@JohnnyShoulder That’s the thing though, Torment was basically a spiritual successor to Planescape Torment so in that respect, there was combat and massive amounts of difficulty. Disco Elysium removes combat in favour of extensive dialogue trees and skill checks. It looks a lot more like a D&D game than it plays.
@RogerRoger I don't mind it to be honest, just wish Xbox had a better library of games exclusive wise as I want more than just Halo and Forza, but I think they will rectify that this time out so who knows.
@DonJorginho Yeah, we're getting to the point where we should start seeing more games from them, given that it's been a couple years since they started going after developers. I'm hoping the new Xbox has a decent line-up; not because I'll ever get one, just because healthy competition is good for innovation.
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
That looks like a brick @DonJorginho. 😂 It's often forgotten just how brilliant Xbox first-party and exclusive games were in the first few years of the 360's life. If Microsoft can return to at least that level then I may well bite further down the line.
@RogerRoger@Kidfried I moved the response here because I didn’t want to derail any bonafide game and review discussion over on the User Review Thread; And seeing as, even though its prompted by merely a simple disclaimer statement in the opening paragraph of a review — my response and discussion now threatens to be longer than the review itself, so I figured maybe I better separate the discourse to a place less distracting. And hopefully people here will promptly and freely ignore my chit-chat ramblings if they wish. Alternatively, I could start a politics thread, but as you’ll see if you have the patience to read on, that goes against the whole point I’m trying to make.
—-
Relating to Life is Strange 2 and politics in gaming:
I purposefully avoid news media and in particular political banter because of my fatigue over the whole mess that is American and International politics. And yes, back in 2016, playing video games was one of the places I came for refuge from the storms of stupidity that I saw my country sinking to. I couldn’t turn on the TV or have a chat with a friend without the experience deteriorating into a partisan mess of name calling and over-reaction. Honestly, I was a little embarrassed for how my country’s citizens were acting. Of course it’s not the first time and won’t be the the last, and I suppose any self aware citizen will surely feel the same about their own society’s situation, but it got largely out of control with the immaturity and bipartisan extremism that was happening, and I decided that, although I would be sure to vote my conscience at the polls, I didn’t want to be involved with or associated with the politics that were so historically irrational. So I cut myself off, further dived into video games, and lived my life within my own personal moral conscience — the rest of the world be damned. Whether justified or not, doing so makes me feel as if I’m no longer part of the problem, which is a ridiculous sentiment for a citizen to take, but I didn’t want to be lumped into any part of either party’s stupid behavior.
I’m proud of my American Heritage, as I would hope any citizen of their country is, and I happily associate with my country. And I can take criticism, because certainly constructive analysis is the only way things improve, but I’ve always held to the idea that the best position to criticize from (in any aspect of our lives) is on equal footing — not from some “holier-than-thou” space in which an individual or group stands from a distance to prejudge and look down at. I have absolutely no idea if this is what DONTNOD is doing, and I actually suspect not. In fact I’d be shocked if they didn’t have firsthand input from Mexican-Americans in their team. But in principle, I’m against uninformed partiality and dogmatism. You could probably have guessed this based on the quote on my profile page that I referred to earlier, taken from Teddy Roosevelt’s Citizenship in a Republic speech which was, ironically, originally delivered in Paris in 1910.
The subject reminds me a tiny bit of the previously belabored discussion of Western censorship of Japanese games where some of the response from those who dwell in Japan or in the East came to the defense of things from their cultural perspective. In our fallible human nature, we all look at things through the lens of our own experience, so inherently we pass judgment in that way - it’s unavoidable. But I think the world would be a better place when we try to give some preference to a person who is actually living in the situation and hear their stories first hand, when possible, before drawing a conclusion.
I contrast the Life is Strange 2 situation with Detroit Become Human, which is another French studio making a game that takes place in the U.S. and has critical undertones of our treatment of minorities and echoes of the slavery and human rights issues. I felt this was handled well in Detroit and despite the insinuation of a country’s dark past, I could be comfortable in the depiction because A) the setting was futuristic and fantasy based, and B) any illusion to and metaphor of the historical mistreatment of slaves does not apply to me personally due to my distance from the time period in question. Besides, as a person of mixed race, I come from unique circumstances, but despite not having any known slave owners even in my European ancestry, I feel comfortable that my immediate life experience has been very much one of integrity and championing equality.
It concerns me that so much of the entertainment media portrays inaccurate generalizations. So, suffice it to say, stereotyping and racial profiling can go both ways. Not all Americans are bigots and rednecks.
