The Philosophy, Art, and Social Influence of games
User avatar
isiolia
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5575
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 1:52 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by isiolia Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:18 am

dsheinem wrote:Note that there's an important and sometimes fuzzy line between offensive speech and abusive or inciteful speech. I don't believe, in the case of PoE, that the line was crossed.


I think the PoE thing would also vary a lot on how the person reading it perceives it. To me, it doesn't immediately read as trans anything. Could just mean to imply cross-dressing. Or within the context of computer RPGs, something on the level of a guy playing a female character (you know, Mostly Men Online Role Playing Girls).

Seems like something they could have left in and written off complaints about, but elected not to as it's ultimately not important for their end product. I think it was less giving in to the crowd though, and more just not realizing how some people might interpret it.


ME3 wasn't changed per se. The Extended Cut DLC largely serves to explain things better, but doesn't fundamentally change it. The original version is still there if you don't install the DLC.
User avatar
MrPopo
Moderator
 
Posts: 22727
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by MrPopo Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:25 am

dsheinem wrote:Rather, say what's on your mind and be ready to face the consequences...but those consequences should be debate and perhaps censurship, not "offense" as grounds for censorship.

Note that there's an important and sometimes fuzzy line between offensive speech and abusive or inciteful speech. I don't believe, in the case of PoE, that the line was crossed.

See, I agree here that if someone wants to do something hilariously offensive, like every word that comes out of Cartman's mouth, then that should be allowed, and then it gets put up for criticism and people decide whether or not to engage in that work based on criticism they hear. But what happens when a creator makes something that they never intended to be offensive, or didn't realize was offensive? That's what happened here in PoE; it's very likely the only human who ever saw that piece of text was one of the localizers and they probably didn't bring it up since it was just part of their larger "translate this huge amount of text". The actual text got entered into a form and probably just got batched up and automatically imported.

Again, my example of the character from Magic the Gathering comes to mind. They created a character with a name they pulled out of thin air that just happened to be the same as a sacred word in a religion. Any reasonable person would understand that they weren't intending to offend. But they decided to change it because they had made an unintentional mistake.
Image
Games Beaten: 2015 2016 2017 2018
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
User avatar
irixith
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by irixith Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:51 am

samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that violence against trans-folk (or anyone for that matter) is wrong?


Violence against trans people simply for being trans is not OK, as violence against anyone simply for being something you don't like/don't agree with is not OK. Violence in broad spectrum as right or wrong is a whole different rabbit hole.

samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that poking fun of trans-folk (or any disenfranchised people) is in poor taste?


No, I'm afraid I couldn't agree to to this point. It goes back to George...you can talk about it but you can't joke about it, can't joke about it 'cause it's not funny. No. You can't control a person's thoughts or their language or their sense of humour predicated on *your* idea of what's in poor taste or not. Some people get a kick out of toilet humour, some people think it's puerile. Doesn't stop toilet humour from existing or being enjoyed by those that enjoy it. Designating one particular group or thing as "in poor taste" will paint a target directly over them -- what makes them so special? (Any group you would designate as "in poor taste".)

samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that censorship is an inherently bad idea?


Censorship is bad, yes.

samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that comedians naturally (even rightfully) push the envelopes of good taste?


Good taste or bad taste is too subjective...but yes, they push the envelope for sure. They tackle difficult or polarizing issues through the lens of comedy, which in many cases opens the door to a deeper discussion about those issues.

samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that the right to free speech is more important than preventing hurt feelings but less important than preventing a grisly murder?


Free speech is important, providing (as is a protected thing here in the west) you are not inciting hatred of another group for the sake of inciting hatred. Having a discussion that brings up points that people on either side of the discussion might not like (hurt feelings) is fine, and yes, very important. Preventing a "grisly murder" doesn't factor into this point...I see what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't wash. We're not talking about free speech resulting in people dying.

This being racketboy, I think we can all disagree on anything. It's a good group. Some of the best discussion comes from completely opposing viewpoints...
User avatar
marurun
Moderator
 
Posts: 9541
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by marurun Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:37 pm

I am not taking issue with the legitimacy of transgendered identity. Clearly transgendered people exist, but they can exist without co-opting a condition (such as intersex) which has nothing to do with being transgender.

I haven't seen that they are co-opting intersex conditions. They are merely used to illustrate that GENDER has only a loose affiliation with the biology of SEX. Just as skin color is more important than actual heritage, gender presentation is more important to us as a society than underlying sex. Those who contend otherwise don't understand the cultural underpinning of gender and the inherent fluidity of gender.

