Metaphor: ReFantazio's success is further proof that politics are good in videogames, actually—no matter what reactionaries tell you
Metaphor: ReFantazio's success is further proof that politics are good in videogames, actually—no matter what reactionaries tell you
Metaphor: ReFantazi-go to the polls.
You're viewing a single thread.
The rightwing/gamergate side not contesting this whole issue being called "Politics in videogames" is the biggest blunder. I don't know the best way to call this phenomenon (political preaching?) but surely there is a better phrase. Right now you can't talk about this stuff without getting hit by "Oh, you claim to hate politics in videogames yet you love Bioshock" type retort, when the actual thing people have problems with are californian nutcases pushing their views on US political crap onto the player as if it were gospel.
What is wrong with Californian views on identity politics, when it’s not just bad writing? Is it the acknowledgement of people that are gender nonbinary?
I just dislike a lot of the studios based there (Insomniac, naughty dog, ubisoft) for how hard they try to push POC/minority representation in their games. Especially when it doesn't make sense (black samurai)
Naughty Dog’s most famous games (containing humans) are based around white male leads. It’s basically just Uncharted Lost Legacy and TLOU2 that have diverged from that, and not by very much.
Literally the only game of Insomniac’s I can find (outside of anthropomorphic games like Ratchet&Clank) that even leans to minorities is Spider-Man: Miles Morales, which is based on a comic character that was already popular. Even the games based around Peter were going to acknowledge he’s the type of person to work at food banks and embrace New York’s diversity; that’s the pre-existing character.
Nobody complained when Assassin’s Creed had Leonardo da Vinci hand you a tank or a glider, or a female Spartan mysthios fight mythical gods, or have London gang runners that fight in hoods from rooftops. Assassin’s Creed has always ventured into the unrealistically cinematic extensions of common historical myths, and they’re not even the first to turn Yasuke into a samurai. Netflix put out an animated series on that a while back and it was awesome.
I do not expect an answer, but I genuinely think you should quietly ask yourself the question: Are you a racist?
I'm thinking of three games specifically from these studios, TLOU2 basing the whole narrative around a woman hulk, spiderman 2 with the long story segments as Mary jane and the whole debacle on Yasuke. But yeah it's not just these three california studios that are putting out games with this stuff, they are just the first that come to mind.
Nobody complained when Assassin’s Creed had Leonardo da Vinci hand you a tank or a glider
Yeah fair enough, people will have different lines in the sand for this stuff. I get that this series has time travel and aliens and whatever, but I think everyone can agree that if they randomly put, for example, modern sportscars into a historical setting it would be too unbelievable and ruin immersion. A massive black samurai slaughtering asians in feudal japan (and then seeing them bow down to him in another scene) has that effect for me.
(For the record I did look up on primary sources from japanese historians and everything points to the man being just Nobunaga's pet curiosity. It helps that here's all the shady stuff going on where the english and japanese versions of Thomas Lockley's books say different things)
Are you a racist?
I am not. I just dislike when developers sacrifice the game's story, quality or whatever in order to put in representation. I don't understand why the story can't just have a diverse cast and be done with it, right now it feels like all these studios are focusing on diversity first and foremost as a major selling point when it should be just a normal thing that doesn't need to be highlighted
No matter how many times I reread this comment, I don't see how this reasoning would convince anyone - including yourself - of its position. The point about translation, for instance, not only feels like a non-sequitor but ignores the wealth of subjectivity that inherently goes into translating text to other languages.
I'm not trying to reject you just out of spite; I genuinely don't think internet arguments like this are ever "winnable" for anyone. If you come up with a better description for what it is you oppose, feel free to mention it, but otherwise, I'd say do some self-reflecting.
The point about translation, for instance
I want to touch up on this. The reason I didn't write much about my claim about for Yasuke not being a proper samurai is because it is my understanding that it is the default position and thus doesn't need to be proven by evidence. But if I was asked to provide evidence, I would link the comparison of his translated and untranslated book in this post. Since Thomas Lockley is the main source behind the myth, I think discrediting his book should be enough to also discredit Yasuke's role as a proper samurai.
This made my dick black and gay and now it lives in Palo Alto.
The black samurai is literally a historical figure. What do you mean "it doesn't make sense"?
I just think it's bizarre to have a black dude protagonist in a historical japanese setting. I've read through the sources on Yasuke and I think it's a stretch to say he was like a full fledged samurai. Especially given that the biggest proponent of that theory, Thomas Lockley, made some sketchy edits between the Japanese and English version of his book on him.
I just think it's bizarre to have a black dude protagonist in a historical japanese setting.
Why? He is a historical figure. Why does a historical figure in his historical setting feel bizarre?
I've read through the sources on Yasuke and I think it's a stretch to say he was like a full fledged samurai.
Potato potato. Why him being a "full fledged samurai" even matters? The series is known to take creative liberties with history.
Seriously ask yourself why having ONE SINGULAR black protagonist in a series where protagonists have so far been overwhelmingly white feels like "black people getting pushed into games".
Because to me, it sounds like you have seen too many opinions of people getting outraged and because of that you internalized their views without asking yourself why they (and now you) feel the way they do.
Why? He is a historical figure. Why does a historical figure in his historical setting feel bizarre?
Why him being a “full fledged samurai” even matters?
This is just difference in opinion. For you it's OK. I get that this series is only very vaguely based on history but this is a step too far for me.
Seriously ask yourself why having ONE SINGULAR black protagonist in a series where protagonists have so far been overwhelmingly white
Why MUST they make the main character in a 1580's japanese setting black? The series hasn't had a single asian protagonist. Couldn't they have chosen a black history setting if this is what they wanted?
The lead developer of Assassin's Creed: Shadows is in Quebec. And does it not matter that it's based on a historical figure? Consider also that in California, you're just more likely to encounter a diverse group of people, so wouldn't that just be representing the world around them?
Yeah fair enough, this stuff isn't unique to Californian developers, they are just the first that come to mind.
And does it not matter that it’s based on a historical figure?
Yasuke existed in Japan but I think they went too far in making him a protagonist. As I understand it he was a curiosity that Nobunaga kept around, not a full fledged samurai. I think it's also important to consider the current gaming landscape. There's titles like Dragon age Veilguard, Concord, Dustborn, Forspoken, Fintlock and others coming out these days that put heavy focus on inclusion/diversity over quality (as evidenced by poor sales numbers). It's hard to then look at an upcoming game set in historial Japan that somehow features a black protagonist and not think that they're trying to push some weirdo agenda rather than tell a cool story.
Indicators are showing that Dragon Age is selling just fine. And it's not like they get to their planning meeting and ask, "Can we spend some more time on the game design? It's got real problems," only to be met with, "No, we've got to really focus on diversity this quarter." They're not related. While I hardly trust Ubisoft to wow audiences with a cool story, it's not hard to imagine the related struggles that a foreigner and a woman might have to bond over in that setting.
It seems you're the one who's focusing more on avoiding inclusivity than in if the games are good our not.
Every year, we have a LOT of bad games, some pure thrash. You only seem concerned about those who don't conform to your seemingly low acceptance for diversity. Sure, Concord failed because a playable character was overweight. Not a mediocre hero shooter for 40 dollars when great ones are free. Veilguard has been positively received outside of 4 Chan.
And dustborn. The fact that to are dragging an indie game already aiming to a very specific demographic shows how little you understand that not every game is made for you.
I guess this is what being a closeted bigot looks like.