being too many bugs in their head and how these bugs stole something they never cared about in the first place. This analogy is shit too, but it maintains proportions.
Trying to call something like that out is only going to bring a bit more attention to it. It's literally over nothing, and it is nothing, yes.
[editline]Edited[/editline]
edited for clarity
[QUOTE=gudman;52923444]Firstly, it doesn't work because "someone" didn't just lose their wallet, let's say it actually was stolen (because there actually is a subsection of media that went "cuphead is racist because animation style" as far back as when the game was announced, for instance[/QUOTE]
Do you have examples?
[QUOTE=Zyler;52923462]Do you have examples?[/QUOTE]
Here's two from 2015 I found just off the search's first page: [url=http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=9235]one[/url] and [url=https://www.inverse.com/article/3882-indie-e3-racist-imagery]two[/url]. Note that, as I've said, it's a fringe subsection nobody cared about. As the game approached release, some more of that stuff appeared, and still you have to go quite [i]some[/i] lengths to stumble upon it.
[QUOTE=gudman;52923476]Here's two from 2015 I found just off the search's first page: [url=http://www.nymgamer.com/?p=9235]one[/url] and [url=https://www.inverse.com/article/3882-indie-e3-racist-imagery]two[/url]. Note that, as I've said, it's a fringe subsection nobody cared about. As the game approached release, some more of that stuff appeared, and still you have to go quite [i]some[/i] lengths to stumble upon it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think either of those articles are saying "Cuphead is racist" or "Cuphead is ableist". It's bringing up discussion about the origins of the art direction and sound design, which is rooted in the 1930s era of racist cartoons which depicted caricatures of black people performing various acts of vice, which are recreated almost exactly in some components of the character designs and story beats in Cuphead- just with the explicitly racist parts brushed over.
From the first article:
[QUOTE]My life, my experiences, and the body that I live in makes Cuphead and its artistic style problematic to me because of all that it has come to mean in the last 85 years or so and that’s something that I just can’t let go of. Does this mean that anything that is problematic should never be used in games or other entertainment media? We’ve heard that question in other contexts before. Should rape ever be used as a plot device? Abuse of any kind? And the answer remains the same. If it is done well and with proper attention being paid to the narrative. And Cuphead just isn’t the place for it in my mind. The game threatens to draw upon racist caricatures to inform the narrative and give players a series of racism infused bosses and obstructions to justice to properly hate. Perpetuating the stereotype and, in some cases, feeding the racism that is foundational to the art style itself. As for me, I’m going to skip Cuphead (as innovative as everyone claims) because it just hits too damned close to home.[/QUOTE]
And in the comments (from the writer):
[QUOTE]I think there’s a lot of good potential there for a deep discussion about that and I would like to see them comment on it. There’s a reason they chose this — are they trying to resurrect an art style with so many poor connotations to trump the past? That’s an intriguing angle. Are they just saying, look, forget the history, here it is without those elements? Or will we see some of those elements in this game? Whatever happens, I’m very fascinated in watching this develop.[/QUOTE]
From the second:
[QUOTE]Creativity is great and rough history is no reason to ignore art, but you’ve got to wonder about an ode to a period of American animation defined by racist attitudes. Is it possible to separate the style from the history? Potentially. But Microsoft is probably not going to be the company to create the ideal conditions for such a project.[/QUOTE]
This is actually brought up in the video at around [url=https://youtu.be/_-P9_oUV9Gw?t=14m7s]14:07[/url], where it's shown that at least some of the non-insignificant outrage surrounding the belief that game journalists were calling the game racist or ableist was due to these kinds of articles.
In these instances, it seems like it is very difficult to have a discussion about these kinds of issues without a non-insigificant amount of people being outraged over the mere idea of games they like being considered as an artistic medium and being critiqued the way that art is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
