John Kowalski
Banned
You mean farting?
Games ruined by creator's politics
- Thread starter FlyinJ
- Start date
You mean farting?
strip clubs where they let you motorboat the stripper's breasts.
Could be, I don't know how much involvement Toriyama has besides serving as character designer. Judging by my experience rereading the early Dragon Ball volumes, Toriyama does love his bunny girls and exposing Bulma's tits and ass. lol
John Kowalski
Banned
Oh, that. I thought it was something more, uh, odorous than lecherous.
He was an asshole 3 years ago but he's not anymore.
Battlechili
Banned
I try to separate games from creators, generally speaking, at least when it comes to this sort of thing.
Though I haven't played Fez because Phil Fish is (or at least was) very rude to people. I've considered reconsidering but the game doesn't spark a whole lot of interest in me anyways.
Though I haven't played Fez because Phil Fish is (or at least was) very rude to people. I've considered reconsidering but the game doesn't spark a whole lot of interest in me anyways.
He called Japanese games trash to the face of someone asking how they can improve Japanese games, which irks me more than anything
No, just typical lecherous old man stuff. Everyone has their flaws
For the record, I don't get any value out of comparing to other Japanese games. I react with almost universal revulsion to Japanese games with any element of this at all.
Weltall Zero
Member
Bra-vo. Quoting for truth and visibility. Anyone still using the "all or nothing" fallacy to justify not even trying, should start by reading this article.
It's your money, you do what you want with it.
But here's something to bear in mind: once you've exchanged your money with the product, the money is no longer yours. In fact, the money now belongs to many different parties - the shop, the producer, the devs, etc. - one of whom may contribute to causes you find harmful or objectionable.
Now it's their money, and they can do what they want with it.
I love that this thread exists, by the way - bravo to those with the moral and financial freedom to make these kinds of choices - but, just as with everything, don't go to extremes.
But here's something to bear in mind: once you've exchanged your money with the product, the money is no longer yours. In fact, the money now belongs to many different parties - the shop, the producer, the devs, etc. - one of whom may contribute to causes you find harmful or objectionable.
Now it's their money, and they can do what they want with it.
I love that this thread exists, by the way - bravo to those with the moral and financial freedom to make these kinds of choices - but, just as with everything, don't go to extremes.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
That didn't work, did it
Weltall Zero
Member
Everybody has both the moral and financial freedom to make these kinds of choices, at least regarding videogames. I can't think of a situation where anyone is morally or economically forced to buy a videogame.
Agreed. FEZ is one of my favorite games despite Phil saying what he did. I also think his persona was blown out of the water though.
Vaughngief
Member
Didn't he just make the character designs though? I can get where you're coming from though. I absolutely love Earthworm Jim, but knowing how the creator is always sits in the back of my mind. Though, I haven't heard about him support such groups. Never really looked into it.
Weltall Zero
Member
Actually, what you learned is that you became less concerned with what is right as you grew old and cynical, but like so many others you could not stand to think of yourself as a less than perfectly moral person, so you resolved the cognitive dissonance by deciding that is somehow the more mature thing to do. Basically like most people.
You might find that cognitive dissonance biting at the edge of your so called maturity if you ever find out that your money is being actively used against you or your loved ones, raher than those theorethical people you think you also care about.
See, I just can't wrap my head around these priorities.
You view being rude to some Japanese dude about Japanese games as worse than actively campaigning against the rights of LGBT people? Worse that trying, and sadly succeeding in some cases, to drive women out of the games industry as a whole?
And even with Phil Fish specifically, it's not the telling people to kill themselves that get's you, but the rudeness thing?
I mean, you do you, but man that's confusing to me.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Someone earlier used a mild disagreement over their opinion of the localization of underage scantily clad anime girls as an example of why they wouldn't support a dev. Between this and "this dev is a rude jerk", I just really hope that they also boycott devs that campaign against LGBT, women, minorities, etc. because otherwise I'd say their priorities are out of whack. *shrugs*
Weltall Zero
Member
Because Phil Fish was rude towards something he actually cares about, versus other creators attacking people he believes he cares about.
Frankly, I think Phil Fish is a massive tool, but I'm confused by his frequent mentions on this thread. It's kind of worrying that people can't see the difference between someone bad-mouthing the current Japanese game industry, and actual bigots actively funding hate organisations.
After he said that they all suck he did say "Well not *all* of them" and the other guy took it from there. The "Kill yourself" thing was rude as fuck for sure but he's obviously taken a step back from social media in general to avoid outbursts like that so yeah, he doesn't really belong in the thread.
Aarglefarg
Member
People saying they don't like him for his politics makes me wonder about them.
