Games ruined by creator's politics
- Thread starter FlyinJ
- Start date
charlequin
Banned
Yeah, there are actually a lot of nuances to this topic. A lot of people have made the point that most games are made by huge numbers of different people in collaboration so the culpability of one person is small, but what about situations where that one person is the CEO, like Stardock? How does being publicly political for an awful cause compare to personally being an asshole to individuals over a specifically political belief? I don't think anyone who boycotts or avoids certain works over this sort of thing can necessarily draw the line with crystal clarity.
Are you unable to acknowledge anything past a black and white view on the subject?
Since it's almost impossible to live a 0 impact life in a western developed country, you also draw the line somewhere, but i assume you just arbitrarily decide where "good enough" is, conveniently at your door step i suspect.
I care about where my money goes, just not to the same degree you do.
I hardly believe you're only consuming products that have no negative impact on others and dont involve in their production chain some asshole or another.
charlequin
Banned
Yes, mandatory mindless consumption without even consideration of any factors in the wider world is certainly something I primarily associate with mature, open-minded adults.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
He literally said he's ok with you boycotting it, but he enjoys the game and and paid money for it. He showed you respect, but you can't do the same.
Do you consider everybody who purchases Dragon Quest a personal enemy now? Or Square Enix in general since the success of their products go directly or indirectly to keep this man on salary? Does your hatred go so deep that products worked on by hundreds of different people(who all have their own particular political views/ideologies/religion/sexuality that you may or may not like) aren't respectable purchases because there was one guy who political views you don't like?
Do you see the world in color or is just black and white?
Psychoward
Banned
If a developer you liked came out and said that they hate you for your skin color or sexuality and it was revealed that they're donating to organizations that help oppress you would you still think it's immature and close-minded to not give them money for that?
And if you still are dying to play that video game then you can buy it used or pirate it so it doesn't support them.
Edit: there's a difference between not buying a game because of the many developers has a different stance on how taxes should be doled out and supporting a lead developer/majority of the developers who hate you as a human being.
Just curious: If a developer was making your dream game, like literally your most wanted game of all time, and the developer did something dumb, like supporting Gamergate in one singe instance, would you be selfish and still get the game or boycott the developer? (Or donate the equivalent amount of money for the game to an organization against bigotry?)
I'm considering my options wrt new Valve and Steam titles going forward, because I feel the hyper-capitalist politicization of the workspace has really damaged their reputation in my eyes (employee cliquism, translator mistreatment, and unresolved harassment being the worst examples).
Must be nice to live in such a world, lot of us don't have the luxury!
Must be nice to live in such a world, lot of us don't have the luxury!
Psychoward
Banned
I'd buy it used or pirate it.
I still get to play my dream game and the shitty developer doesn't get any profits off my purchase. Win/win.
Where did I say he was my enemy?
I said some people just don't care, they responded with "hey i don't care how they spend the money", I said at least you are honest about not caring.
They don't care, I do. I don't hate them for not caring.
I'd never boycott something because I thought the creator was a douche or a simpleton. I even do enjoy Dragon Quest games, though since I've become aware of Sugiyama's views (and some of Horii's disgustingness...seriously the dude is a piggo), I tend to think about it a little more and it has changed how I think about things.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Let's pretend for the sake of this hypothetical that this dream game is made by one person, instead of the reality of them being made by dozens/hundreds of people who may or may not also be Gamergaters/Trump Voters/hardcore Christians/some other political viewpoint you disagree with. And let's also pretend that paying for this product directly goes straight to this one person, not the company who provided the capital for this great game, or the retailers who shipped it to you, or the console manufacturers that you're playing this great game on, or the big tip the creator leaves at a resturant for an overworked waitress, or the many many many channels money travels to. Like lets pretend you bought it, and you got an email "mwahaha thanks for the money! Every single cent of this is going directly to funding that political ideology you don't like
"then I'd probably buy it used.
I'd buy it day 1. The payment is for the product, not for whatever a single developer intends to do with their money. There is no shame here, otherwise who could live with themselves shopping at Walmart every week?
What i am contesting is the notion of caring and not caring in a binary fashion.
