https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwYCgNkmFY
I'm all for inclusiveness, but I find their agenda strange. I find it strange that they used to be subtle with this, and have become so overt that jokes come true, The Onion style.
Yeah, no shit there's an agenda. Games are meant to do what movies can't. Hollywood is still too afraid to do the things Naughty Dog wants to do, and as such they explicitly to go out of their way to do things the film industry WONT. Is he really comparing "growing up playing Lara Croft", an explicitly sexualized character, to playing as an unsexualized woman? He's completely and willfully ignoring the fact that Naughty Dog is trying to be the antithesis to the content produced by film industry. They have gay main characters where hollywood won't, they focus on having numerous strong female characters (and yes I understand this is objective, I don't think every ND female is a great character), and they focus on putting people who aren't normally in the spotlight, into it.
Not only that but this dude is literally reading into twitter likes, reblogs, and retweets, when this is far from the only company to retweet shippy fanart of their characters, even if they're not established to be in a relationship or even dating. Changing the narrative as a result of a christmas card and a pinset? Are you kidding me?
So is this worth watching or is it just an idiot raving?
he lost me when he brought up anita sarkeesian. his point boils down to "naughty dog is pushing an agenda because they've had 2 games in a row with female leads and i dont like that they're focusing on female leads because i think they're only doing that because neil druckmann is pushing a secret agenda (that he admitted to pushing on stage) to have more strong women and gay characters and nobody cares about having gay characters in games just dont make them the focus because it's social justice-y. also neil hand picked a transgender teen to play a transgender character and that's bad because directors apparently never hand pick actors"
Idiot raving.
Ah, so it's rubbish. Well thanks for taking one for the team and saving the rest of us 20 minutes.
I think he brought up some decent points, like established and well-liked characters being taken out of the spotlight, and the way they did their E3 presentation was silly with someone hosting not even knowing much about video games.
Though a lot of it is still a bit too paranoid and is looking into it too much and is making too big of a deal that just because ND are shifting into an agenda in public presentation, doesn't mean they're just going to immediately give everyone a chokeslam of gayness over good gameplay and story. Even if they're a bit on the nose when it comes to presenting the new characters, it doesn't mean it's just 'virtue signalling' and sacrifice quality for inclusiveness.
Good rule of thumb: if the video is accusing a known progressive company of having "an agenda", it's a reee-ing moron who's not worth giving the smallest mote of attention to.
Jesus, this guy is off his fucking rocker. He seems to just want to selectively enjoy the "fun" parts of games for their escapist qualities and pretend that the stories have no connection to the outside world, and that somehow by featuring women and queerness in the game the developers are violently intruding on the player's fantasy. He seems to think that themes of social justice are the one thing that breaks the fantasy of the game and pulls it into reality, as if there are no other possible themes or agendas the game could be expressing. But you know, it's alright if you introduce women and queer characters as long as it's subtle, as long as you keep those aspects quietly in the background to make way for the rest of the story.
I'm blown away that he thinks the "over-emphasis on female characters" is a problem, because not only is it statistically laughable to say that there's an over-emphasis on female characters (what, we got maybe a couple dozen games with female characters or female leads compared to the thousands of games with male characters, and the hundreds among those thousands where it's just 100% dudes?), but the idea itself treats female characters as an abnormality from the "default", the default being Men with a capital M. He doesn't understand that male-centric games are also pushing an agenda, whether he or even the developers are aware of it or not. The SJW "agenda" is simply a different agenda from the one that already has a strong foothold in game design and "gamer" culture.
Also he spends to much time pre-apologizing, clarifying and otherwise covering his ass in the video that it's pretty obvious he has strong ambiguous doubts about what he's preaching so I figure it's only a matter of time before he realize what a cock he is.
The fuck? Ellie has been at least confirmed bi since the first game. And the UC game involving Chloe was originally just supposed to be DLC but the scope grew so big they made it a standalone.
Its not as if the BD games are missing strong male characters. For christ sake Sully is a quote machine.
Never forget that to some people, merely acknowledging that gay people and women exist is enough to brand you a SJW.
i knew it was an idiot raving as soon as i saw "agenda"
Wow, I thought it was pretty well spoken. He brings up Senua from Hellblade, and Faith from Mirror's Edge as strong characters as well. I am not against gay characters, nor is the guy in the video. I mean he finds that members of Naughty Dog have gone to be extremely rude to people for voicing concerns about things like this. I don't think anyone's against female protagonists, however it is just strange that it seems as though they are making every character some kind of token to bring in a more general audience. Or, even an audience that isn't really into video games in the first place. The fact that Naughty Dog is perfectly fine with alienating long term fans by pushing, what looks to me as a one sided agenda is disheartening.
They push out characters such as Cutter, and altered Chloe and Nadine's stories officially. Yes, it's not important but it is canon that they are partners. Personally I don't care, but they did it for seemingly no reason other than these two women spent a game together.
