I know this might start war in the comments so please chill people, I don’t want to get 20 reports from this single post.
I feel like I have a outside the norm third-take opinion on this topic, tbh.
I think including the hot social topic of the day often time is pandering.
But I also don’t think pandering is a problem. The muscles on the main character is also pandering. When McDonald’s does market research and then releases a new product, that is pandering.
Games are a sales industry; they are going to pander to potential buyers, period.
So yes, a potentially trans-centric storyline in a game is unnecessary. But so is including a longsword, or a tavern, or a comic relief character. Unnecessary doesn’t mean bad; all of those things are likely only adding to the depth and value of the game.
So all this to say that when crazy right-wingers talk about SJWs and pandering and all that nonsense don’t waste your time trying to fight them on the irrelevant bits - go ahead and acknowledge the pandering aspect and fight the real fight by telling them it’s not negative pandering and minorities deserve to be pandered to and represented just as much as anyone else. They just don’t recognize the market targeting the white male demographic as pandering because it is the sphere of normal under which they operate.
I guess I should add that I’m not speaking to this game specifically since I’ve never played it. I really enjoyed Dragon Age: Origins but frankly felt like I got everything I needed of the world from it and haven’t been interested in any of the sequels. So I won’t be playing DA: The Veilguard, but that reason has absolutely fuck all to do with the inclusion of any social politics.
If you read the article you’ll see that the author takes issue not with the inclusion itself, but the hamfisted way in which it is included. Pandering can be fine, but when it’s just checking boxes in a cringy, lazy way it’s not, and worse it becomes fodder for the gamergate type to rage about.
Complaining about “the way it’s included” has been a trick to try to gatekeep minorities that dates back from to the origin of time.
For those people always pretend it’s ok to include X except in “that particular context” or “in that particular way” and unsurprisingly enough it’s never the right context or the right way. Unless of course the context is out of their way.
I’ve seen the same boring argument repeated for every single minorities over the last 50 years.
Did you read the article? I found it pretty convincing, as an example “non-binary” is not a word I expect to be said in a fantasy setting. The author also mentions a fantasy book where it’s done much more naturally.
Did you write a guidebook of acceptable words and concepts in fantasy ? I ask because if you’re so bothered by the introduction of new words into fantasy literature I’m assuming you don’t read anything with any words invented after the release of the Epic of Gilgamesh sometime in 1155 BC.
It’s a violently stupid argument.
I’m not bothered at all lol, I would have already forgotten about it if you weren’t so bothered yourself :) But yeah, IMO it would have been better if they had used a less “modern” word. You did notice that fantasy characters usually don’t speak like they’re from the 21st century, right?
usually
So you admit that they sometime do ? Kinda kills your whole point. 🤷
I understand that, but my point is that there is no shortage of shoehorned comic relief characters, or awkwardly placed fanservice, etc. Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing, rather than letting the gamergate right-wing nutsos have the benefit of having the conversation on their terms. Make the headline “DA:tV falls short in the writing department, here are some examples” and include the flimsy way the character is written as the valid critique. Games are going to pander to us, that is what I was saying; when we place special emphasis on this particular type of pandering all we’re doing is letting the right define the conversations we’re having.
Critique the actual fault at play, bad writing,
That seems to be what is being done here. Everything that I have seen on this has done what you asked, said what they where critiquing then giving a clip from the game as an example. If people can not be critical of media for any reason, we have an issue.
You’re right; I have been unclear. Allow me to try to clarify.
My issue is specifically with the headline here using the word “political.” This implies, whether by design or accident, that this inclusion in the game is BioWare specifically making a political stance to push some sort of politically-motivated agenda.
This is, 100%, not the case.
BioWare is a subsidiary of EA; the only agenda they care about is making money. This is not making some kind of political statement; this is pandering to ensure free media coverage and to attempt to appeal to what they see as a currently valuable demographic. Fucking blast them to hell for that, blast them to hell for their poor writing—whatever. But calling this political is doing exactly what I stated before: allowing the conversation to happen on the terms of gamergate/right-wingers who insist that anything in the entire fucking world that doesn’t specifically cater to their own individual interests is somehow inherently “political.”
edit: typos
I remember very well bioware games and others in past decades got the same kind of reaction because « omg gay romance, that kind of agenda shouldn’t be pushed in a video game, think of the children ».