Even in this very thread you can see people who'd buy a game from a generic asshole on twitter but would draw the line at more serious offences, for example.
Also the idea that what i am paying for is the product, made by several people, not rewarding the singular person for who they are as human beings.
I dont think it's that simple of a decision.
When are you living that marxism is the zeitgeist? The left's dead baby, the left's dead.
Lot of black and white views of the world here. As if these people with a political view you oppose are one dimensional villains who kick puppies and burn down orphanages in their spare time.
Maybe your money goes to a hateful cause, yes. Maybe not. Maybe they will donate it to charity. Maybe it will save a sick child. Unless you know the exact details of the spending of every single person involved in the making of a game it seems like a futile cause to me.
Maybe your money goes to a hateful cause, yes. Maybe not. Maybe they will donate it to charity. Maybe it will save a sick child. Unless you know the exact details of the spending of every single person involved in the making of a game it seems like a futile cause to me.
charlequin
Banned
ViewtifulJC
Banned
what if there's a secret cabal in Square who hates composer man's views and donate an equal amount of money to organizations that are anti-war crime denial
does that cancel out your crisis of faith
does that cancel out your crisis of faith
What's the issue with Horii? Google is failing me.
Poetic.Injustice
Member
It's time for those outside the US to stop buying games from American companies.
American developers may be all good and dandy but their taxpayers' money directly helps fund the American military industrial complex, helping fuel conflicts across the globe resulting in thousands of death including drone strikes resulting in the death of children.
American developers may be all good and dandy but their taxpayers' money directly helps fund the American military industrial complex, helping fuel conflicts across the globe resulting in thousands of death including drone strikes resulting in the death of children.
NinjaCoachZ
Member
EDIT: My brain failed. I got Sugiyama and Horii mixed up. I'm curious too, and kinda worried.
He's just a gross old man. The "puff puff room" stuff...
Ninja Scooter
Member
is this supposed to be a weakass attempt to equate with the issues in the OP?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Is this a sincere argument or an argument designed to try to force liberals to admit they're hypocrites and they don't really believe it when they say they don't want to do business with people they disagree strongly with?
Psychoward
Banned
So you'd propose a tariff or outright ban on all U.S. exports then right?
Poetic.Injustice
Member
The latter.
Psychoward
Banned
Well you failed.
I do my best to vote for people who defund the exorbitant military budget, I don't have direct control over where my taxes go.
Then it was wasted words. I mean, you didn't even touch on the most basic aspect of American taxation: it's compulsory.
Riposte
Member
Looks like we've entered "aggressively vegan" territory.
There's a lot of space between not caring about, for example, an artist's political donations and not caring at all what happens with your money (e.g., you make the political donations) where you can put various lines. There's also the condition of what you are spending money on. For me, I'm much more lax when it comes to art/entertainment in way I wouldn't be for most other products (food would be harder to place, I guess). This has to do with how art fits in my worldview, not because I'm (completely) hedonistic.
If we are deeply concerned with the actual effects of our money rather than the principle of it or how it makes us feel that we are paying someone who disgusts us, perhaps we should consider how much damage we are actually doing. For example, for as regressive Orson Scott Card's politics are, buying copies of Shadow Complex or his books (both are pretty successful as I understand it) has done almost nothing to stop the progress towards legalizing gay marriage. The matter of war crime denial is a very troublesome issue for Japan (I'd have to wonder if there's any regressive influence on the matter taking hold in America or Europe, Turkey is a scarier example for me), but so much goes into it, including tensions over modern day territory politics between Japan and China, it can be hard to imagine a videogame composer and his relatively unspectacular contribution to it as being anything more than a drop in a bucket. Now I don't want to downplay these issues either, I can totally imagine an argument that does highlight the damage being done, however it may not be what others see and if they cannot see this then the urge to care is going to drop considerably. Maybe that's a flaw in capitalism, maybe it actually isn't a big deal sometimes. The pushy vegans probably have a stronger argument if only because of cow farts.
If the actual damage is besides the point and it comes down to holding a principle or getting that bad feeling, you are just yelling at people for not having the same emotional reaction as you. Sounds like the internet working as usual.