Empathy and socialization are different things. Being oppressed or marginalized for being transgender is not the same as being oppressed or marginalized for being female. They are both marginalization and oppression, but they are different. Do not conflate them.

I think history has shown us quite well that men and women (which are gender terms, not sex terms) can, in fact, successfully live in each others' roles. This is not some insurmountable task. Socialization is very important, but it is not everything, and it can be overcome, co-opted, etc...

Conflating sex and gender is bad.

You keep saying that, but I don't see it happening. You are looking for a problem that doesn't exist in this discussion.

The severity of the deception is what factors here, as I thought I was clear about. A trans woman who "tricks" a man into sleeping with them has committed an egregious deception. This is not covering your sexual past, this is denying your partner an absolutely essential piece of information that they are entitled to before engaging in sexual intercourse. It's not concealing gender, it's concealing SEX (and this is why it's so very important not to conflate the two), they are different things. Does someone deserve to be KILLED for the deception? No. Is the deception severe enough to warrant that response? That involves a discussion down the road of the internalized homophobia that comes with male socialization, and another thread entirely I think.

No, this isn't concealing SEX. It is concealing GENDER. Sex is actually quite irrelevant in our society beyond reproduction (easily stopped) and external manifestation of genitalia (easily changed). The act of having sex is, in western culture, completely severed from the role of sex in reproduction (save that reproduction is a potential consequence). Since external genital manifestation is now ultimately fluid and alterable, the primary factor is indeed gender presentation and not sex.

I see a lot in your arguments of this putting biology on a pedestal. Human history has clearly demonstrated that culture can be equal, and in some cases greater, than any number of biological factors. Biology has some strict limitations (like death, and taxes... wait, that's not biological), but also some that are easily subverted. Gender is what we have built on top of sex, but we didn't build it on top of the genetics of sex, but merely the outward manifestations of sex. And the outward manifestations of sex don't always line up with our chromosomes, especially, but not exclusively, in this day and age. That means that society is ultimately concerned with our physical presentation, and not with our genetics. That is why intersex conditions are important to the trans community. Those conditions demonstrate how, ultimately, sex is not strictly tied to gender. It demonstrates that, despite how tightly many conservatives and traditionalists cling to rote and restrictive gender definitions, gender has fluidity and interpretation built-in because of the flawed basis of its assignment.

I'm not sure we can use socialized homophobia as a rationalization for making concealing ones transition from a sexual partner a greater issue than any other pre- or post-bedroom deception. That strikes me as a dangerous direction. (Not-great example warning) My phobia of needles doesn't mean I can get out of necessary inoculations, or that I am in any way absolved from punching a doctor should he or she attempt to force one on me. As mentioned before, STDs have material affects on partners. Those are important to disclose. I think one's transition is also important to disclose, but the effect of that non-disclosure is highly interpretational. And there is a risk to such disclosures. Trans folks are always at risk of harassment and violence, and still have high rates of suicide as a result of that harassment and violence. Reveal that history to the wrong person and you just opened yourself up to horrible abuse.

irixith wrote:
samsonlonghair wrote:Can we all agree that poking fun of trans-folk (or any disenfranchised people) is in poor taste?


No, I'm afraid I couldn't agree to to this point... You can't control a person's thoughts or their language or their sense of humour predicated on *your* idea of what's in poor taste or not... Designating one particular group or thing as "in poor taste" will paint a target directly over them -- what makes them so special? (Any group you would designate as "in poor taste".)

It is about privilege and power. When a privileged group pokes fun at a disenfranchised group, it becomes very difficult to disentangle the language of humor from the language oppression. That is why black people in the US can refer to each other as "nigger" but white people who do so are deemed racist. White is the privileged skin color in the US, and that term is derogatory in the hands of the privileged, and a subversion of privilege in the hands of the under-privileged. So yes, I think we SHOULD all concede that poking fun at trans-folk is in poor taste. It isn't illegal, and one is free to make whatever bad choices one wants, in the name of humor or whatever, but it IS in poor taste.

We should also note that occasionally poor taste makes for great humor, but only if handled very well. Carlin was a master of this. Others end up only putting a target on themselves (to co-opt your language), because they lack the subtlety or intelligence to walk that very fine line.