Maybe it's evolved to the point that people went from not reading the opening post to not reading the full thread title now like 'Games ruined by creator' *goes to post*
Psychoward
Banned
good post, but I feel like you could have expanded on how just insane the difference in direct outcomes is between the example he gave and some of the examples listed in this thread
but
Being a jerk or weirdo like Kayne isn't exactly on the same level as denying war crimes and genocide in the "this is fucked up scale." There are plenty of weirdo jerks creating art. Christian Bale freaking out on somebody made him look like an ass, but he didn't like try to deny the Holocaust in that rant too. So saying you consumed Fez or Yeezy's products is hardly even answering the questions put forth. They are on the very mild end of the spectrum.
I think Murray and Molineaux are completely different.. they seem all nice and shit but are lying to your face.
Phil on the other hand was just being brutally honest..
Would you say it was him being brutally honest if he said to a female dev asking for advice that all games developed by females suck? Its a hate filled comment directed at an innocent party ment to cause harm not criticize. Blow gives actual criticism instead of being a dick.
As for the Earthworm Jim guy, I remember seeing his homophobic comments when he had started his kick starter for some game. Decided to have nothing to do with him.
Have you actually *read* the book you're talking about?
It's actually about
how polarisation between liberals and conservatives prepares the way for authoritarianism to take root. The "liberal conspiracy" is a false flag project, set up to fail so a right-wing guy can be elected Caesar.
Ironic, really.
WhateverItTakes
Banned
Well today we have a whole VR platform being ruined by the creator's politics so that's fun!
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
I don't understand this, except maaaybe for Indies, because games are a team product, so why would you not buy a game based on the political opinion of one person involved? What if all the others have opinions that you value a lot? If you are working some place, among the 100 persons that are closest to you on the company (ideally, on the same team, but the team sizes for games are not often matched on other jobs), are there none with questionable political views? Would you think it's fair if people were boycotting your company because one person working there had unpopular political opinions?
Personally, for all I care, some developers of games I play may be mysoginists, hate LGBT people, or even be a racist or politcally active creationist, it has no bearing on my enjoyment of the game [as long as these views do not heavily get reflected in the game] and I would certainly not base any buying decisiion on that.In other words: You tell me Hitler worked on Yoshi's Island? Well, it' still the best game ever made and it is not noticable in the game.
Personally, for all I care, some developers of games I play may be mysoginists, hate LGBT people, or even be a racist or politcally active creationist, it has no bearing on my enjoyment of the game [as long as these views do not heavily get reflected in the game] and I would certainly not base any buying decisiion on that.In other words: You tell me Hitler worked on Yoshi's Island? Well, it' still the best game ever made and it is not noticable in the game.
The Albatross
Member
There are very few games with real political intentions that "ruin" the game.
But, a couple recent examples of games with a political bent that don't handle the politics very well (didn't ruin the game, just failed in that respect):
Assassins Creed is really just careless and lazy, while Bioshock actually had a political ax to grind. Levine's criticism of Randean individualism in Bioshock suggests he never actually read Atlas Shrugged, but saw a couple internet comics about it, and then designed a game around that.
But, a couple recent examples of games with a political bent that don't handle the politics very well (didn't ruin the game, just failed in that respect):
- Bioshock. Levine obviously intends Bioshock to be a rejection of Randean individualism, but it falls apart when Levine was forced to make Bioshock a videogame, and because I don't think he ever actually read Rand.
- Assassins Creed 2 - whatever. Ubisoft's writers were very hamfisted especially with the historical descriptions of people and places in the past. I know it's supposed to come from the jerk guy who runs the history database for Abstergo (or whoever) but it's all garbage and it comes off being written by people whose grasp of history is looking up articles on Wikipedia and then sharpening their edge.
Assassins Creed is really just careless and lazy, while Bioshock actually had a political ax to grind. Levine's criticism of Randean individualism in Bioshock suggests he never actually read Atlas Shrugged, but saw a couple internet comics about it, and then designed a game around that.
Adam_Vania
Banned
so is your criticism of everything you don't like "they got it off the internet"
i read Atlas Shrugged. it's a book w a few not very well formed self-serving ideas beat into your head over and over again, the way Ryan does in this game. i'd say he got that one right.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
This is an excellent post, and exactly where I stand on this matter.
If the money you gave to the creator for the game was used by the creator to fund organizations formed to make other people's lives worse, would you care then?
To the original post, I often tell people who are "shocked" that Japan was a brutal culture (who often of course point fingers at the US) that they should just look up "Manchuria". Then look for images.
All people can be monsters. Civilization's goal is to eliminate monsters... real monsters.
I think games are definitely the new avenue for political debate, especially since they know the younger generation dives in. The same individuals who fought to claim "Video Games are art" also fought against the concept that "Video Games are responsible for things."
While true, it is also false. A forum is a forum. Some are more susceptible than others.
All people can be monsters. Civilization's goal is to eliminate monsters... real monsters.
I think games are definitely the new avenue for political debate, especially since they know the younger generation dives in. The same individuals who fought to claim "Video Games are art" also fought against the concept that "Video Games are responsible for things."
While true, it is also false. A forum is a forum. Some are more susceptible than others.
