79
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
79 points (74.5% liked)
Games
16722 readers
529 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
OK you guys sure seem to take your pandering really seriously, so here you go: I'm sorry, this scene is peak writing and a major step for inclusivity. EA is a true champion of the LGBT community, and certainly not a bunch of soulless businessmen driven by profits and focus groups.
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?
So you admit that they sometime do ? Kinda kills your whole point. 🤷
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Sith are a fictional sect of religious space wizards from a space opera. While they may have inspiration from religious sects of reality, they are very much not real. So, whether or not they deal in absolutes has absolutely no consequences to reality outside of the Star Wars fandom.
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.
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