It is not intended to belittle or offend (if you want to be offended, go read some queer theory)...but it is kool-aid. Swallow this misinformation and regard it as true, in the face of all the contradictory evidence.

So the line "if you want to be offended, go read some queer theory" is somehow not intended to offend anyone... Right. Yeah, I see how aren't belittling anyone.

There is, no doubt, some writing within the LGBT camp that is misinformation, but LGBT issues are more social than biological. Biology is involved, but we still don't fully understand all the relationships. Science tells us quite a bit, but when it comes to LGBT issues, science tells us very little right now, and what it does tell us is often at odds with itself. Contradictory evidence is going to be shaky at best given how poorly we understand these connections.

I think this discussion is pretty much over. We've covered the topics, and I don't see any productive motion forward from here. Between us it appears there will be no middle ground on this issue.

I will say, however, that I am offended by some of your language use. I'm not offended by the fact that you hold a differing opinion, but your presentation is, to me, problematic. I don't know if you are privileged, and I would be wrong to speculate about that, but you use the language and assumptions of privilege, and that is where this discussion offends.

But what happens when a creator makes something that they never intended to be offensive, or didn't realize was offensive? That's what happened here in PoE; it's very likely the only human who ever saw that piece of text was one of the localizers and they probably didn't bring it up since it was just part of their larger "translate this huge amount of text". The actual text got entered into a form and probably just got batched up and automatically imported.


Popo, this was not a translated game. The text in question was submitted for a tombstone in the game as part of a Kickstarter reward. It was a little poem that does not look like was meant to offend, but did because it was ill-considered.
B/S/T thread
My Classic Games Collection
My Steam Profile
The PC Engine Software Bible Forum, with Shoutbox chat - the new Internet home for PC Engine fandom.
User avatar
BoringSupreez
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 9740
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by BoringSupreez Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:14 pm

samsonlonghair wrote:In the interest of building some consensus, let's see if we can all agree on some points here.

Can we all agree that violence against trans-folk (or anyone for that matter) is wrong?

Yes.
Can we all agree that poking fun of trans-folk (or any disenfranchised people) is in poor taste?

No, if I find it funny... then it's funny. No one is (or at least, should be) above being the subject of a joke.
Can we all agree that censorship is an inherently bad idea?

Yes.
Can we all agree that comedians naturally (even rightfully) push the envelopes of good taste?

Yes.
Can we all agree that the right to free speech is more important than preventing hurt feelings but less important than preventing a grisly murder?

This one's very very contextual. If there was a killer running around after a certain person who was in hiding, and the media wanted to leak his location, I'd be against it. If you're referring to something more like the Charlie Hedbo situation, no, they should get to publish what they wanted. Pretty much unless you can point to a specific person that will die in the very immediate future as the result of saying a specific something, I'm going to say free speech should be unfettered.


I agree with basically everything irixith said, excluding the gender privilege stuff.

Something I'd like to point out is that often it is the publisher, not the developer, that is pressured into forcing PC changes. While the developer may think in terms of artistic vision and creativity, publishers by nature see things in terms of $$$. So while the developer may not care that 326 San Franciscan Tumblrites think his creation is oppressive towards transgendered speciesfluid pan-aromantic yeti headmates, the publisher sees bad publicity and the possibility of a boycott. And so the content is altered, even if it infringes on the original vision.

The PC culture these days is so stifling. I don't know why people aren't taught to take knocks and mockery without getting butthurt anymore. There's literally not a single thing you could say to me that would cause me to fly off the handle, because I know whatever someone else says it's just their opinion. I have my own opinion of myself and I don't have to let it change based on those of others.

I see the same thing happening in the military. Used to be if someone screwed up you could scream at them for being a useless fuckwit, now you get in trouble for hurting their feelings and have to go to reeducation at the equal opportunity office. Tangential, but it is an example of the spread of political correctness.

It's been a while since I've posted anything where I felt like I'll possibly get upset replies and/or PMs, not since the thread on the "toxicity of online gaming" thread about a year ago. There are websites where people can post what the actually think vs what opinions and mindsets are considered acceptable by the increasingly narrow-minded mainstream culture without facing penalties, and this hasn't been one of them for several years. When I first joined holding negative views of transsexualism wouldn't have been a controversial thing, it would have been one viewpoint out of a selection of others.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:There is nothing feigned about it. What I wrote is a display of actual moral superiority.
User avatar
MrPopo
Moderator
 
Posts: 22727
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by MrPopo Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:16 pm

marurun wrote:
But what happens when a creator makes something that they never intended to be offensive, or didn't realize was offensive? That's what happened here in PoE; it's very likely the only human who ever saw that piece of text was one of the localizers and they probably didn't bring it up since it was just part of their larger "translate this huge amount of text". The actual text got entered into a form and probably just got batched up and automatically imported.


Popo, this was not a translated game. The text in question was submitted for a tombstone in the game as part of a Kickstarter reward. It was a little poem that does not look like was meant to offend, but did because it was ill-considered.

I don't think you understood what I'm saying. PoE is a game I Kickstarted and have been enjoying, and I'm familiar with the backer tombstones. I looked at the first couple but the quality was so inconsistent that I stopped; it ended up being dumb. My reference to localizers is that the game has been localized in several languages beyond the primary language of English in which the poem was written by a backer. I am assuming that they also localized the backer poems; I could be wrong in that respect. If they didn't, that means that NO human actually saw the poem.

Several people here have made a point about censorship when someone is offended, and I'm trying to demonstrate that when you unintentionally create something that is offensive that changing it when it is pointed out is not censorship.
Image
Games Beaten: 2015 2016 2017 2018
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
User avatar
irixith
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 1771
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:22 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by irixith Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:08 pm

You have good intentions marurun, don't think I don't see them...but as they say, there's a certain path, to a certain place, and it's paved with 'em.

marurun wrote:I haven't seen that they are co-opting intersex conditions. They are merely used to illustrate that GENDER has only a loose affiliation with the biology of SEX. Just as skin color is more important than actual heritage, gender presentation is more important to us as a society than underlying sex. Those who contend otherwise don't understand the cultural underpinning of gender and the inherent fluidity of gender.


I defined sex (male/female) and gender (sex-role stereotypes) already. Intersex is a rare, but normal aberration in sexual dimorphism, where the person is not distinctly identifiable as male or female. That person is subject to the oppression of gender just like any other, and may develop a gender identity that is incongruent with their biological sex characteristics. (aka, an intersex person can be transgender...or not.) The existence of intersex people however, does not support, or have anything to do with occurrences of transgender people. Is that clear? They are completely different conditions, one being a physical anomaly, the other being a psychiatric one. Intersex is commonly used as this "proof" that "see, see, it's not all just male/female", which is co-opting an unrelated conditition to gain legitimacy for another. Intersex people are commonly (and have every right to be) angry about this co-opting.

Yes, gender conformity is very important, especially in Westernized society, and yes, it hurts everyone's freedom of expression. Gender is not fluid -- in fact, gender is very rigid. It's personal expression that's fluid, and THAT conflicts with gender. However, gender is not more important than biological sex -- to assert so is to completely erase and deny the realities of being female or male, as if becoming so is as easy as changing outfits. This is completely false, damaging and more offensive than anything that's been said in this thread by far.

marurun wrote:I think history has shown us quite well that men and women (which are gender terms, not sex terms) can, in fact, successfully live in each others' roles. This is not some insurmountable task. Socialization is very important, but it is not everything, and it can be overcome, co-opted, etc...


Socialization cannot be overcome. It can be supplemented, but it cannot be unlearned. A male who is transgender cannot co-opt "female" identity, no more so than a female who is transgender cannot co-opt "male" identity. They can perform gender to such a degree that they conform to society's expectations, but they will never be "female" or "male". They may be able to "pass" as "women" or "men", but dig up that skeleton when they're dead, and you'll be looking at adult human male and adult human female. It's immutable.

marurun wrote:No, this isn't concealing SEX. It is concealing GENDER. Sex is actually quite irrelevant in our society beyond reproduction (easily stopped) and external manifestation of genitalia (easily changed). The act of having sex is, in western culture, completely severed from the role of sex in reproduction (save that reproduction is a potential consequence). Since external genital manifestation is now ultimately fluid and alterable, the primary factor is indeed gender presentation and not sex.

I see a lot in your arguments of this putting biology on a pedestal. Human history has clearly demonstrated that culture can be equal, and in some cases greater, than any number of biological factors. Biology has some strict limitations (like death, and taxes... wait, that's not biological), but also some that are easily subverted. Gender is what we have built on top of sex, but we didn't build it on top of the genetics of sex, but merely the outward manifestations of sex. And the outward manifestations of sex don't always line up with our chromosomes, especially, but not exclusively, in this day and age. That means that society is ultimately concerned with our physical presentation, and not with our genetics. That is why intersex conditions are important to the trans community. Those conditions demonstrate how, ultimately, sex is not strictly tied to gender. It demonstrates that, despite how tightly many conservatives and traditionalists cling to rote and restrictive gender definitions, gender has fluidity and interpretation built-in because of the flawed basis of its assignment.