@Kidfried remarked “...but don't we see stuff like this in games all the time: France, Hong Kong, Egypt, India, England, just to name a few countries I visited in the last few years, from the perspective of an outsider. And all of them were depictions that were... well, unjust at times.”
By extension, and to @Kidfried ‘s point, when games from American or Western developers have portrayed other societies, I do hold my breath a little bit, hoping they get things right and don’t offend those involved in the subject matter. It’s one reason I cross my fingers on the much anticipated Ghost of Tsushima. Nevertheless, most of the games made about various outside countries and cultures are set in either ancient or futuristic times, which I think lessens the issue of possible uninformed portrayals. So, for example, in dealing with ancient Egypt’s caste system, Caribbean piracy of the 1600’s, organized crime in the 1920’s, or other video game settings, I think the objectivity of distance and retrospection helps to make the depiction non-intrusive to those under the microscope, although I’m sure the ghosts of the children of the English Industrial Revolution and Victorian Era might find issue with the presentation of the details of their plight in AC Syndicate, or those of Mayan descent may have umbrage with the plot of Shadow of the Tomb Raider. But in most cases I can see that at least there are no games attacking a present day society from across the borders, and I guess that’s the difference. Plenty of games reflect on historical mistakes and atrocities, but there can’t be many that are set in and go after another nation’s present day political climate, because none besides LiS2 come to mind.
My sincere apologies for this Filibuster of a post. I sincerely hope I am not coming across pretentious, or like I have a attitude of being pompous or harbor an extensive disconnection from society and my own civic duties. It’s just my personal preference that games (and the developers who make them) stay in their lane, so to speak, and ideally not stoop to propaganda fueled rhetoric. I realize I might very well be in the minority on this though, which is fine.
In fact, tagging fellow American @Ralizah who I absolutely respect and whose opinion I hold in high esteem, yet I think based on earlier comments actually feels differently on the subject than I.
@Th3solution Do we really have a "lane" of our own, though? Putting aside the truly monumental web of intelligence and military power we've established across the globe, and putting aside our disturbingly regular tendency to destabilize entire portions of the world to serve our geopolitical goals, we've also globalized our culture to the point where everything we do has ripple effects worldwide. No other civilization in the history of the world has established the sort of cultural omnipresence that we have.
Besides, America is composed of so many different cultures, in and of itself, that arguably the only thing uniting us a people, aside from the obvious federal regulations, is our cultural infrastructure.
As a Tennessean, I don't know that I'd inherently value the insight of, say, your average Californian about cultural issues affecting my life over someone living across the pond in England or France.
It's also worth noting, having seen what passes for journalism in this country, that I have my doubts about the average American being any more well-informed about what's happening to other people in this country than your average British person.
In a broader sense, while I do think it's generally important to avoid stereotyping and defer, to some extent, to the lived experience of people intimately familiar with a social context, I also don't like this growing tendency I've noticed in some circles to want to discount the perfectly valid observations of people because of some trait or characteristic they happen to possess or lack. It goes hand in hand with a growing adoption and normalization of identity politics. And, ultimately, that leads to a myopic world where any sense of commonality between people is destroyed, and the only perspective anyone can ever feel comfortable discussing is their own.
Frankly, I think the world is a duller place when everyone stays in whatever they perceive to be their "lane."
@Ralizah I agree that the U.S. has put itself in position to be globally scrutinized by virtue of the international policies and commerce that has developed over the years; also the melting pot that our culture is, as opposed to most nations which are homogenous in their culture, race, and ideology. Yes, in that sense, the U.S. and it’s people are the epitome of racing through multiple “lanes” of the international highway. But really what I meant by games and developers “staying in their lane” is to stay in the area of their expertise. In other words, not be utilized as a platform of education or idea dissemination that is better handled by another medium or expert. The same applies to advertising in games, promotion of gambling in games, and other influences. It’s a fine line to draw, I realize, but there is a certain social responsibility that a game publisher has to take, whether they like it or not, if they want to have their product in the hands of millions of players.