If the money you gave to the creator for the game was used by the creator to fund organizations formed to make other people's lives worse, would you care then?
The Albatross
Member
yes, that is my sole criticism of everything that I don't like, which is remarkable that you could pick that out with only two examples. For what it's worth, I like Assassins Creed and Bioshock, it's just that Bioshock fell apart and Assassins Creed's writing about historical and social elements was douche-chills edgy/cheesy.
charlequin
Banned
Not everyone in a company is equal. What the front-desk assistant believes doesn't have the same significance as what a CEO and Owner of a company does.
Randomizer
Member
If you think he is bad, I would to hear what you have to say about Kojima lol.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Well, one of the opening examples was Dragon Quest because of the musician. He might earn more money than say a programmer, but his influence on the thematic content of the game is very slim to none. On top of that, even if someone high up the development chain has some crude opinions, it is still not fair against the other developers, nor really rational to boycot games just for that reason. Of course, if political views come into play via the game's content itself, I could somehow understand this, but what does one achieve by boycotting a game the moment someone works on it who has a political opinion one does not share or like?
I don't think it's right to avoid a game simply because you disagree politically with one of the members of the company's staff. Now, of course it's your money and you have every right to do what you want with it, but from where I'm sitting - especially for large companies - boycotting a studio because of one or two people only harms the devs beneath them. Maybe I'm wrong, iunno.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Dragon Quest is typically described as a product made up of three people's visions: Yuji Horii, Akira Toriyama, and Koichi Sugiyama. Peoples' assessment of him materially connected to the product is based on this.
Rationality refers to the connection of actions to goals. You might argue that boycotting games is unnecessary, but it is clearly not irrational. If someone's intent is to ensure that their money does not knowingly go to causes they disagree with, or that their money knowingly going to causes they disagree with puts a damper on their overall assessment, that is perfectly rational. I am under no obligation to buy a game. If I don't like the game, or the graphics, or the publisher's business practices, or the director's political views, or the producer's criminal history, or the game's themes, or if I just don't like the box art, I can choose not to buy the game. There seems to be conceptual slippage from rationality as it is understood in behavioural economics and rationality meaning "you agree it's something worth doing".
El-Pistolero
Member
I really don't care, honestly. My favorite french author is, and will always remain Louis-Ferdinand Celine. His "Voyage au bout de la nuit" is a phenomenal masterpiece in terms of form and content, and I have yet to experience aything as hilarious, tragic and powerful as his book. The thing is, Celine is just as -in-famous for having written some of the most corrosive anti-semite pamphlets of that era (the 40s).
charlequin
Banned
Dragon Quest's copyright (unlike most major franchises) is partially owned by Yuji Horii, Akira Toriyama, and Koichi Sugiyama, so he has a major, direct stake in the success of the franchise above what the composer for most video games would.
There was a lead developer a while back who was the head of an indie game company (think they were really well known for making those kinda cell phone and social media games that everyone's aunt plays and tries to get you to play) who marketed himself as having a rock star personality, like a less-funny Vincent Gallo or something, and he wore sunglasses and I think he had a pony tail. Anyway, his company's games were really successful but he made headlines when it was revealed that he discriminated against a transgender employee, maybe even harassed her. This is totally unrelated to the Valve lawsuit and happened years before but I can't remember the name of the guy or that company.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Is Dragon Quest promoted in any way to support actions of political parties or organisations? Is there any indication, that the amount of money earned with the next Dragon Quest game is connected directly with the amount of money spent on political acitivities of a certain kind? Or is it just disdain against one person involved due to his views? Because clearly, the money you spend on Dragon Quest is distributed over a whole lot of persons with a whole lot of different ideals and goals. From the shop owner where you buy it, over the console maker who gives licenses to the game, to the publisher and its employees. Including that guy who thinks that Japan did no wrong in WW2. Now what each party does with the money, is entirely their thing, but "thinking Japan did no wrong in WW2" and "getting 20 cents from you" does not mean that money is flowing towards any evil deeds.
Most political views are just that, views, and are not affected a lot by the amount of money a person owns. Sure, some people will give money to what they deem a good cause, but that is very loosely related to your buying decision and as long as you don't even have any information that a certain percentage of the money gained by selling a game is being used towards a certain goal, it's just guesswork. I claim it is irrational, because the desired effect of your actions (or lack thereof) cannot be quantified and may very well be (read: Most likely is) exactly 0. Moreover, it is questionable, whether the small share one person might get that has political views you don't like exceeds the relevance of the money give to all the people who don't and just did good work at their job.
The direct effect on people's well being when buying game consoles produced under abysmal conditions in china most definitely so far outweighs any minor effect your expense may indirectly have on the funding of a lobby group you don't like, that it is rather preposterous to focus on such a thing. I think such behaviour is completely emotional in nature and is not based on an analysis of expected outcome of the behaviour when compared to other behaviours.