Poetic.Injustice
Member
Which is why I amended my post to say people outside the US.
Psychoward
Banned
TERRORIFFIC
Member
I really like what Ken Levine said and don't find it offensive at all.
I think some people are taking it the wrong way
I think some people are taking it the wrong way
Poetic.Injustice
Member
How about you not buy US products?
Anyway I'm not seriously advocating it. Merely pointing out the flaws in the initial assumption.
Psychoward
Banned
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
How in the hell do you come to this conclusion? Choosing to not buy a product for personal reasons is immature and close-minded? Wot?
Poetic.Injustice
Member
Your post was about 'exports'.
Doesn't redeem your argument. Why would it be sensible to punish American game developers for the uses of tax dollars they must compulsory give? They don't decide where those dollars go, and odds are that even their direct regional representative in Congress won't. Even their preferred choice for President won't guide every last dollar that goes into the military-industrial complex.
Your argument isn't even remotely 1:1 to a game CEO donating profits from his project to an org that lobbies for writing genocide and war crimes out of state history.
One could easily say that consuming all media without pause or consideration is gluttonous and neglectful.
Psychoward
Banned
What? U.S. exports, because you said people from outside the U.S. are hypocritical when they buy games from U.S. developers but then post in this thread.
Do you know the definition of what an export is?
Hmmm...I always assumed Sugiyama was largely harmless if disgusting; didn't know he was actually advancing causes.
The Levine stuff sounds like pushing a theory with basis in reality beyond its bounds, i.e. stating it as a necessary result. Harmed individuals and groups do often inflict similar harm when they have the chance. That's revenge and the excess of revolt, which is a perfectly fine idea to explore. It starts getting uncomfortable when it looks like a source of general demonization of oppressed peoples.
Moreover, although there is a luxurious component to good behavior in that freedom from want, of movement, of time, etc. opens up possibility to good action, privilege can also obviously blind people to injustice and sometimes moral luxuries are perhaps just invented morality to assert superiority.
The Levine stuff sounds like pushing a theory with basis in reality beyond its bounds, i.e. stating it as a necessary result. Harmed individuals and groups do often inflict similar harm when they have the chance. That's revenge and the excess of revolt, which is a perfectly fine idea to explore. It starts getting uncomfortable when it looks like a source of general demonization of oppressed peoples.
Moreover, although there is a luxurious component to good behavior in that freedom from want, of movement, of time, etc. opens up possibility to good action, privilege can also obviously blind people to injustice and sometimes moral luxuries are perhaps just invented morality to assert superiority.
eh? with all the weird creepy stuff in other Japanese games (and some western ones too), you're calling Horii gross because of some mild sillyness like the puff puff?
dragonlife
Member
Why's that? He has a GAF account, doesn't he?
I get what you are saying. For example, I love the work of Borges and I believe he is one of the greatest writers in the history of literature. Nonetheless, he was a downright fascist that supported the same dictatorship (Pinochet) that almost killed my parents.
hey heyyyyy
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Your house is dirty. You want to clean your house. You start by cleaning your bedroom, even though other rooms are also dirty. You might clean them later. You might never manage to clean out your storage closet. Are you a virtue-signalling hypocrite for saying you want to clean your house? Or is there some nuance?
Put it another way. I believe in trying to lower my environmental footprint. I recycle. I compost sometimes (not great, though, my building doesn't have a great setup for it). I grow some of my own food. I try to buy local stuff when I can and I am lucky enough to live in a place where a lot of food is produced locally. I drive a hybrid and take the bus. I try to buy high-efficiency devices like LED lights. I try to turn off the TV when I'm not in the room. I buy carbon offsets when I fly. I vote for politicians who support environmental policies. I support environmental charities.
But I also eat meat, and order some things online from Amazon, and don't always eat local and still keep my car and didn't buy an electric car and I don't recycle my shower water to water my garden like some people do and I have the air conditioning on right now. And I like to watch TV and movies, and I probably have my TV on more of the day than I should, and I could bicycle to work instead of bus, and...