I'm not sure we can use socialized homophobia as a rationalization for making concealing ones transition from a sexual partner a greater issue than any other pre- or post-bedroom deception. That strikes me as a dangerous direction. (Not-great example warning) My phobia of needles doesn't mean I can get out of necessary inoculations, or that I am in any way absolved from punching a doctor should he or she attempt to force one on me. As mentioned before, STDs have material affects on partners. Those are important to disclose. I think one's transition is also important to disclose, but the effect of that non-disclosure is highly interpretational. And there is a risk to such disclosures. Trans folks are always at risk of harassment and violence, and still have high rates of suicide as a result of that harassment and violence. Reveal that history to the wrong person and you just opened yourself up to horrible abuse.


No, it is not concealing GENDER, it is concealing SEX. This is what I mean about conflating the two, it is dangerous to assert that one is simply concealing their "gender identity" rather than their biological sex. Yes, surgery that amounts to some incredible body modification is possible, moreso in favour of the male transgender than the female, but possible all the same. However, that's just looks. A fully functioning vagina is no more able to be created than a fully functioning penis. They look like approximations of their real counterparts but they don't feel, smell, function or operate as their real counterparts do. In the case of male transgender people, the body considers the surgical outcome a wound, and will continually attempt to heal it...and a procedure known as "dilating" is necessary to prevent it from closing. In the case of female transgender people, they are left with horrific wounds from the area(s) that skin grafts are taken from, and the resulting "penis" can still be rejected by the body and sloughed off as dead tissue. That's if the surgeries were done, we haven't even touched on transgender people who maintain their biology and simply assert it using language "lady stick", or "my dick" in the case of clitoral enlargement. Do you see? These are issues related to biological sex, not "gender identity".

I am not putting biology on a pedestal. I am saying that it MATTERS to the discussion. There are biological realities that matter when having this discussion and dissecting the jokes. These realities are not "easily subverted", they are NEVER subverted. I piss on queer theory because it attempts to pass exactly the assertion that you are -- that sex is no biggie, gender is what matters, if you say you're female you're female, if you say you're male you're male.

You have to understand that I am not denying that transgender people exist, nor am I taking aim at their personal sense of gender identity, or anyone else's perception of their gender identity, if they even feel they have one. I am simply asserting that biological sex is important, it matters, and it cannot be erased, conflated or muddled in order to provide sensitivity to people who struggle with their gender identity. It's pandering to suggest that biological sex is of no consequence, and as damaging to people that aren't transgender as it is to people that are.

As I said, internalized homophobia is a different and much longer discussion that really has no place in this discussion -- but is in fact one of the leading reasons why "trans panic" laws exist at all. Your example regarding needles is so poor that I can't even address it.

marurun wrote:It is about privilege and power. When a privileged group pokes fun at a disenfranchised group, it becomes very difficult to disentangle the language of humor from the language oppression. That is why black people in the US can refer to each other as "nigger" but white people who do so are deemed racist. White is the privileged skin color in the US, and that term is derogatory in the hands of the privileged, and a subversion of privilege in the hands of the under-privileged. So yes, I think we SHOULD all concede that poking fun at trans-folk is in poor taste. It isn't illegal, and one is free to make whatever bad choices one wants, in the name of humor or whatever, but it IS in poor taste.

We should also note that occasionally poor taste makes for great humor, but only if handled very well. Carlin was a master of this. Others end up only putting a target on themselves (to co-opt your language), because they lack the subtlety or intelligence to walk that very fine line.


There it is again, being told what I SHOULD consider "poor taste", and being lectured about privilege to boot. I will accept, understand and fight for what you or anyone else feels is "poor taste", but I will not be forced into considering it "poor taste" myself simply because you do. You dig?

This discussion always ends up in a place where someone tries to parallel the politics of race...race parallels biological sex quite nicely, being that both are things that are born, innate, testable, provable and the "hands that you were dealt". Being born black sets you up for an oppression entirely separate from (but can be applied in concert with) the oppression of gender based on your biological sex. It is not a choice. We currently have no method to prove whether or not being anything on the LGBTQ+ spectrum is innate...and given that people CAN choose to be L, G, B, T or Q regardless of whether they feel there is any biological basis for it...it becomes difficult if not impossible to parallel with race. You cannot choose your "heritage", but you can choose to adopt the sex-role stereotypes of your preferred sex class...transgender or not transgender.

marurun wrote:So the line "if you want to be offended, go read some queer theory" is somehow not intended to offend anyone... Right. Yeah, I see how aren't belittling anyone.

There is, no doubt, some writing within the LGBT camp that is misinformation, but LGBT issues are more social than biological. Biology is involved, but we still don't fully understand all the relationships. Science tells us quite a bit, but when it comes to LGBT issues, science tells us very little right now, and what it does tell us is often at odds with itself. Contradictory evidence is going to be shaky at best given how poorly we understand these connections.

I think this discussion is pretty much over. We've covered the topics, and I don't see any productive motion forward from here. Between us it appears there will be no middle ground on this issue.

I will say, however, that I am offended by some of your language use. I'm not offended by the fact that you hold a differing opinion, but your presentation is, to me, problematic. I don't know if you are privileged, and I would be wrong to speculate about that, but you use the language and assumptions of privilege, and that is where this discussion offends.


Queer theory is highly offensive to just about everyone. Again, I suggest you read some, coupled with post-modernist feminist theory if you really want to go for the one-two punch. You would understand why I say this if you were familiar with the material. It's the fundamental basis for what we're talking about here.

The majority of LGBTQ+ issues are social issues, not biological ones. Biological realities cannot be subverted or co-opted to ignore or support the things that do not lend progress to the social issues. To ignore biology is to erase an entire sex-class (female/male) in the interests of progressing a social issue for a population of people who assert that "female" or "male" are nothing more than an "identity" that can be put on like a new outfit. They aren't. It cannot be ignored within the broader context of the discussion, nor downplayed to not "hurt people's feelings" or to be sensitive to the reality that transgender people exist. They absolutely exist...but they exist on two planes, one of biological reality and one in conflict with the oppression provided by gender.
User avatar
marurun
Moderator
 
Posts: 9541
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by marurun Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:25 pm

Nope. We're done. You can keep typing words, but I am done responding to them, because you have basically proven my point: there is no middle ground for us. I think many of your arguments are inaccurate, especially in reference to the importance of biology. You and I both have agendas, and I think yours is deleterious (intentional or otherwise: you yourself spoke of where good intentions can go). You likely disagree and think the same thing about mine. That's as good a reason to stop as any I can think of at this point.

MrPopo wrote:I don't think you understood what I'm saying. PoE is a game I Kickstarted and have been enjoying, and I'm familiar with the backer tombstones. I looked at the first couple but the quality was so inconsistent that I stopped; it ended up being dumb. My reference to localizers is that the game has been localized in several languages beyond the primary language of English in which the poem was written by a backer. I am assuming that they also localized the backer poems; I could be wrong in that respect. If they didn't, that means that NO human actually saw the poem."

Yeah, you're right. I didn't understand what you were saying. I did read the article and potential misreading of the attitude of the tombstone in question aside, it was otherwise a cute little rhyme that I suspect was submitted already in English. Obsidian's response was that this one was NOT properly vetted by the team, so who knows where the issue was. And I completely agree with your point about some stuff being lost in translation. There are all sorts of gotchas were translating between languages, or even cultural contexts, are concerned.
B/S/T thread
My Classic Games Collection
My Steam Profile
The PC Engine Software Bible Forum, with Shoutbox chat - the new Internet home for PC Engine fandom.
User avatar
samsonlonghair
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:11 pm
Location: Now: Newport News, VA. Formerly: Richmond. Before that: Near the WV/VA border

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by samsonlonghair Sun Apr 05, 2015 4:32 pm

Well, I tried to build a little consensus so we could reach a middle ground. So much for the best laid plans of mice and men.
User avatar
marurun
Moderator
 
Posts: 9541
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

by marurun Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:37 pm

samsonlonghair wrote:Well, I tried to build a little consensus so we could reach a middle ground. So much for the best laid plans of mice and men.


Mice have it easier. Except for the ones bred for research. They get a raw deal.
B/S/T thread
My Classic Games Collection
My Steam Profile
The PC Engine Software Bible Forum, with Shoutbox chat - the new Internet home for PC Engine fandom.
Return to Games As Culture

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests