Support NeoGAF

[Atomski]

Videogames are made by such large groups of people these days that you are bound to have a problem with almost every game due to someone's politics.

Thing is it's just not brought to your attention..

 

[Azzanadra]

If Infinite had a more nuanced depiction of the vox populi I could understand but all of them turning into crazed murderers dressed in devil costumes was real stupid.

Even though I understand Levine's premise, we can all agree Infinite was a mess. The ideas were great. The execution? Eh... I kinda wish they kept the original Fitzroy plot instead of that retcon in Burial at Sea. I liked her leading the proletariat revolution against the capitalist Jeremiah Fink, only to be consumed by that same hatred- kind of like Stalin.

 

[pants]

Phil Fish won't see my money.

Same. Phil Fish is really the only guy in the industry I wont give money to.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I won't buy any Stardock games because their CEO is a gamergater. Wouldn't say their politics ruined the games exactly, just that I can't support them. Not a big deal though, there's too many games to feel like it were a loss.

 

[Eusis]

This is impossible. Art is innately political.

This is something I wanted to say. EVERYTHING can be construed as such, the issues would be if a work is obnoxiously heavy handed about it (even works with statements you agree with can be this) or handles it poorly. You could very easily say there are political messages in FFVI and many other RPGs via overthrowing tyrannical governments and (especially in VII) how their efforts are killing the world.

And thinking about it I guess the line for me is when 1) they are actively contributing to a negative cause I don't agree with or hate and 2) if they're THE central creative force or close enough. Sugiyama also donating to these causes is disappointing but he's not Yuji Hori either, and I haven't been the most examples with DQ's music as characteristic as it is for the series. Armikrog is seemingly primarily Doug TenNapel though and so I really couldn't stomach that.

 

[Cocaloch]

I've read Malthus and understand some of his ideas are reasonable. I don't think any video game can compare to him, nor could any compare to what his works eventually wrought on the Irish people.

The question of supporting a living author is different, and I don't think it usually applies to most video games due to the size of development teams.

Or any actual slave rebellions that took place in North america. You don't have to look outside of the Americas to see slave revolutions with massacres and rape of the former oppressors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

During February and March, Dessalines traveled among the cities of Haiti to assure himself that his orders were carried out. Despite his orders, the massacres were often not carried out until he actually visited the cities himself.[14]

The course of the massacre showed an almost identical pattern in every city he visited. Before his arrival, there were only a few killings, despite his orders.[20] When Dessalines arrived, he first spoke about the atrocities committed by former white authorities, such as Rochambeau and Leclerc, after which he demanded that his orders about mass killings of the area's white population should be put in effect. Reportedly, he ordered also the unwilling to take part in the killings, especially men of mixed race, so that the blame should not be placed solely on the black population.[21][22] Mass killings then took place on the streets and on places outside the cities. In parallel to the killings, plundering and rape also occurred.[22]

Women and children were generally killed last. White women were "often raped or pushed into forced marriages under threat of death".[22]

Dessalines did not specifically mention that the white women should be killed, and the soldiers were reportedly somewhat hesitant to do so. In the end, however, they were also put to death, though normally at a later stage of the massacre than the adult males.[20] The argument for killing the women was that whites would not truly be eradicated if the white women were spared to give birth to new Frenchmen.[23]

Before his departure from a city, Dessalines would proclaim an amnesty for all the whites who had survived in hiding during the massacre. When these people left their hiding place, however, they were killed as well.[22] Many whites were, however, hidden and smuggled out by sea by foreigners.[22]

In Port-au-Prince, only a few killings had occurred in the city despite the orders, but on the arrival of Dessalines on 18 March, the killings escalated. According to a British captain, about 800 people were killed in the city, while about 50 survived.[22] On 18 April 1804, Dessalines arrived at Cap-Haïtien. Only a handful of killings had taken place there before his arrival, but the killings escalated to a massacre on the streets and outside the city after his arrival.[22]

As elsewhere, the majority of the women were initially not killed. Dessalines's advisers, however, pointed out that the white Haitians would not disappear if the women were left to give birth to white men, and after this, Dessalines gave order that the women should be killed as well, with the exception of those who agreed to marry non-white men.[20] Contemporary sources claim that 3,000 people were killed in Cap-Haïtien, but this is considered unrealistic, as only 1,700 white people remained in the city after the French evacuated.[22][original research?]

One of the most notorious of the massacre participants was Jean Zombi, a mulatto resident of Port-au-Prince who was known for his brutality. One account describes how Zombi stopped a white man on the street, stripped him naked, and took him to the stair of the Presidential Palace, where he killed him with a dagger. Dessalines was reportedly among the spectators; he was said to be "horrified" by the episode.[24] In Haitian Vodou tradition, the figure of Jean Zombi has become a prototype for the zombie.[25]

It also reminds of of the racial undercurrent of 'Zombies'.

is it ever implied that these people are slaves? I also took it to be a Marxist uprising. It reminded me of the Red Guards who weren't exactly great people.

 

[Bastables]

I've read Malthus and understand some of his ideas are reasonable. I don't think any video game can compare to him, nor could any compare to what his works eventually wrought on the Irish people.

The question of supporting a living author is different and I don't think it usually applies to most video games due to the size of development teams.



is it ever implied that these people are slaves? I also took it to be a Marxist uprising. It reminded me of the Red Guards who weren't exactly great people.

Fink in a voxiphone points out that he shipped black convicts from georgia to perform menial labour, Daisy is assigned as a house keeper/maid to Lady Comstock from one of these shipments.

I told you, Comstock -- you sell 'em paradise, and the customers expect cherubs for every chore! No menials in God's kingdom! Well, I've a man in Georgia who'll lease us as many Negro convicts as you can board! Why, you can say they're simple souls, in penance for rising above their station. Whatever eases your conscience, I suppose.

That the Raven secret society idolises J W Booth for killing the great emancipator, should clue you in. Never mind the Emancipator (Lincoln) "Patriot" robots the Vox use once they have the ability to fabricate them in order to symbolically have the Anti slavery President Lincoln fight the slave owning Washington Robots.

 

[Greddleok]

Same. Phil Fish is really the only guy in the industry I wont give money to.

Seems so crazy to me. Fish is kind of an asshole, sure, but when there are devs out there with racist and homophobic views, it seems like you're saying:

"It's ok to be a bigot, but not ok to be a mean person."

For the record, I thought FEZ sucked.

 

[gogojira]

I would have had a heard time playing Project Copernicus despite how much I was looking forward to it because Curt Schilling is such a massive fucking dirtbag. Not surprising he ran the company into the ground before that happened.

I do enjoy KOA but even his loose affiliation with the product takes something away from it for me.

 

[Z..]

Seems so crazy to me. Fish is kind of an asshole, sure, but when there are devs out there with racist and homophobic views, it seems like you're saying:

"It's ok to be a bigot, but not ok to be a mean person."

For the record, I thought FEZ sucked.

Completely agree.

Except on FEZ sucking, game was sweet. ^^

 

[Cocaloch]

Fink in a voxiphone points out that he shipped black convicts from georgia to perform menial labour, Daisy is assigned as a house keeper/maid to Lady Comstock from one of these shipments.

But that really doesn't make them slaves, unless you want to call massive amounts of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch, and French poor that were forcibly moved between the 17th and 19th century slaves. Slavery has a pretty specific meaning, and I think it's a disservice to suggest forced population movement is the same thing as slavery.

That the Raven secret society idolises J W Booth for killing the great emancipator, should clue you in. Never mind the Emancipator (Lincoln) "Patriot" robots the Vox use once they have the ability to fabricate them in order to symbolically have the Anti slavery President Lincoln fight the slave owning Washington Robots.

I mean they are racist. Racists today probably like Booth. That doesn't mean we still have slaves.

If they were meant to be slaves then I'd say the bigger issue with Levine is not coming out and directly saying it. There are times when nuance and implication are useful in art. Talking about slavery in America is one of those times. It really needs to be fairly direct.

If he wasn't getting at slavery but making a point about revolutions then I think it is perfectly fine. It was hamfisted sure, but it wan't inappropriate. As a society we tend to have a positive outlook on Revolutions, despite the fact that Revolutionary regimes have often committed atrocities equal to and in some cases even exceeding those they replaced. Look at Cromwell. Look at any number of people that have used revolutions to access power. Look at people like Robespierre that were truly committed to revolution for the better but committed atrocities anyway.

 

[Eusis]

Seems so crazy to me. Fish is kind of an asshole, sure, but when there are devs out there with racist and homophobic views, it seems like you're saying:

"It's ok to be a bigot, but not ok to be a mean person."

For the record, I thought FEZ sucked.

Being an asshole can put a bad taste in your mouth but... yeah, it really is not on the same level as homophobic shit or wanting to pretend war crimes never happened.

 

[Bastables]

But that really doesn't make them slaves, unless you want to call massive amounts of English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, German, Dutch, and French poor that were forcibly moved between the 17th and 19th century slaves. Slavery has a pretty specific meaning, and I think it's a disservice to suggest forced population movement is the same thing as slavery.



I mean they are racist. Racists today probably like Booth. That doesn't mean we still have slaves.

If they were meant to be slaves then I'd say the bigger issue with Levine is not coming out and directly saying it. There are times when nuance and implication are useful in art. Talking about slavery in America is one of those times. It really needs to be fairly direct.

Dude, fink literally said he payed a third party for use of people/negros, he then told comstock "you can call them whatever you like."

He does not pay or offer the negros a contract, he pays a person for the use of people. They are a commodity sold into bondage, they are slaves.

Is it different to captured populations of Rome, is it different to Viking/German Thralls, is it different to ghulums/mamluke's sold as children trained as soldiers and given manumission, is it different to devershim taxes that resulted in Yencari of the ottoman turks, is it different to the very peculiar racist importation of africans committed by British, Spanish, French. Is it different to the slow evolution of the US brutal system of being born and dieing a slave? Sure but there are many types of slavery, just as there are many species of ducks, they're still slaves and they're still ducks.

 

[Cocaloch]

Dude, fink literally say's he payed a third party for use of people/negros, he then tells comstock you can call them whatever you like.

He does not pay or offer the negros a contract, he pays a person for the use of people. They are a commodity sold into bondage, they are slaves.

I don't recall that. That might indeed be slavery, though contractual trading of labour was very common from the early modern period through the 19th century in at least the UK and France.

Either way that should have been your evidence for slavery, not population movement.

Again though I stand by my point that if he meant for them to be a stand in for slavery then he needed to be more direct. One simply cannot be coy when talking about American Slavery. It becomes extra complicated because the whole issue would be a mixed metaphor. Columbia is clearly supposed to be a 1880-1910's America, and Fink is clearly supposed to be a Capitalist. That doesn't fit well with slavery.

 

[Alo0oy]

here's hoping link is gay in the next zelda game

Well, it is developed by Nintendo, a deeply conservative company.

But I still hope it happens, the meltdown from KiA would be glorious.

 

[redcrayon]

Just wondering how people feel about HP Lovecraft?

He's long dead, and his legacy is one of thousands of books, films and games based on a Mythos vastly expanded upon by others even within his lifetime. Lovecraft was a racist, but the core part of his work that endures, the vision of a fantastical, hostile, uncaring universe of sanity-blasting horror that we are better off ignorant of, has captured the imagination of people far more than his poor characterisation and bigoted views did. I don't think it's a bad thing if something that inspires so many creative works made in good faith and for the entertainment of all is the thing that becomes a person's legacy, and their ignorance is what dies with them. It just shows what truly has worth, and I t's not like Lovecraft benefitted from the modern popularity of Cthulhu and co. The appeal and influence of the horrific nature of his universe has inspired so many great horror writers and directors, and it isn't the racism in his descriptions of people that gets carried forward by these other creatives. That's the thing they leave behind.

 

[Bastables]

I don't recall that. That might indeed be slavery, though contractual trading of labour was very common from the early modern period through the 19th century in at least the UK and France.

Either way that should have been your evidence for slavery, not population movement.

Again though I stand by my point that if he meant for them to be a stand in for slavery then he needed to be more direct. One simply cannot be coy when talking about American Slavery. It becomes extra complicated because the whole issue would be a mixed metaphor. Columbia is clearly supposed to be a 1880-1910's America, and Fink is clearly supposed to be a Capitalist. That doesn't fit well with slavery.

Convicts have the right to population movement..... they're contractual labour now?

Slavery in the US south was about capitalism, human capital a store of wealth and an enabler of tobacco and cotton production to sell, for monies to buy plantations/land/capital. The only difference in Fink's case is he has industry/capitalism verses agrarian/capitalism.

 

[Cocaloch]

Slavery in the american south was about capitalism, human capital a store of wealth and an enabler of tobacco and cotton production to sell, for monies to buy plantations/land/capital.

This is an extremely contentious claim at best, and while outside of my period and focus, I am fairly sure that slavery is generally seen as a pre-capitalistic phenomenon that coexisted with capitalistic developments. A major historiographical position on the American civil war was that it was a class conflict between a capitalistic mode of production, the industrial North, and a traditional mode of production, the quasi-aristocratic south.

The most generous claim I tend to see is that it is some sort of archaic-capitalism created by the same forces that made actual capitalism.

Storing of wealth seems like a weak definition of capitalism because all developed human societies have means of wealth storage.

One needs to be able to sell their labour for a system to be truly capitalistic by at least the Marxist idea of Capitalism.

The plantation system wasn't agrarian capitalism by the common historical understanding of the term. I mean a major aspect of agrarian capitalism is the shift to the land being worked by almost exclusively by wage labour that had no direct ownership of the land itself.

Convicts have the right to population movement..... they're contractual labour now?

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here since we were talking about forced population movement. I assume you mean that since convicts can be moved (I'm not sure why you're talking about rights here maybe I am completely misunderstanding this sentence), that they aren't contractual labour? I mean they aren't necessarily contractual labour but in some situations they were? I'm having a hard time parsing what you mean here.

 

[Bastables]

This is an extremely contentious claim at best, and while outside of my period and focus, I am fairly sure that slavery is generally seen as a pre-capitalistic phenomenon that coexisted with capitalistic developments. A major historiographical position on the American civil war was that it was a class conflict between a capitalistic mode of production, the industrial North, and a traditional mode of production, the quasi-aristocratic south.

At best it is seen as some sort of archaic-capitalism created by the same forces that made actual capitalism.

Storing of wealth seems like a weak definition of capitalism because all developed human societies have means of wealth storage.

One needs to be able to sell their labour for a system to be truly capitalistic by at least the Marxist idea of Capitalism.

The plantation system wasn't agrarian capitalism by the common historical understanding of the term. I mean a major aspect of agrarian capitalism is the shift to the land being worked by almost exclusively by wage labour that had no direct ownership of the land itself.

No the thing about slavery as the US and several Colonial powers used it was that Slaves are capital, labour whether free or in bondage receive a flow of income. Piketty and others have covered this. https://pseudoerasmus.com/2014/10/01/piketty-slave-wealth/

Yeah wealth stored is capital, the means of production. My house is capital I can leverage it for monies to start a business, buy a car, invest in stocks.


We're not talking about forced population movement, you were talking about forced population movement as a slight of hand/misunderstanding to deny within game fink actually buys people/convicts for labour.

Slavey in cotton production does not exist out side of the capitalist system it's producing for. The slave holding south does not exist outside of the capitalist market just because of narrow definitions "farm hands are waged" =capitalism.

 

[Neoleo2143]

If Infinite had a more nuanced depiction of the vox populi I could understand but all of them turning into crazed murderers dressed in devil costumes was real stupid.

The only thing infinite had to explain to justify the Vox Populi is why the uprising happened on a societal level, simply stating that comstock and the Vox are the same is incredibly reductive of the issue, yet we cannot ignore that the Vox are now acting as horrible people. Unfortunately that would mean infinite would have to be more focused on the setting of Columbia in its narrative, which it wasn't.

Go play Liberal Crime Squad if you want a real examination of what infinite should have done.

 

[Spman2099]

Being a talented artist able to produce excellent work does not mean you are an excellent human being in all other aspects. You have to learn to separate the artist as a person from his art.

You don't have to, but it will allow you enjoy more great art if you do.

I really struggle with watching Woody Allen's stuff, despite thinking he is a talented director. I have never been able to bring myself to watch any Polanski films, even though there is a part of me that is deeply curious.

For me there are just some things that taint an artists work indefinitely. I don't begrudge others who aren't bothered by it, but it is nearly impossible for me to escape my feelings on the matter.

 

[Cocaloch]

No the thing about slavery as the US and several Colonial powers used it was that Slaves are capital, labour whether free or in bondage receive a flow of income.

The Romans used slaves as stores of wealth which guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism?

Irish Ri Tuatha were guaranteed support by their Tuatha, that guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism?

Feudal Lords expected labour from their serfs which guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism?

This definition is too vague. I could conceive of a definition of Capitalism that includes the slave system of the American south. Your's is not it, it's analytically vapid.

Yeah wealth stored is capital, the means of production. My house is capital I can leverage it for monies to start a business, buy a car, invest in stocks.

And the existence of capital is not capitalism.

We're not talking about forced population movement, you were talking about forced population movement as a slight of hand/misunderstanding to deny within game fink actually buys people/convicts for labour.

No your first piece of evidence was the forced population movement. That was on you. I'm willing to believe that maybe they were envisioned as slaves, but your first piece of evidence wasn't particularly useful. The second one was more relevant though I give you that. It might be right. I have little interest in whether or not they were slaves. If they were supposed to be slaves I'd retroactively like the game less because it would have been handled poorly but that is hardly a huge deal to me. I'm not attempting some slight of hand, you're just saying that because I disagree with you and you're taking a cheap shot at me. I could be convinced, and actually you've done some convincing, that they were indeed slaves.

Slavey in cotton production does not exist out side of the capitalist system it's producing for.

I don't buy the Wallersteinian approach, and this is not the place to air my thoughts on it. I do give you it is an acceptable paradigm.

The slave holding south does not exist outside of the capitalist market just because of narrow definitions "farm hands are waged" =capitalism.

I mean everything is historically contextual yes. That doesn't mean that thing A is part of thing B.

For example I don't believe you get the Glorious Revolution without the English Civil War, which in turn you do not get without the Bishops' Wars. The Bishops' Wars are in great part the result of the Rough Wooing. Claiming the Glorious Revolution is somehow a part of the Rough Wooing is patently ridiculous.

 

[spekkeh]

Thinking about it some more, I definitely stopped giving money to CoD and the like because of the creator's apparent political thoughts. If you think something as vile as No Russian is warranted you're already in my dubious book, but when I heard they most likely got funded by the weapons industry so they could advertise weapons to kids, I stopped buying military shooters altogether.

Now that they're going into SciFi with Infinite Warfare, is the first time the series become interesting to me again, because there are no nebulous ties to existing weapons anymore.

I have similar misgivings about F2P games and Apple in general. People who are fine with making children addicted to gambling in order to give them money should be thrown in jail.

 

[Bastables]

The Romans used slaves as stores of wealth which guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism?

Irish [/I]Ri Tuatha[/I] were guaranteed support by their Tuatha, that guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism?

Feudal Lords expected labour from their serfs which guaranteed a flow of income. Is this Capitalism.

This definition is too vague. I could conceive of a definition of Capitalism that includes the slave system of the American south. Your's is not it, it's analytically vapid.

Yeah sure you're so much smarter than me you missed the fact in game Fink points out he's engaged in slavery.
Because that's all you've been trying to intimate after not paying attention to the source material, and that I'm dim relative to you.

Good luck with that, you're a real towering intellect.

 

[Cocaloch]

Yeah sure you're so much smarter than me you missed the fact in game Fink points out he's engaged in slavery.

I'm willing to accept that he might be, I haven't played the game since it came out. It's not exactly fresh in my mind, and it's why I was willing to take into consideration your second piece of evidence. I'm not claiming I'm smarter than you. A critique of your argument isn't a critique of you as a person. I have no idea about who you are.

Because that's all you've been trying to intimate after not paying attention to the source material, and that I'm dim relative to you.

I've only responded directly to your claims. You made claims outside of the one about Fink owning slaves. Some of these were based on poor argumentation. I made a counter argument. No need to be sullen about it. That doesn't mean you are stupid, and I never said or implied that you weren't smart.

This might come across as rude, but I think it's really beneficial for pretty much everyone to hear in general. You need to be able to distance your claims and arguments from yourself as a person. Attacking an argument or a claim isn't attacking a person. I have lots of great friends with whom I disagree on many topics. Sometimes I think they have bad argumentation or faulty evidence. Sometimes I concede that they just have a different outlook than me. No part of that is a judgement on their character.

Good luck with that, you're a real towering intellect.

I wasn't trying to say anything to this effect. I don't care if you think I'm smart, and I'm certainly not trying to prove to myself that I am by talking to people on NeoGaf.

 

[hobblygobbly]

This is not a single person per-se but I think there is some moral exploration to be done when playing games that license actual guns that can be used in their games, you're supporting gun manufacturers. Games that use their full names, accurate 3D models/textures etc need to be licensed.

While guns aren't a political issue in my country due to laws, we still have gun manufacturers here like Heckler & Koch that I don't want to support, and it is a political issue in countries like the U.S.

 

[Bronx-Man]

My problem with Bioshock Infinite isn't with how Fitzroy got played out; having a Che Guevara-type figure is pretty intriguing for the world of Columbia. It's how damn random the heel turn is, and the entire Vox Populi suddenly become your enemies and want to kill you.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's how damn random the heel turn is, and the entire Vox Populi suddenly become your enemies and want to kill you.

Yup. Outside of the Ghost Boss fight it is the most clumsily handled part of the game; it all just happened to quickly.

 

[Matt]

Thinking about it some more, I definitely stopped giving money to CoD and the like because of the creator's apparent political thoughts. If you think something as vile as No Russian is warranted you're already in my dubious book, but when I heard they most likely got funded by the weapons industry so they could advertise weapons to kids, I stopped buying military shooters altogether.

Umm...what?

 

[Earthpainting]

By the time The Last Guardian got its PS4 revival announced, I had already written the game of entirely. Not just because it took so long or the rumours of AI issues, but because Fumito Ueda made quite a few statements on gender that just put me off. Stuff like how exciting games need exciting music, which only a male composer can provide, or that female adventure games don't make sense since girls don't have grip strength and the ladder and skirt combination (since they naturally would have to wear a skirt or dress) would invite perverts to peep. Just a bunch of small stuff that makes me roll my eyes, but when you then put all of that next to his existing female characters, you can kind of see similar views in his games. His games have strong elements of objectifying women in the most literal sense of the word. Mono was an ornament we know nothing about, and her only development we got was that she was forced into the role of mother. Yorda cannot be communicated with, and so you quite literally drag her along as a glorified key whether she wants it or not. The only female character he's made with agency is a villainous witch.

So yeah, I don't mind passing up on his work, or seeing his team getting swallowed up by Japan Studio again. Shame things turned out this way, since The Last Guardian was my most anticipated game for half a decade. You got to vote with your wallet in this industry though. I have no interest in supporting that world view.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

My problem with Bioshock Infinite isn't with how Fitzroy got played out; having a Che Guevara-type figure is pretty intriguing for the world of Columbia. It's how damn random the heel turn is, and the entire Vox Populi suddenly become your enemies and want to kill you.

Agreed. I don't think the concept of the character of Fitzroy is inherently terrible, but it feels like she changes purely because they needed to quickly make a point rather than any kind of tragic fall from grace. It gets extra muddled when we're supposed to think Daisy and her crew have gone too far, yet by this point in the game Booker and Elizabeth have shot their way through like a million dudes. and squeezed their heads until they exploded. and set them on fire. and

There's nothing wrong with the tragic "good idea but bad methods/oppressed figure pushed too far" character, it's just supremely bungled in Infinite in this case. I dunno if that's really to do with Levine's political beliefs, I think it's more just a wonky marriage of political beliefs poorly manifested in writing and game mechanics that don't really fit the message.

 

[spekkeh]

Umm...what?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

 

[rainking187]

It's been a while since I played it, but isn't the reason for the sudden heel turn because

Spoiler

you travel to a reality where Booker has died fighting for the Vox Populi and they think you're an imposter?

 

[Matt]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-01-shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers

You are reading that backwards. Gun manufacturers don't pay for games to be made with their guns, game developers have to pay gun manufacturers for the right to use the names of their products.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Creator opinions haven't influenced my purchasing habits. It isn't something that has come up much though for me. I love DQ and honestly I'm not concerned at all with the OP. The opinion is crazy but it doesn't color the art and it isn't really damaging. The evidence of what happened is pretty conclusive and the government has acknowledged it.

As to actually supporting harmful institutions, it is an interesting dilemma. If profits from my absolute favorite artist, whose actual art was flawless in my mind, were going to a harmful institution, like actual lobbying for harmful policies... I suppose I would still consume the art. Ignoring great art doesn't fix the world. Maybe I would feel responsible to do something to politically counteract whatever it was though.

 

[spekkeh]

You are reading that backwards. Gun manufacturers don't pay for games to be made with their guns, game developers have to pay gun manufacturers for the right to use the names of their products.

I think it was heavily implied that a number of gun manufacturers at least waived the licensing fees because they see it as advertisements, which is a way of paying.

And at one point EA actually sold licensed weapons. In the article they mentioned

Every one of those partners, none of them paid a dime for product placement - all the money generated went to Project Honor."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-16-ea-pulls-medal-of-honor-tomahawk
indicating that normally, product placement would be paid for.

 

[Matt]

I think it was heavily implied that a number of gun manufacturers waived the licensing fees because they see it as advertisements, which is a way of paying.

And at one point EA actually sold licensed weapons
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-16-ea-pulls-medal-of-honor-tomahawk

Money, in one way or another, always flows from the game makers to the gun manufacturers. In no way do gun companies pay for game development, or pay for game promotion. That is a completely baseless accusation.

Frankly, games like COD and Battlefield don't need that kind of help.

 

[Matt]

And at one point EA actually sold licensed weapons. In the article they mentioned

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-16-ea-pulls-medal-of-honor-tomahawk
indicating that normally, product placement would be paid for.

This is a case where there companies were licensing MoH to be used on the branding of their weapons, which is an entierly different case than normal.

And the money was going to charity, and the entire thing was canceled. So it's a very unique situation, and has nothing to do with what you suggested.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Essentially, it sounds like Levine is saying that the moral of BioShock Infinite is that oppression breeds oppression. But some questionable connections pop up once you think about the real world. Is he saying that in contemporary society, Jews (and in the case of Infinite, African-Americans) have taken on roles as oppressors?

In the case of the former, could he be referring to the Israel-Palestine conflict? I'd say there was an argument to be made there.

 

[spekkeh]

Money, in one way or another, always flows from the game makers to the gun manufacturers. In no way do gun companies pay for game development, or pay for game promotion. That is a completely baseless accusation.

Frankly, games like COD and Battlefield don't need that kind of help.

Yes it's so baseless that no publisher feels the need to openly talk about it, though Activision does feel the need to give 'special thanks' to Colt, Remington and Barrett in the credits. The only thing we did hear about it is EA outright denying sending cash to weapons manufacturers. So it's as baseless as an assumption as yours. Which is to say, probably true.

 

[Lutherian]

Crimson Shroud.

Making objects you need to progress in the story, a low% chance of dropping and only when you kill a specific bunch of ennemies in the right order.

And it was all by design, not a mistake. Ruined the game for me.

Also, a graphical novel where you can have gay romances, and right after the prologue, the game teaches you that you shouldn't involve a lot with the characters, as none will have a happy ending. Thanks for ruining it right after the prologue !

 

[Matt]

Yes it's so baseless that no publisher feels the need to openly talk about it, though Activision does feel the need to give 'special thanks' to Colt, Remington and Barrett in the credits. The only thing we did hear about it is EA outright denying sending cash to weapons manufacturers. So it's as baseless as an assumption as yours. Which is to say, probably true.

Generally those making an accusation are expected to back up their assertions with evidence, which you have not. You have attempted to, but those articles you linked to in fact say the opposite of what you are suggesting.

You are free to continue thinking that gun manufacturers pay for the development of Call of Duty games, but that belief is based on nothing but your own imagination.

That's not to defend gun manufacturers, or even defend the glorification of gun culture that may exist in those games. I happen to often find it distasteful as well. But we should keep our criticism based on reality, not fantasy.

 

[EmpressInYellow]

My problem with Bioshock Infinite isn't with how Fitzroy got played out; having a Che Guevara-type figure is pretty intriguing for the world of Columbia. It's how damn random the heel turn is, and the entire Vox Populi suddenly become your enemies and want to kill you.

Yep. There's a way that idea could've been done well, maybe, but it would've required a lot more build up and gradual change to actually sell it - not just "they're oppressed, and NOW THEY'RE OPPRESSORS! See?"

 

[Dr Zhivago]

It's been a while since I played it, but isn't the reason for the sudden heel turn because

Spoiler

you travel to a reality where Booker has died fighting for the Vox Populi and they think you're an imposter?

That's what I thought - they don't suddenly change, you shift to a universe where they were always like that.

 

[Intheflorsh]

The Rolling Stones reporter who interviewed Ken Levine summed up that twist perfectly:

[You] created a game in which Donald Trump founded a xenophobic colony in the sky, only to learn that the Mexicans really are rapists.

I get where he's coming from with the "oppression breeds oppression" angle, but the game did not do the work to get from A to B.

 

[Rich!]

None for me.

I don't give a fuck. I play games for enjoyment, and then I live the rest of my life without care or worry.

Why on earth should I care or give a shit about what some developer may think or believe? Why the fuck would they, or anyone else, even bother listening to me if I did? What would I gain out of it other than a pointless sense of self-importance and a smug feeling of "well that sure showed them!"?

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

In games, the licensing of firearms is the only thing that's given me real pause for thought, as it represents a wider issue, rather than what I might consider a solitary individual's abhorrent views / behaviour. It makes me uneasy.

Generally I'm fine disassociating the art from the artist - like with Polanski - but the exceptions tend to be where what's presented has echoes of the reason I might dislike the person, such as On The Waterfront. I'll still watch it every time it's on TV though.

 

[Metrotab]

I never let artists' politics interfere with my potential enjoyment of art.

 

[spekkeh]

Generally those making an accusation are expected to back up their assertions with evidence, which you have not. You have attempted to, but those articles you linked to in fact say the opposite of what you are suggesting.

You are free to continue thinking that gun manufacturers pay for the development of Call of Duty games, but that belief is based on nothing but your own imagination.

That's not to defend gun manufacturers, or even defend the glorification of gun culture that may exist in those games. I happen to often find it distasteful as well. But we should keep our criticism based on reality, not fantasy.

You're doing the same thing. You're right, we have a smoking gun but no corpse. Just a bunch of people whistling and saying their contracts bar them from speaking about a corpse. The only thing we know is that there are license agreements, between Barrett and ActiB at least, and that EA was cosy enough to advertise manufacturers on their website. Your categorical statement that the money only flows in one direction is as much based on imagination as saying it is a two way street. Unless you were privy to these deals of course. So either we keep it at their cozying up doesn't sit well with me, but I have no idea what has been decided, or we're free to 'use our imagination'.

Then let's examine why they would want the actual weapons inside their games, and not do a PP7 like in Goldeneye. For movies the deals are clear. It's cheaper to license existing guns than make a lot of fake ones. For games, the guns have to be modeled anyway so they might as well create fake ones. Yet, they purposely go into territories which make them eligible to pay licensing fees, and not use something generic like M21 Carbine. Why?

Authenticity you might say. Maybe gun culture in the US has advanced to the point where children would pick Battlefield over CoD because it has the real licensed names of machine guns, like FIFA and Gran Turismo. It could be, I'm not well versed on US culture in this regard. I hope it's not. And if it is, I'm still appalled by the politics, because then the developers make this gun culture stronger.

For me, the motive is stronger the other way around. Game developers don't really need the authenticity if it comes at extra cost, like you said yourself, they are already popular enough. But gun manufacturers do have incentive to get their guns into popular franchises. Product placement makes more sense than licensing when it comes to real world guns in games.

It makes a heck of a lot more sense for Activision to give special thanks to Barrett if money also flowed into the pockets of Activision. You don't see them extending special thanks to all the guys at Havok for licensing out their tech. They actually paid for that.

 

[Theecliff]

None for me.

I don't give a fuck. I play games for enjoyment, and then I live the rest of my life without care or worry.

Why on earth should I care or give a shit about what some developer may think or believe? Why the fuck would they, or anyone else, even bother listening to me if I did? What would I gain out of it other than a pointless sense of self-importance and a smug feeling of "well that sure showed them!"?

if it was discovered that a game developer despised you for your skin colour or sexuality i would think choosing not to support a person who actively hates you for who you are is pretty justifiable and not necessarily some act of 'smugness'.