• Polygon's author offended by Rage 2 mutant look
    52 replies, posted
https://www.polygon.com/2019/5/13/18617783/rage-2-impressions-characters-enemies-mutants
Suck it up you baby https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/rtil1FB1FbZMPeywXH1XUv6ROFg=/0x0:1100x619/1400x1050/filters:focal(462x221:638x397):format(png)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/16723651/cop_15_rough_cut.still006.0.png It's not even that noticeable Jesus Christ
Polygon offended. Meanwhile, water still wet
I remember hearing of this. Wasn't it more about the characterization rather than the design themselves?
https://kotaku.com/fans-are-concerned-about-barrets-voice-in-the-final-fan-1834678296 this is industry standard now, and when you pay attention to it, you boost the signal.
Yeah I think it's a mis-characterization to say the author is offended rather than disappointed.
these idiots are everywhere but in extremely tiny numbers just ignore them really
I think that if you were to put a white straight tetris piece into a U shaped colored tetris piece, Polygon would go on a rampant tyrade.
I don't see a problem with this article? it's not like he's reviewing the game, he's recounting his relationship with the developers and the game itself. If it was a review I would take issue, because why would you bring up a clearly personal issue in a broad, general review of the game but it's not that.
Is this guy complaining that mutants should look completely normal?
I am offended that Polygon is a mainstay in really shitty journalism, and along with the rest of the shitty blogs these websites continue to resist my demands for higher quality coverage. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/129/44f134ac-4c37-480a-a340-9f8e81fd72ac/ben.PNG
because we live in a world where this doesn't needs to exist artist vision on something perfectly harmless being hindered because someone's too sensitive to, well, fucking everything apparently
Yeah that's more accurate because he got a promise from one of the developers that they would try to improve on that aspect and they didn't follow through in his eyes.
why does someone saying something bothers them bother everyone so much
It is impossible to make art without it getting hit by criticism dog. that's just the way it works.
He's not "offended" as the title says. It's a piece about how largely characters with any form of disfigurement are often played for jokes rather than just being a part of a world. Whether they're a mutant or not it crops up a ton in all forms of media that having a disfigurement, in particular a very visible one like on the face, leads to either being creepy or a joke. Mutants are basically just extremely disfigured people and again are largely played for horror or humor. Given that extreme mutation can pull them away from being human, the example he is specifically pulling from Rage 2 is supposed to be vaguely human with jokey elements as a result of his being disfigured. There is nothing wrong with being disappointed that Master Blaster character types still show it basically being lower intelligence/any disfigurement = lower social status after all these years.
for once I’m not that offended by this polygon guy’s take on it. He didn’t like the design of the mutants having a cleft lip, understandably so, then he asked the director about it and the director said he would change it. After that, nothing changed. I’d be disappointed too.
People have a knee jerk reaction to Kotaku and Polygon but this writer has a real reason to be upset about this, and I think it's a conversation that should be had. I think that to an extent, making mutants based on real life, common birth defects is something that should be avoided, and this is something I've never really thought about before.
Even then I think some writers that people dunk on can be great on certain topics. At the end of the day a lot of these are opinion pieces because let's face it, straight up news doesn't sell because you can get that anywhere. It's why every local news station has a morning show. And you don't have to agree with every opinion or engage with every opinion, but by God they can write about it all they want.
yeah but dude we gotta stroke our hateboner for ebil swj jornalistZ!!!11, even if that means contorting the truth and wildly misrepresenting peoples positions.
I thought that article on Anthem's troubled development was pretty damn good and it was on Kotaku
Imagine browsing news sites just searching for something to complain about.
I really wish I could empathize with people in situations like these, it's very difficult for me to put myself in their shoes. I have a base level of sympathy for anyone that's made feel bad, but that's kinda it. The closest similar experience I can draw on is a genetic disease I have that I've seen used for a villain backstory once and another time it was represented in a rather romanticized, sanded-off kinda way. Both times I didn't have much of an emotional reaction to it. It was just a little "oh I know that thing" moment that came and went. But it's possible that seeing "your ugly thing" being used in media more frequently makes a big difference. It's also possible that I just haven't made my disease part of my identity. It's not so insignificant that I can ignore it, but when I think of ways to describe myself, it's pretty low on the totem poll. Environment/social feedback may make a difference there, but I feel like I got quite a bit of that myself. Hard to quantify tho, obviously. From an artist's perspective I also find it kind of difficult to meet the guy's demands for a more even playing field between ugly and pretty characters on the sides of good and evil. If you've got time and the kind of script with which to develop a character a little bit, you can play around with glance value subversions like charmers being snakes or misunderstood monsters. Once we get to that basic level of character development I don't think there's any shortage of well-groomed but evil CEOs or ferocious beasts with a good heart. But unless I got Rage 2 very wrong, these mutants are just generic cannonfodder units. So you need to transmit all their character through glance value, which in turn needs to communicate via tropes that are so common they're self-explanatory. Such as monsters being ugly and evil and heroes being noble, pretty idols. If you want to tell a story with super simple good and evil characters, using the tropes this way seems appropriate to me.
I wish people who hated polygon etc applied the same level of scrutiny to themselves, the first half of this page is people who read OP's slanted title and took it at face value, formed an opinion without actually checking what their opinion is about. How about some ethics in game journalism reading my dudes.
This entire thread is just nothing but sabre-rattling bollocks from all sides and I am amazed that most of you don't even have an inch of self-reflection to recognize the irony of your pig-headed statements. I even think the OP article is a load of hogshit but the way some of you people are absolutely melting down about this being The Degeneracy Of Mankind's Culture, From Kierkegaard To This is fucking pathetic. Grow up, for god's sake.
theres real criticism, and then theres polygon/kotaku criticism of "this imaginary being is making me feel bad for it, I need to make an article about this non issue"
do you not see the irony telling people they're overreacting by widly exaggerating what they posted.
Nah. When venues exist that don't do this and don't inject their politics and holier than thou _____ at every. single. opportunity. ever. You're just wasting time. Sure you can make the long winded high minded argument "judge every piece" "place the context here" but wading daily through a sewer of opinion is simply a waste of time and energy better spent on more constructive platforms and venues conducive to actual discussion pro or con. If either venue used 'I think you're wrong and here's my evidence or opinion based on evidence', you'd have a point. But they don't. It's 'whatever I printed is the absolute and only statement on the matter' and neither venue is mindful of the absolute harm that does which is particularly ironic in an increasingly bought and paid for corporate based marketing environment. You can find similar articles on youtube as the OP of this article, and the only difference here umbrella and aegis under which it's posted, which is a shme because the author has a point, but I don't feel like contracting sepsis to get it when I can get the same point from a much more objective venue.
Nine times out of nine, people looking for ((SJWs)) being offended are more easily offended than the straw men/women they're complaining about.
So basically you openly admit to putting personal bias before content of an argument, while also complaining about how polygon is poisoning discourse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.