I liken it to the ridiculous trend of professional athletes endorsing products and famous actors making political statements. Suddenly they are considered experts by the masses just because they can dunk a basketball? When choosing which shampoo to buy, should I listen to the pitch of an NFL player or a dermatologist? Some of this I write off as just advertising getting eyes on their product and they know any consumer with half a brain will know that Aaron Rodgers has no right to truly be giving them advice on what car insurance to buy. But viewers will find it fun to see him on the ad and it will stick with people when they are trying to choose a product. However, actors, musicians, and social media influencers speaking strongly on socio-political issues as if they are experts is often just downright asinine, in my opinion. If you’ve heard some of them speak, many of them can hardly string two coherent words together, much less make a sensible point about human rights in the Middle East, for example. Using their platform and it’s influence to push some personal agenda is fine at times if they can speak from an educated or personal experience background (Kaepernick’s famous stance in the NFL on social justice, for example) but I’d venture to say most of Hollywood has no business being treated as political experts, and need to do a little more of “staying in their lane.”
Again, please read my intent that using movies and games as ways to further important political ideas is fine, and actually is a wonderful thing. But only when done respectfully and responsibly.
But I agree that the news media and it’s supposed expert team of journalists does a horrible job at dissemination of civil and social information and naturally other entities like games and movies fill the void to educate the masses. I’m all for different perspectives but there is a time and a place for everything. And like I say, I’m probably in the minority here and many gamers may welcome it when games tell them how to vote, what products to buy, what television shows to watch, and how to raise their kids.
And that’s a valid point that even with the diversity of the U.S. we can hardly relate perfectly to one another from the East Coast to the West Coast, and I see your point about outside observations being valid and if each of us stay in our own spheres of knowledge and experience that we paint ourselves into this corner of extremism and loss of commonality. I certainly am not comfortable with that outcome. And I do think people are a little too sensitive in today’s world of identity politics. Outside points of view can be helpful and valid. It all depends how they are delivered and what the observers intent is. So much relies on that intent. Is the intent to destroy or to build? Does the information come from a place integrity or a place of pride and malice? In the end, the consumer has the right to choose whether to give credence to the thought or not, I suppose.
@Th3solution I'll try not to ramble too much, for the benefit of others, although I'm somewhat alarmed by how a discussion which is mostly about personal and cultural identity has been perceived to be political. I think that speaks to how modern politics will weaponise anything and everything it can, in order to draw its battle lines and win over voters. "If you're a woman, you should vote this way!" and "If you're gay, you should vote that way!" and whatnot. Some might argue that your average Joe the Plumber needs such translations of the issues, but I've never felt that the boxes I happen to tick should have any bearing on my opinion on proper governance.
Look at that. Already broken my "no ramble" promise. Guess I'd make a good politician!
But seriously, thank you for your honest and well-presented thoughts on this issue, one that is becoming increasingly important nowadays. I saw an article on the BBC News Online front page yesterday, right after you'd written this, about Watch_Dogs Legion and its take on post-Brexit Britain (developed in Toronto, by French company Ubisoft) and the timing was just too perfect.
I'm sorry to hear that you had such a negative experience during the 2016 election, although I'm not surprised all that heightened, vitriolic discourse had such an impact. It's done the same over here, with many conversations coming to a short, sharp stop whenever somebody mentions "the B word" and arguments about Remain or Leave dividing families (although I'd wager some of those have been sought out by the media, to make a good story). I certainly don't blame you for your approach, largely because I've done the same in recent years; I vote my conscience, occasionally glance at the headlines, and nod along with family members I wholeheartedly disagree with, simply because it's the path of least resistance. It has gotten heated at times, because I studied politics at university (which taught me nothing, except how to be cynical and jaded about politics) and so I'm often asked for "my take" or, worse, advice on how to vote.
But despite this embarrassment, same as you, I'm proud of my country (in my case, largely because I'm from a military family and so concepts of duty and service are pretty much engrained). I'll poke fun at it, or roll my eyes at it, but I'll defend it just as strongly, if not moreso. And that's where I agree with you the most; your Teddy Roosevelt quote is spot-on. It's a similar concept to the idea of constructive criticism, something I'm always open to (in other words, you've got a free pass to tell me to shut up).
I also love your point about Life is Strange 2 being a rare, contemporary example of this issue, although it hasn't stopped some from trying to soapbox about the other games you've listed. The amount of reviews which have taken an uncomfortable, guilt-riddled swipe at Lara Croft for being an echo of British Imperialism (with some even docking points for it) outnumber those which didn't. As a Brit, do I feel ashamed whenever I play Tomb Raider? Do I heck. It's escapist virtual tourism. If I were standing in an ancient Mayan temple for real, I wouldn't touch anything, and would've sought proper permissions before entering with the utmost respect. I certainly don't believe in the concepts or justifications for the British Empire, but some extremely-politicised people would see me playing Tomb Raider and assume otherwise. I guess those reviews were just another unfortunate example of this modern, frenzied trend to make everything an opinion piece. Life is Strange 2 does kinda invite it, and perhaps Detroit did, to a lesser degree. The others? No way.