Am I a virtue-signalling hypocrite? You can say yes, I promise I have no intention of banning anyone who argues with me, I'm not trying to lure you into a trap even though you just admitted you were trying to lure the people you disagree with into a trap. Because I would say that I do what I can, I try to make little good decisions when I can, especially ones that I can implement at no cost to me, but I'm not perfect, I will never be perfect, but I try to do better, I try to think about what I do rather than just be mindless. It's easier for me to pick an LED bulb up off the shelf next to an incandescent. It would be difficult for me, as someone making my living doing research and programming, to shut off all my electronics. My city isn't really bike safe and I like to sleep in a bit so I don't really have time to bike to work and then clean up before my day starts. If you think I don't really believe what I say I do, then call me out. I'm a living example of what you're getting at. Please call me a hypocrite, I yearn to be shamed.
Okay, now to get to your actual point, about the nature of ethical boycotts. First, I think one of the considerations someone weighs when considering an ethical boycott is the level of connection between the product and the outcome they don't like. For example, let's say you are pro-life and you do not want to support products that are associated with abortion. Maybe you wouldn't go buy the Planned Parenthood Abortion Chocolate Bar, Dedicated To Abortion Forever. But maybe you'd still be willing to buy, like, a car if the car company did some tiny charity work with a women's group that supports abortion (or maybe you wouldn't be! It's ok! It's your decision!) Maybe you wouldn't see a film where the director donates a lot of money to Planned Parenthood and speaks out on abortion. But maybe you would see a film where the assistant cameraman and his wife had an abortion. As an adult, you are probably capable of understanding that nuance exists.
Your example was that non-Americans should boycott all American video games because the US government does bad things with its military. Setting aside that this is a crazy level of indirection, so it's obviously a very bad example and a very stupid argument (that you made because, as you admit, you weren't interested in making a point, just pantsing dumb liberals), how exactly does this expose liberals as hypocrites? I think if someone doesn't want to be involved with US goods because they feel it's an ethical breach to be complicit in the US government, more power to them. I don't make that choice for me and I don't think it's practical, but if someone wants to make that choice for them, like, okay?
Also related to the topic, I think if someone finds military porn and bombing the shit out of other countries distasteful, actually it is worth considering whether or not they want to support entertainment products that support those practices. I don't play a lot of military shooters because I'm not very interested in them, and one of the main reasons that I'm not very interested in them because of their content. I'm not for "censorship", but I also don't plan to buy them. Wow, liberals owned if they don't like Call of Duty? Or if they do? I can't really follow the argument.
charlequin
Banned
This also raises the point about how different this question can be between authors living and dead. HP Lovecraft was a miserable racist (far beyond what was "typical" for the time) but he's also dead; the relevant areas of concern are more likely to be the places where that is visible in the work, or in notably public honors like the World Fantasy Award. Conversely, Roman Polanski is an unrepentant rapist who is still alive to be paid for his movies, to mock justice while living in exile, to have his crime bizarrely covered for by celebrity friends; there's potentially a bigger ethical responsibility to cut him off.
I've always found the idea that boycotts are childish to be pretty silly myself. People have different ethical beliefs and each tend to have a different place where they draw the line on what they may support in some form. If people can boycott something because they don't like dlc practices, I certainly don't see something wrong in an influential person having awful politics/opinions/attitude/etc. Even more so, I don't think someone should have to justify why they're not spending money on an entertainment product in particular.
Yeah, I mean, in most of the DQs I've played it's even played as a joke. In VIII they just rub two slimes on the hero's face, in III (or is it IV?) it's a really muscular dude, etc. Never seen it as a reason to think Horii is gross. The things I could understand people having a problem with in DQ is the general lack of ethnic diversity (besides the sisters in IV) and the fanservicey bikini armors exclusive to the female characters, Jessica being a prime example of the latter.
Wouldn't those instances more likely point to Toriyama being a pervert? Given that he actually invented the term "puff-puff" and those styles of jokes are Toriyama staple?
belteshazzar
Member
Hmm, I really don't think any politics or points of views/personality of any game creator/maker has affected my enjoyment of any game. For instance, I think it is undeniable that Phil Fish is a complete twat, but I still think Fez was amazing and I thoroughly enjoyed it.