It feels as though they've built an echo chamber and are content with sitting in it. Surely, the game will be much more nuanced than it looks like it will be right now. I have no doubt of that, surely these points will be argued intellectually. Currently, it just looks as if they are pushing one side of the argument. An argument that I agree with, that Robin agrees with it too. We simply have concerns with how communicating that argument is being handled.
see that last part is where it gets interesting, because either he's gonna realize he's being a bit of a loon, maybe take some time to reflect and think about things, or he's gonna double down on his shit and we'll get to see him have a mental breakdown on twitter/tumblr/youtube/whatever
What is there to be concerned about? Its a different way of approaching storytelling in videogames which historically have only ever featured white straight dudes as the protagonist, it isn't some big conspiracy theory to push a gay agenda. Its literally saying "hey women/gay people exist in the real world and what if the story revolved around one of them this time".
Like maybe they're rude about it because you're dealing with a bunch of manbabies getting upset that they put a girl or a gay in their videogame instead of white dude with beard.
And if you think a company trying to bring in a more general audience or engage a demographic that isn't currently an audience is strange then you probably don't know much about the basics of running a business.
Honestly when I saw that in the title, I thought that the quotes around it were supposed to be like air quotes, and that the video was going to be basically discussing/taking-the-piss at how ridiculous it was for people taking this much of an issue with what Naughty Dog’s been doing.
Turns out that wasn’t the case here, but hey, can’t blame me for hoping.
I agree, but that wasn't a talking point. He's saying that if your characters are authentic and most real gamers will have no problem accepting and embracing that character. Also, I think that the whole "Agenda" thing getting pushed out of proportion. I acknowledge and understand that there is an agenda being pushed here, gay acceptance, trans acceptance, racially equality, and female empowerment are all absolutely fantastic things. Now, the problem is in order to attain these things, we have to be civil and understanding as we march toward the ideal of equality.
Being too forceful with your agenda isn't the best course of action, having a conversation is.
Is it just me, or is it becoming a pattern that we're seeing a lot of these 20 minute video essays from all manner of racists, xenophobes, misogynists and down right nazis?
Cutter wasn't pushed out, Nate literally pushes him as one of the first names to help Sam. And again, Chloe is bi as there's always been romantic tension between Nate and her. This isn't a new agenda, this has been in since the start.
I can empathize with this viewpoint because it's something I used to hold very strongly, that developers like Naughty Dog are foregoing quality for political messages and agendas, until I started to talk it over with a bunch of people in my that I strongly disagreed with that sentiment and showed my why it's actually a bit more fucked up than you'd think it is.
For example the whole idea of these characters being forced or pushed out is total bunk, because it pretends that there are characters that aren't forced by that same logic. Every narrative decision is ultimately up to the creators and they can do whatever they damn well please with their characters for whatever reason they see fit, and if that rubs some players the wrong way, those players are totally entitled (and I'd even say encouraged) to speak up about their distaste and discuss why they don't like these choices.
The thing is that the "non gamers" or non-traditional player base (you can call it women, LGBTQ people, black folk, etc, which is usually what we think of when we think of outsiders to games and gamer culture) have been speaking up about their issues with straight white male characters being forced as the dominant archetype for ages and ages, not just about games but about popular media as a whole. If you flip it around to their perspective, they have had an agenda forced down their throats since the beginning of civilization. It's of course not unfair for men to say, "This particular thing is just for us, it's not for you so just do something else," but by that same token, it's also not unfair when social justice types say the same thing about games and media that is directed towards them.
This only causes shock and discomfort in a lot of men (including myself for a good chunk of my life) because rarely, if ever in our lives, have we been told explicitly that some piece of art is not for us, in fact what's more important is that we haven't even been told that the stuff that's for us IS for us, we've just grown up understanding that straight white male protagonists are the default and that if you want to represent anyone else you better have a damn good reason for it, that the decision to make someone not the "default" needs to be justified for being abnormal. Even though most of us modern first-world men are a hell of a lot more tolerant and understanding than we've ever been in history, we still have these latent aversions to people of other races and genders and shit, it's a completely natural tendency that exists in every human being to walk the earth at different degrees.
The facts of all this is that, yes, feminists and the people who associate with them are trying to push an agenda, but ultimately, everyone is, that's how art works. No game exists in a vacuum and no game can be completely separated from real life or the subtle politics that influence their content. What I think we need to worry about is not the fact that an agenda is being pushed, but what that agenda is exactly. And IMO an agenda revolving around inclusiveness and generally being nice to people is one I'd rather see more of.
Yeah, but he isn't in another game despite people enjoying him in favor of Nadine. Again, I have no problem with Chloe being bi. My concern is the belief that sexuality can be truly that fluid. Trust me, I'm a VERY open minded guy. Despite this, I know people who are so hard-line about such subjects that they won't bother talking about it. Clearly, those folks would HATE this.
I have to ask how many of you actually watch the video.
He's not a paranoid sperg afraid of the SJWs taking away his games, the video is more about the attitude of pushing an agenda in a way which comes across as forced and unnatural. He specifically mentions how he liked Ellie's characterisation in The Last of Us and how the build up to her kiss with Riley felt natural during the course of Left Behind, in comparison to Uncharted where there was no romantic relationship between Chloe and Nadine but the developers have been acting like that was the case on their social media posts. They have been openly antagonistic to people who may like their games just for not being absolutely on board with how they're presenting things.
His issue with the E3 traile for The Last of Us Part 2 is not that Ellie is in a gay relationship, but that there's no context for the scene and that it was an unnecessary addition as it didn't add anything to the trailer. He even says it most likely is important in the actual story and will work much better in context, but without the context it comes across as forced.
His complaints are mostly based on people shallowly trying to push the appearance of being right, even calling people who openly call out against female characters or gay characters idiots, and says the problem is in people automatically assuming the worst about others and calling them things like homophobic or sexist. Which is pretty fucking ironic considering half the posts in this thread.
It's not a particularly well made video, and it meanders between points, but it's not at all the sexist conspiritard shit most people in this thread are acting like it is.
To be fair, Cutter being only a mention after UC3 could simply be that they couldn't get Graham MacTavish to come back so they came up with a story justification for it. Beyond that, much as I liked Cutter, I'm not sure UC4 or Lost Legacy would have been dramatically different if he had been there. As far as making every character a token...I really can't agree with that. Uncharted 4 felt exactly right to me, and I could never get on board with the idea that Nadine was a token/Mary Sue (could have the term wrong) character despite the complaints. And for Lost Legacy to follow Chloe and Nadine and using their backgrounds is a nice change of pace coming from Nathan Drake. And then for Last of Us, with Ellie being bi/gay...how many gay main characters are there? Hardly any I can think of, and I don't think it's tokenism to have her character be that way, we're just used to playing as straight characters. Sure, Naughty Dog is being very up front about this representation, but I honestly think it's a good thing; we need more games with characters of different ethnicities, cultures, and sexualities.
Except it kind of does change things. People in this thread are acting like he's caomplaining that gay characters or female leads exist, when that isn't at all what he's saying. In fact he's complaining about people disregarding what people are actually saying and labelling them as part of the 'others' and inherently wrong. A lot like you're doing right now.
WTF does this have to do with anything?
Tomb Raider(2013) was written with Lara and Samantha being in a relationship in mind. Prey(2017) regardless of Morgan's gender chosen, Mikhaila is your ex. Life is Strange(2015) Max can get into a relationship with Chloe, Chloe was in love with Rachel Amber. Arcade Gannon and Veronica are gay in Fallout: New Vegas(2010). These are some that I remember. Hell, when I did a bit of research most characters don't even mention what orientation they are. I agree that we need more representation in the industry, as did the video I posted.
You realize you just made the dude's point for him, right?
Holdo was given the color fo hair she had for a reason, not a subtle one. People know Luke, they expect some of the shenanigans they got because there's three movies framing it. We have two sentences with Holdo and we're supposed as an audience to give her the same deference despite having no idea what she's about or if she's the right person at the right time, even. Not only that we we have a far better handle on what Poe's about, than we do Holdo; and on top that Poe's characterization and actor portrayal is so charming and good that they literally kept him around because reasons instead of blowing him up at the Starkiller like we were supposed to.
Not everyone complaining about Holdo is a secret basement Trumpasaurus Rex, a rather large chunk of people complaining about Holdo are complaining because she basically did exactly what Poe did, AND had no reason to do so that makles any common sense other than ~dramatic tension~ and ~character conflict~. On top of the fact the entire thrust isn't necessary because we just saw Poe fuck up hard core at the beginning of the movie, so all of this ~MUSIC SWELLS VIBRATTO STRINGS- shit is redundant, on top of "hi i'm a character you know nothing about, I'll be directing your plot for the next thirty minutes".
Naughty Dog had absolutely no problem having brown people stereotypes all over their games, now as of the last two games having fat people is "problematic" and people's sexuality now determines their worth as a person before what kind of person they're actually supposed to be in the plot and representational arc. That's some Joss Whedon amateur hour shit, and it does no one any favors in creating representational media for marginalized people.
No, Holdo gets criticised because she's not a character, she's a lazy narrative device. She has like 4 lines in the whole movie and her name is said once. Luke, on the other hand, is the primary protagonist of the entire original trilogy and the audience has built up an understanding of the character, his motivations, and how he acts.
I still don't see what this has to do with a video about Naughty Dog.
Holdo's plan has a giant payoff, Holdo's characterization for castigating Poe for doing exactly what Poe just did at the beginning of the movie while simultaneously sending a not particularly subtle message is not.
Remember 'the speech' in TFA? Not particularly subtle, but there's no press release and interview with Kathleen Kennedy and whatever the name of branding rep at Disney is about it or before the movie came out, and there didn't need to be, and there didn't need to be one about Holdo either.. she sure as hell could have used more screen time so we'd know what she's about other than some deliberate shorthand that isn't going to age well.
what speech was this exactly
Senor Hux and the Thinly Disguised Allegory
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.