That being said, I also agree with @Ralizah about the omnipresence of American culture. I can use myself as a case study here. Growing up in the late 90s and early 00s here in Britain, playgrounds were abuzz with The Simpsons, South Park, Batman and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I was a huge fan of Star Trek and Star Wars before I ever watched an episode of our equivalent offering, Doctor Who (itself only revived in 2005 to match American sci-fi output). I avoided British sitcoms, instead preferring Friends and Frasier, whilst our spy show Spooks (known as MI5 on your side of the pond) had nothing on 24. In fact, the only "British" thing I call myself a fan of (James Bond) is produced by Americans from Hollywood; they just happen to film it in Berkshire, s'all.
Against such an onslaught, our programmes (such as Blue Peter... no, seriously, that's what our flagship children's show is called) didn't stand a chance. I was much more comfortable with American cultural output, and used to joke that watching the jingoistic Air Force One made me feel "proud to be an American" whilst The West Wing taught me far more about politics than any textbook ever could. As a result of all this, a couple people on here have assumed I'm an American, purely from the way I occasionally type with American inflections.
Does this give me a right to pass judgement on American culture? Absolutely not. My image of your country is limited to this sanitised entertainment output, crafted by a hundred people at most (as well as, in my twenties, a handful of business trips and a contentious encounter with one particularly bone-headed member of a past government, who shall remain nameless). I can speak about how America sells itself abroad, and therefore about how certain people want America to be seen, but were I to include an American character in a future novel, for example, then I'd want to gather much more information before I'd ever try to pass them off as a "realistic representation" of your fellow countryfolk.
Nevertheless, there are universal truths which transcend international boundaries and borders, and they're growing in number with each passing year. It's why I do slightly disagree with you bringing in the Japanese censorship argument; I respect that there are indeed cultural differences and tolerances in play, and we can understand the causes as maturely and as dispassionately as we want to. On that, I completely support you. I'm not here calling for charges to be brought against anime artists, nor am I wanting to demonise Japanese culture in any way, but I do believe that there are some universal red lines, which is why I support Sony's decision to censor content outside of its original culture (and therefore its original context).
I think you're right. I think, for now, using allegory and metaphor is safer. Detroit came as close as possible to waiving a flag without actually waiving one, walking a fine-but-smart line which led many to call it "preachy" because they couldn't separate themselves from the pervasive nature of modern politics, yet simply providing a good sci-fi story to others who didn't wanna bring any extra meaning to the table. As a Trekkie, I love this approach because I can watch any given episode and think about its real-world message, yet watch it again and just go "Ooh, spaceships!" whenever I wanna switch my brain off. Alas, it's becoming clear that subtlety isn't working fast enough for some, which is why we get actors standing up at awards ceremonies, ranting about politics. I'm with you there.
You're not pretentious, nor are you pompous. You're thinking about, and discussing, something which is informing many people's outlooks without them even realising it. It's important to do so. It's healthy to stick your head above the parapet every now and again, to look around and take stock of a broader picture, to ask questions of those who are capable of answering (rather than those who always have an answer for everything). It's also cool, and worthy of respect, to occasionally stand up and say "this is what I believe" regardless of how you think it'll go down with others (unlike me, who'll always be the "I can see both sides, and agree with everybody" milquetoast diplomat... like I said, anything for an easy life).
Anyway, if you ever wanna discuss such things further (or just chill with a not-so-foreign foreigner) then I'd be happy to take this to PSN, to avoid derailing any other topics. No worries if not, though; in light of all this, I can respect the importance of letting things just be what they are and so, if gaming is your escape, keep your console safe from all these socio-political musings.
Especially since it was my disclaimer which sparked all of this (...yeah, sorry about that)!
"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."
But really what I meant by games and developers “staying in their lane” is to stay in the area of their expertise. In other words, not be utilized as a platform of education or idea dissemination that is better handled by another medium or expert. The same applies to advertising in games, promotion of gambling in games, and other influences. It’s a fine line to draw, I realize, but there is a certain social responsibility that a game publisher has to take, whether they like it or not, if they want to have their product in the hands of millions of players.
1) I don't know that I agree with you about video games not being a proper medium for "idea dissemination" or "education." Especially the latter. While it might be limited to children, there's a long and fruitful history of educational video games. But, anyway: fictional media reflects our values and concerns about the world, so it doesn't really make sense to erect this artificial wall between ideas and our cultural output. Even pure popcorn entertainment reflects certain unspoken assumptions about reality. But, judging by a comment later in your post, I think we do probably see eye-to-eye on this.
2) Not a fan of the term "social responsibility" myself, as I find it's used as weasel language to try and pressure companies and other entities into supporting causes that they had no intention of supporting in the first place. Which is why American companies need strong regulations to keep them in line, as opposed to public pressure campaigns. The only "social responsibility" a company has is to its stockholders. They're machines designed to generate profit, not friends to be reasoned with.
3) I don't think we really disagree much at the base of things. When you talk about fiction telling you what to think and who to vote for, you're talking about propaganda, and I also get quite annoyed when monied cultural elites try to sneak lectures and finger-waving into my entertainment.
I liken it to the ridiculous trend of professional athletes endorsing products and famous actors making political statements. Suddenly they are considered experts by the masses just because they can dunk a basketball? When choosing which shampoo to buy, should I listen to the pitch of an NFL player or a dermatologist? Some of this I write off as just advertising getting eyes on their product and they know any consumer with half a brain will know that Aaron Rodgers has no right to truly be giving them advice on what car insurance to buy. But viewers will find it fun to see him on the ad and it will stick with people when they are trying to choose a product.
That tendency occurs with some regularity in our society because, in a late stage capitalist society, everything is a commodity. Advertising reflects that.
Capitalism is a fine system of economic growth, but when you start worshiping it like a God, like a lot of so-called American 'conservatives' do, then it rots away at the moral integrity of your society.
It's a similar concept to the idea of constructive criticism, something I'm always open to (in other words, you've got a free pass to tell me to shut up).
Someone telling you to "shut up" isn't... constructive, though. Or criticism. It's just mean.
Does this give me a right to pass judgement on American culture? Absolutely not. My image of your country is limited to this sanitised entertainment output, crafted by a hundred people at most (as well as, in my twenties, a handful of business trips and a contentious encounter with one particularly bone-headed member of a past government, who shall remain nameless). I can speak about how America sells itself abroad, and therefore about how certain people want America to be seen, but were I to include an American character in a future novel, for example, then I'd want to gather much more information before I'd ever try to pass them off as a "realistic representation" of your fellow countryfolk.
Our culture has stretched its tentacles into every corner of the globe. Our messes become your messes. I'd say you have every right in the world to stand in judgment of us.
Besides, if we're going down this rabbit hole of who is and isn't allowed to have an opinion on something, I would wager that most Americans are really no more informed about most of the issues confronting our culture than you are. They go about their little lives, meeting with friends, going to work, etc. and then come home to consume the same "sanitized cultural output" that you do. Why do they get to have an opinion? Because of the accident of where they happened to be born?
Nevertheless, there are universal truths which transcend international boundaries and borders, and they're growing in number with each passing year. It's why I do slightly disagree with you bringing in the Japanese censorship argument; I respect that there are indeed cultural differences and tolerances in play, and we can understand the causes as maturely and as dispassionately as we want to. On that, I completely support you. I'm not here calling for charges to be brought against anime artists, nor am I wanting to demonise Japanese culture in any way, but I do believe that there are some universal red lines, which is why I support Sony's decision to censor content outside of its original culture (and therefore its original context).
Having followed that debacle for a while, I see hypocritical cultural imperialism from the 'woke' San Francisco-ites who have infiltrated the company. They'll happily profit from the violent misogyny in something like GTA V while simultaneously stabbing small Japanese developers in the back over games featuring light sexualized elements.
The insane levels of violence we're exposed to almost every day in American media used to be a so-called "red line" too, until creators pushed back against the content policing and minds changed. Universal standards mostly don't exist. But we get groups of people with agendas who want to foist their moral viewpoints and value systems on everyone else and do so by claiming that their standards are "universal." THOSE are the people Sony is catering to.
If the executives at Sony were decent about it, they'd set non-arbitrary guidelines about content in their games and not put Japanese developers through the indignity of having Americans stand in judgment of their cultural output. Instead, small Japanese devs have no idea what Sony will or won't have issues with and has apparently been forcing them to work with American censors in English (a language they mostly don't speak) at ungodly hours of the night (because that's convenient for the gaijin who they're talking to).
edit: This process might have changed, but this is what some Japanese developers were dealing with when the policies first changed.
Forums
Topic: The Chit Chat Thread
Posts 3,621 to 3,640 of 10,089
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic