Hypothetical: Legacy flavour text?
" All publicity be good publicity :D The Hyperbomber for 2.6: https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1879383
|
|
" Yeah, no racism here. And never mind that homosexual activity was an arrestable offense throughout much of the 50's, 60's, and is still happening in the 21st century. No, people in the 50's were not raging hate-filled monsters, it was just so ingrained in the culture that no one gave it a second thought. <Edited by support> A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 Last edited by Eben_GGG#0000 on May 17, 2015, 7:58:29 AM
|
|
" Sure, why not? You find it offensive, but I don't, so why should I consider your sensibilities important enough to warrant removal? Why should GGG? Nobody has a right not to be offended and different things offend different people. People also have different senses of humour, and, even worse, some people have no sense of humour at all, which pretty much guarantees that just about anything that isn't extremely bland will offend somebody. Thus removing something merely because some players find it offensive would be insanity, both from a logical perspective and from a business perspective. So for a game developer such as GGG, it is always a question of prioritization when something attracts controversy and offends some of their players. Some of the main points being: a) Is it something that deliberately attempts to offend some people or is it accidentally offensive? And how will players who are not offended by it react to it? b) Does it also offend decision-makers at the developer/publisher or do they themselves consider it inoffensive? c) How do they believe changing their game in response to the controversy will affect their business? d) How do they believe not changing their game in response to the controversy will affect their business? ... And then they try to pick a course in troubled waters, knowing full well that whatever they decide it won't satisfy everybody. You should be happy this is the case. You should be REALLY happy that game developers don't react on principles about what some players think "just shouldn't be done in a game". Because imagine if it was not. Imagine if the fact that some players consider something to be offensive was enough to remove it on principle. Just imagine. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have a sexualized Scion who is a mariticide, a hulking primitive Marauder, an adulterous womanizing duelist, a diabolical child-killing Witch, a self-righteous Templar, a dastardly Shadow, and a tomboy Ranger, criminals one and all, committing mass murder of living people on an industrial scale and despoiling the dead, all the while depopulating the wildlife in an extermination campaign beyond the darkest dreams of PETA. And that's before we get into the whole question of which religious sensibilities are offended. The game is full of stuff that can be considered offensive to many different religions. Now, it is possible, even likely, that most people of most religions, won't be offended, but if you are acting on principle, then I'm afraid the entire magic system will have to go. For starters. So in the case in point, I'd expect GGG to react like any sensible game developer. Which is to weigh the pros and cons to their business taking the sensibilities of their own decision-makers and the nature of their brand and IP into consideration, make their choice, and then, if needed, justify it to the world in a way that makes it clear they are acting from either a) principle, b) consideration for their customers, or preferably c) both. Last edited by Pi2rEpsilon#4367 on May 17, 2015, 8:20:16 AM
|
|
|
Can we please keep the discussion in this thread civil? I know subjects like this tend to be politically sensitive, but there's nothing to be gained from personal attacks.
I'd actually like to see more serious discussion about content and tone and the portrayal of controversial subject matter though. I have a lot of interest in how people react to games, what with it being so central to my job. So it kind of sucks to see people's personal reactions to something get dismissed as invalid, rather than examining what caused them. " I doubt that forbidding hate speech in Divination Card flavour text will have that result, because it's not the same as saying the game can't include dark or mature content. I think that the way that we address that content matters though. So depicting cruelty, bigotry and injustice doesn't require normalizing, endorsing or rewarding them. In fact I often see the opposite happen - when something tries too hard to be offensive, it can end up undermining it's own artistic aspirations. Gameplay & Level Design
Need help? Contact support@grindinggear.com | |
" Not that I disagree with your last sentence there (I'm no post-modernist), but you're tiptoeing dangerously close the idea of "Why CAN'T I drop the N-bomb in public?!" " It's not logical to leave inflammatory, insensitive language in your game. Would you be ok with, and defend the use of, the N-bomb in the game? After all, it doesn't offend everybody! Why not leave it in? It's art! Choose your battles wisely. Bigotry-as-art is unpalatable. Dan brought up a good point above me... Normalizing bigotry through seemingly little pokes and jabs almost as destructive over the long haul as outright screaming in the streets. A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 Last edited by Antnee#4468 on May 17, 2015, 9:25:49 AM
|
|
" I need a tldr for that. But to the religious undertone the game uses: There is no earthly religion in this game, so the religion argument doesnt even work. And religion isnt really that big anymore, and for good reason, its in decline big time actually. Tomboy ranger? Shes a lesbian, that is well known by now, so dont call it anything but, thats actually more offensive than the religious stuff in the game. And are you really saying the classes are potentially offensive? Templars are known to be religious. Marauders are basically native new zealanders, the witch is the standard witch you get in any fairy tale or game or movie, the shadow is the typical assassin and the duelist is a sword fighter. Which of these could offend anyone? |
|
" Strawpoll doesn't match the list above. The order is different. You will get some votes cast expecting them to match. From above 1 is 2(in poll) , 2 is 3 and 3 is 1. .
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 100% Ethical, most of the time. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- . |
|
" " " What is it with people and their extreme ideological polarization? Me pointing out that the 50's were not as bad as dirk lays it out to be does not mean I am saying there was no racism or homophobia in that era at all. If you think the 50's were the most homophobic and racist era in the history of mankind, you and dirk are both hilariously mistaken. In any case, the direction we're heading right now regarding freedom of speech and political correctness and whatnot, can be condensed into this quote from someone whose name I can't remember: "The fascists of tomorrow are going to be the ones who claim to be anti-fascism". The combination of words that hold the least bit of power (amounting to exactly none) in an argument are "I am offended". If someone makes a poem or limerick (or whatever the text was) about a man committing suicide after finding out he had sex with another man offends someone, who gives a shit? The text didn't say "sleep with another man and you must/should/need to/have to/ought to kill yourself and/or the other person", it didn't advocate any violence or discrimination toward anyone. If a homophobe finds out they had conducted homosexual acts, chances are they will feel ashamed for what they've done. The text pointed out this obvious fact, and the only thing that it could possibly offend are homophobes, by being about a homophobe who couldn't handle the shame (and I know some people feel the need to project themselves into everything and translate that to mean that no homophobe can handle the shame). If the only thing you want to accomplish by being "offended" is to silence the "offender", you're not only harming freedom of expression, but you're creating an atmosphere where everyone's an offender, and the real racists and whatever gain ground. If you call a non-racist a racist for something that was clearly not racist (i'm in a hurry, so I can't provide a link to a case right now, but maybe later), you'll eventually make those non-racists say "well fuck it, if this is racist, then I am a goddamn racist" at which point the real racists gain a smokescreen to conduct their racist agenda. Some times I wonder if SJW's and feminists and all those "boo hoo I am offended" people are actually racists, misogynists and fascists themselves because they seem to do everything in their power to get people to hate whatever group they're "offended" for. |
|
" Well, you can. What happens next depends entirely on what the sensibilities of the people you are with are like, which depends on many things, starting with culture and upbringing and going from there. Do it where I live, Copenhagen, Denmark, and it is unlikely to have the same effect as if you do it, in, say Harlem in the US, because it doesn't carry the same connotations. We simply don't have the same historical baggage to form our connotations - we have our own historical background, and thus our own connotations. Do it on an internet forum, and what happens depends on the rules of the forum, the nationalities of the participants, and the sensitivities of the moderators. As the simplest example, in the US both nigger and negro carry negative connotations in most situations and are only socially acceptable when used in a very limited number of situations, while in e.g. Denmark only nigger carries a negative connotation, and that mainly because we learned about it from US movies. We simply don't have the hangover with classifying people by race as identified by skin colour or ancestry as the US does. We have our own hangovers that are no less ugly when viewed in bright daylight. " I have no idea how you managed to miss the word merely, in my statement. It was very clear. You don't act merely because some players find it offensive. As I made abundantly clear in listing some of the major points for any developer to take into consideration, one of the very real issues is whether the decision-makers at the developer consider it offensive or not, another is whether they consider it to be deliberately or accidentally offensive. A third is how they think those who are not offended will react and, crucially, especially in cases where they are not themselves offended, how many do they think will be offended vs. how many won't, and do they have sympathy for the offended even if they don't share the feeling of offense. If I was developing a game with the US market in mind, something I have done in the past and may do again, then to take your specific example I'd take that in consideration and be very careful about using either negro or nigger. I would try to only only use them in situations where the majority of the US audience was likely to find it appropriate, e.g. if depicting somebody who is a bigot doing something that I indicate is bigoted, not using it in casual conservation because I know full well that even if I use the word negro in a situation where it is entirely appropriate and absolutely nothing negative is intended, it is a touchy subject for many in the target market. Last edited by Pi2rEpsilon#4367 on May 17, 2015, 9:40:49 AM
|
|
" You're also downplaying just how bad it was. Say what you said to ANY black American who has even the slightest, most tenuous grasp of history, and tell me exactly how that situation turns out for you. " You also need to understand that there is a difference between offensive ideas and offended people. No one (who doesn't live in the margins of society) would argue that the N-bomb is not an absolutely offensive concept. You are also, almost certainly saying all this from a position of privilege. You are not a trans person, you do not suffer the constant, socially-accepted barrage of jokes and harassment directed at your very existence. You have a practically nil chance of being the butt of a joke in which the very idea of touching you is worthy of suicide, because of your class. " If your speech is so vulgar that the only defense you have is "well, it's not technically illegal!", you seriously need to examine what freedom of speech means to you. And if you're of the mindset that speech is just speech, and harms no one... Please, PLEASE study history. Emphasis on civil rights. A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 |
|