So now the new social “battle” is trans right and the game has a gender questioning character (From a review, I haven’t played) that seems to take at most a whole 5 minutes over the course of the whole game. Why not.
Now the game has been designed to cater to 10 year old and not the older crowd who played the original so it doesn’t have the depth you’d want and the dialog is on the nose. Well, too bad. Just play something else.
I don’t care about wokeness, the game looks like plastic garbage and they genericized the combat
Regardless of content. I learned a long time ago that only unhappyness can come from paying for games by EA.
Though all AAA should come with a “may cause irritation” label.
Indie games are king and that is where my money goes.
Eh, I dunno, I’m currently really enjoying Ghosts of Tsushima, although strictly in off-line mode. And I enjoyed the first Jedi: Fallen Order, again, solely off-line.
Not heard of the first one.
Which Star Wars game release was trash with horrific performance issues?
I’m very surprised that you haven’t heard of Ghost of Tsushima; it has been a highly successful game.
But maybe I am mistaken? I would swear that I had to accept EA terms and conditions to play, but it’s by Sony and Sucker Punch. I dunno.
I tend to only follow Indie games. Have no interest in micro transactions, first person shooters, or watching rather than playing games. There is very little in the AAA sphere that interests me.
Ghosts of Sushi Mama is basically assassins creed in Japan.
Being preached by a game company owned by EA is like being preached by actors at the oscars. Gotta love the bourgeoisie proselytising. (edit -at)
So, you simply mean “being preached at”? What’s the over/under on religious “leaders” feeling they’re above the law, etc., but knowing that they have to keep the sheep from spooking?
I just want to voice my opinion that not every article about video games needs to be shared/promoted, particularly gamergate-lite shit like this. “Only” whinging about how non-cis white male characters are included in games is hardly any better than the chuds bombing the game on metacritic.
I’d also argue this violates your own sub’s rule (rule 9), not because it’s about “political” genders, but for explicitly calling peoples’ existence “political messaging”.
Idiot.
I’m pro trans rights and I still see Veilguard as more sabotage than success. Extremely unintelligent messaging.
I mean, it was not-terrible for most of it (not counting the quality of dialogue), just not this exact scene, which was absolutely fucking terrible, and barely even involved the character in question. I really can’t imagine how they thought “Other people should talk about their gender!” was a good idea.
I’m sorry but (all other issues with the scene aside) pretending that performative “apologies” are a good thing actually is genuinely problematic. Performative apologies are inherently manipulative by drawing attention away from the thing you’re apologising for and by being designed to be an effort that feels bad to reject.
Apologizing? For what?
The article is not about what you think it is about. Try reading it.
You didn’t read the article did you? Its not about the inclusion of a character, but about how a specific scene with that character is handled. The author claims it is completely jarring, doesn’t fit into the games setting and doesn’t even use the games existing lore for transgender people but instead uses modern terminology.
I found the article to very informative and not at all “gamergatey”.
Its points are:
- this is the scene
- it is bad
- here is exelent trans representation in a fantasy setting
- “its a BioWare self insert”
- this is how they could have handled it better
- the game is great, but now everybody will just talk about woke, so again the game is good
Every time I say the horseshoe theory is stupid I open a forum and am proven wrong…
What does this even mean?
Means someone cited gamergate where it makes no sense at all.
Lol. The admonishment for “misusing” gamergate by citing horseshoe theory as if it’s in any way applicable is hilariously on point. Good luck with that “enlightened” centrism.
What centrism? Calling out the bourgeoisie invented themes to distract from the class struggles is the duty of every reasonable person, more so if they are on the left. Human rights are not debatable, you vote for the representative that abides human rights. If none is available, you start a revolution. What you don’t do is use a neoliberal dear to proselytise as if you’re not part of the problem by perpetuating the system that abuses the people you’re soapboxing about. (you, as in, Bioware, not you, this is not meant as a personal attack, I came to lemmy to talk to reasonable people)
May I interpret this as a personal attack anyway, please? I’d like something to get angry about for no reason.
Its not about the inclusion of a character, but about how a specific scene with that character is handled.
You didn’t read my comment, did you? Like the part where I specifically mention that? I don’t care if the scene was shot on a camcorder for a student created after-school special on a PTA budget. Acting like that’s the problem instead of any of the reactionary bullshit to it is not the viewpoint of someone who truly cares about these populations. Where’s the “helpful” article about shitty hetero romance scenes in countless movies/shows/games and how we should do better there? Those don’t cause a blip. But this? This is a “problem”. Fuck that.
and doesn’t even use the games existing lore for transgender people but instead uses modern terminology.
This reads like those losers that rage about black people in The Witcher because it’s “noT hIStoRIcaLlY AccuRAtE”. Bemoaning “modern terminology” is so pointless. They’re also speaking modern languages through the majority of the game. Gonna write a Forbes “article” about that, too?
I would like to find a game free of political message, can someone please show me one?
I’m really curious about what this mythical beast might look like…
Super mario bros was clearly about promoting poligamy.
Super Mario make a twist on the trope of the knight saving the princess. The knight is just a plumber and it is said to him that the ‘princess is an another castle’. But at the end the right order of the world is restaured when Mario finally frees the princess from the evil Bowser.
So from a political standpoint Super Mario is a product believing strongly in individualism and in the self made man ideology. The twist shows only that even a plumber can save the princess if he works enough = liberal capitalism making us believed that we’ll be all rock stars and billionaires when we’re definitively not (and yes I’m quoting fight club here). All this is the consequence of the game focussing more on gameplay than it’s narration, therefore it leans towards what was the common thinking of the time.
Polygamy (relationship between Peach, Mario and Luigi, if that’s what you are referring to) is much to me a side effect of the 2 players gameplay possibility, but it is still indeed pretty interesting in itself yeah.
You probably meant it as a joke, but too bad you get a real answer :)
The article is not about how the game shouldn’t be political (because this notion is absurd). It’s about how idiotic the treatment of the writer’s views is, to the point it feels like a parody of the statement they wanted to make.
Indeed, I still get someone giving me names of nonpolitical games.
What about pong?
Tennis again?
Joke aside, pure competitive games are indeed just pure competitive games with no context at all. But competition in itself is ideological and political (the need to make the opponent lose) so Pong is too.
It’s a point of view on multiplayer gaming. In Pong there is always a loser and a winner, never two winners, never two losers (can we even make a draw in original Pong? I don’t know).
Pong is also a game that opposed human versus computer, it can be view as pure skill exercise to be a ‘better’ human or it can be literally a fight against the machine like playing chess against a computer. Both makes me want to ask what is the point to do this ? I think answers at this questions are political indeed.
Doom? Tetris? Need for Speed? Wii Tennis? WTF are you talking about?
- Doom promotes strong virilism = political.
- Tetris = promote the control of chaos (view as destructive, because too much and you lose) through psycho-rigid order.
- Need For Speed = yeah nothing political about promoting cars, except the incitation to get one.
- Wii Tennis = tries to make you forget tennis is for rich people only, by making it cute = political.
My point is everything is political, you don’t have to see political standpoint in things, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
If that’s what you meant with your original comment then I deeply regret engaging with this at all 🤣
Have a nice day.
Oh you didn’t perceive the irony, didn’t you?
I’m not saying I know anything about this Dragon Age, I haven’t played it.
I think it’s a fair point though, to imagine an a-political narrative game, because I think most if not all RPG games I can think of have some kind of political content.
Shifting the goalposts on behalf of OP, but whatever. Where are you guys coming from?
Narrative games of any scope are almost inevitably going to bump into themes like hierarchy, power dynamics and moral dilemmas. That doesn’t make them “political” in the sense that they’re directly discussing real events around you. I won’t presume anything about your personal position here, but OP gives the impression that if a fantasy game depicted a fictional race subjugated by another he would start complaining that it was woke.
If you want a story without those things you largely need to pick a different genre.
That’s what I’m trying to say. I don’t think such a game is feasible.
Also, in the context of this threat, saying “ooo Tetris isn’t political!” is being pedantic, that’s not what the person meant when they asked for an example of a non political game.
I would like to find a game free of political message,
They asked for a game free of political messages, and got several. Are you sure that’s not what they meant? Does Tic Tac Toe have political messages? What about 2048?
