On 6/6/2018 at 3:06 AM, mikeman said:
It is true that what is needed is for well-meaning people "of the other side" to be educated. It's a tricky thing, to be able to figure out which people are well-meaning but not sufficiently educated, in which case you try to reason with them, and which people are just stomping their feet and not willing to give an inch, in which case we're just going to accept we're opponents. And in the end, for many people it's not a case of ignorance, but of colliding interests. In which case this isn't only about difference of opinions, but, sadly, antagonism. You can't do anything about it than clash. This goes for every pressing matter, up to, say, climate change, which pretty much decides the fate of the planet. It's not a "difference of opinion" that causes, say, the fossil fuel industry to deny the science here. It's just that their interests are hurt. You can't educate them, because education is not the issue here. But you can educate many well-meaning people, as I said, whose interests actually lie on "our side".
And many people are pointing out that we're not doing a very good job at it. I've heard repeatedly from people that are actually organizing in the streets, for example, that this "SJ" jargon has gone too far and that there is a problem with vocal individuals that seem to enjoy the posturing and the grandstanding just a bit too much. Phrases like "check your privilege" or "it's not my job to educate you", for example, may have started with good intentions, but they're so overused at this point that they're blocking the educating of people that may be actually be won over to "our side". You can't start yelling at each and every one, with the same stock phrases, that doesn't have the experience or has read the exact literature that you have.
This is, unfortunately, only becoming tougher and tougher. You're seeing more and more that attempts to reach out are being misconstrued as attacks. Undoubtedly the progressive movement has had its nastier types as well, since just about every faction, ideology, group of people, etc. has types that are essentially in it just to gain power and importance rather than to further the cause of helping others.
And of course, a lot of it really is that there's a ton of vested interests. In many cases it isn't so much that people aren't educated but that interests are hurt by it, especially in the case of fossil fuels and climate change.
In general though, here in the US, we hear a ton about 'those left behind' by the socio-economic, cultural, and technological changes at the turn of the millennium. It's a different era really in a lot of respects, something that I think a lot of people haven't really adjusted to. This, I think, is the key to a lot of these issues: just how much change we've seen in the span of 10-15 years. And it's understandable to see why anxieties can spawn from quick change.
I actually wonder if E3 will shed any light on the campaign for this game and what they are portraying there. WW2 has been done to death in games, but there's still a ton of unexplored history.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:
And I found it important to point out that a lot of "historically inaccurate" are not about gender or race.
In case of the BF5 Trailer, after having looked into it more it seems the female soldier and the black british soldier are only about 1/4 ofwhat probably triggered people to dislike because of "historical inaccuray"... one of the british soldiers in the european theater has a katana on his back - and again, then we have robot-arm lady shooting a rifle with a pretty primitive prostetic arm.
And that doesn't even go into the full overthetopness of the whole cutscene... which in my case was easing me off a little bit because all of this probably was meant to be not taken seriously at all... looked like fortnite without the cartoon graphics... seems it still managed to trigger some people even more.
That's just my point though: the game was clearly never intending to be historically accurate. You can see it in pretty much every aspect of the trailer. And again, Battlefield has been extremely far from historically accurate since it's inception.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:
a) if the whole historical correctness angle wouldn't be there, it couldn't be used... thus making the game look more cartoony, using a fantasy world, making it clear that this is alternate history
b) if the game would be a new IP, you would have to deal with less fanboism -> hence why changing existing IPs to accomodate more diversity has to be done very carefully IMO
c) if the whole environment would have been soured by years of pointless slapfests in the media and on youtube, people would probably react less toxic and you would just hear one or two people mutter something about "that katana and robot arm is not historical" - that shit wasn't as much an issue 10 years ago, at least I cannot remember it to be.
a): we've addressed this really earlier imo.
b): But why shouldn't IPs evolve? Look at James Bond (as an example, since my dad is a huge fan and I'm really familiar with the series): it's almost unrecognizable at this point compared to the older versions (I mean a blonde Bond, omg, people had meltdowns over that when Casino Royale first came out
). Within gaming, look at how different the new God of War is from the older ones. The point is that IPs change: they have to change to keep pace with changing cultural and economic realities. The old God of War was a game essentially catered towards testosterone in an era when games were about non stop action with little reason or thought given to why. These days are different. The new one is much different. It's about a journey of a dad. The point is that things change. Like I said earlier, we shouldn't really ignore the fact that things have changed. And devs realize that things change so they try to keep franchises possible by changing up things.
c): Well 10 years ago there was also less prevalence of the Internet. I barely used it circa 2005, and most people didn't use it nearly as much as now. And around that time the pace of change was different. It's now 2018. A lot can change in approximately 10 years, and a lot has changed. I'm not sure that it's people have 'become more toxic and are just attacking one another more' that's the issue there. That seems more like a symptom and not an issue.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:
I would be damned if I could find a real unbiased source on the matter that I would trust. I mostly pieced it together from clearly biased sources. Just read the gaming press, watch some anti-SJW youtube videos, mix it, divide by two, and you get something close to the truth.
Sorry, not going to link to something that I don't fully trust.
The gist of it, removing as much bias as I can: the guy at the top of the studio was a controversial figure during the GG controversy, obviously very involved. He headed a Czech studio to develop a first person RPG set in mediaval bohemia that was really using historical accuray as its main feature.
The game quickly got critisized for not having PoC and, as far as I remember, not enough women in it. The studio, especially the guy at the top, started a counterattack mocking the guys complaining about it. Historically accurate angle was used as defense. The whole thing exploded as it always does, gaming press started writing pieces on him, anti-SJW squad came to the defense, ugly slapfest ensued.
The result was the game came out unchanged, was a huge success for a relatively small game from a small studio, and apparently was decent, if not brilliant.
Questions got raised if the game would have gotten just as much flak for what could be seen as a minor issue in a small game from eastern europe if the guy at the top wouldn't have been wellknown from GG.
That is pretty much the gist of it, trying to be as unbiased as I can. If you want the version with more flavour, again, your probably can google it. was all the rage for a month or so, and the internet is still filled with the remains of that dumpster fire.
My own reading into it seems to portray that some people pointed out that the game could've had more non-whites that aren't just enemies. Then people dug into it a bit more, and were like 'yea maybe there could be some more' and the dev, a prominent Gamergate supporter, responded rather harshly, sparking a ton of fighting. My guess is that this had more to do with Gamergate than with anything else, which is itself a massively controversial subject. The Witcher 3 isn't exactly super diverse in any way and was wildly successful, and a great game imo. I'm not very familiar with history in that era, nor am I familiar with the game at all. But Gamergate anything will lead to fighting.
On 6/5/2018 at 6:54 PM, Gian-Reto said:
No, its not a provocative trailer. But people are on edge because this whole "SJW vs. anti-SJW" thing was never allowed to die down by both sides. Its still being fed by the media and youtube channels every day, just check for yourself.
The solution to THAT problem is when people no longer care, there will be no money more in trying to rile up people for clicks.
And to make people not care anymore... yeah, you kinda have to let it die down. Kinda let more things just go instead of reacting to it. Because this loop is being fed by reactions. And it has escalated to a point where I am no longer sure there are ANY reactions that can help to de-escalate. ESPECIALLY when all these reactions often come in the heat of the moment, where even the official reps of game devs and movie studios sometimes write stuff they probably would regret having written months later. I hope at least they regret it.
Look, I understand some people wanting to change the world. I understand some people feeling the other is in the wrong, and wanting to either shut them down or convince them. But I don't think any of this can happen. This has escalated way beyond what can be contained. If you think otherwise, and want to do something against it, good luck to you. You will need it.
You seem to be of the belief that this will 'die' if we let it 'die'. And that's just what I'm saying: it won't. There wasn't anything in this trailer that was all that provocative. It looked to be a cartoony arcadey WW2 game. This isn't controversy worthy and to most people it isn't.
There's an assumption that the fuel to the fire is 'the other side' and really, I'm not sure that's true. I'd be willing to bet that it will continue to become a larger issue either way, even if we start going out of our way to not offend the other 'side'. I don't really think it is about reactions.