Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

Vaeliorin said:
, so I'm well versed in making up bull■■■■.
Post automatically merged:
Click to expand...

A long time ago in an internet far far away existed this "WoT generator". A thing of beauty. You could select 2 to 5 paragraphs, give a simple sentence and VIOLA! It was comprehensible unadulterated grammatically correct BULL■■■■! But you could tie up the untrained for a few minutes.
 
Dark Sun said:
AI generated image, which most people associated with laziness. lol I never once heard anyone claim the design was "problematic" from a political POV.
Click to expand...
People complain about the native American plauge spitter over the mummy one,

I liked the native one but it should have been a normal Zombie or a cazador bandit zombie
 
theFlu said:
I can't really see a lawsuit happening, TFP do live in the country and they're not likely to publish something that obviously "dangerous". Some "Indian Expert" suing on behalf of the image of a tribe ...? A fictional tribe in a game ...? Yeh, US allows for anyone to sue over anything, but this would be petty, and it would not succeed.


And I would strongly advocate against that way of writing. Not only for this specific case, but in general - everything nowadays feels like it's written with HR in the room, because they are. Checklists of things that might offend someone somewhere, they dull every bit of writing.

Then again, BI is Canadian iirc (?) ; that's the guys who like to have parades on stolen land while apologizing for having their parades on stolen land ... kinda reminiscent of good old fashioned keepaway in school corridors... wouldn't be surprised if they were already in the progress of altering the stories to their higher standards.
Click to expand...

Thank you for spelling it how it is. The problem isn't the material itself per se (imo), it's the fact that there are two hundred chefs in the kitchen and HR and other executives are constantly meddling by breathing down their necks and micromanaging every decision in the name of "market research" and "squeezing ever last cent out of the dollar". Even progressive people are getting tired of it. Bad writing is bad writing, period, and when something is so on the nose to the point of tone deafness and where it reeks of "how ya doing fellow kids?", it turns off even the people they're trying to cater towards. It's somewhat of an equivalent of the live service model. Executives going off of what they perceive will net them the most profit for their quarterly earnings, even if the masses have rejected it time after time. It's the definition of insanity.

There is also a level of entitlement in today's world. It's why there's a plethora of cases of big budget productions with famous IP's being given to people who are not familiar with or actively dislike the source material, and change it beyond recognition while patting themselves on the back. On the most extreme end of this, you get shows like "Resident Evil" which have little to nothing to do with the games themselves, or "Velma" which are just spite-filled dumpster fires.

As I've stated before, corporations are not your friend. Their sole purpose is to make money, all of the money, by any means necessary. They're like a farmer who owns a farm *full of geese that lay golden eggs and they helicopter parent all of them to the extreme to ensure the safety of their investment.

(*Except in this case, it's their attempt to force convert regular geese into magical golden egg layers. They'll fail a thousand times and still continue.)

Bad writing is bad writing. Meddling is meddling. It's no different than Hollywood pressuring writers of foreign works to change their material to appear "more American", to the point it would miss the mark on the intent and message of the creation, like a poet being pressured to rewrite their creative works to be more "formal" and "corporate". In the end, it would create a stale nothing burger of little to no substance. For instance, there is something very particular about "British humour". Changing it to suit the standards or tastes of another culture would only spoil it.
 
Well, as long as folks are entertained...

Jost Amman said:
That TFP are definitely allowed to depict a native American as a criminal
Click to expand...

I think I see the problem. You misunderstand what this entire thread is about.

It was never about depicting a Native American as a bad guy, just like it was never about depicting a White person as a good guy. We all agree it can be OK to do that.

It was about specifically how they are depicted as good or bad. If the depiction presents racial stereotypes as true, that is the issue. That's what turns it from a story where the bad guy happens to be Native American, and the good guy happens to be a White guy, into a contemporary version of a "Cowboys and Injuns" story from a dime Western.

The story of 7D2D does that.

Is the "Casino Indian" trope a negative racial stereotype? Yes. I was not the one who created or named the trope, and I was not one of the people who determined it was a negative racial stereotype. It is not my opinion. If you don't believe me, read the sources I posted - and keep in mind I could not find a single source which said it is not a negative racial stereotype.

Does the Duke exemplify the "Casino Indian" trope? Yes. Does the Duke have potentially redeeming qualities not related to the trope? No. Is the trope presented as real? Yes. Is his depiction a criticism, satire, or joke about the racial stereotype (a la Chief Lazarus from It's Always Sunny)? No. If you don't believe me, read the text about him in the game's translation files, which I also posted in this thread.

None of what I'm saying should be controversial.

You also seem to misunderstand what the "Casino Indian" trope is. It's not just "someone associated with a tribal casino who is a criminal." Fair enough, there are a lot of articles to wade through, and most people aren't as obsessive about things like that as I am.

So, let me try to summarize the trope, as I understand it. A "Casino Indian":
  • Is Native American. (Obviously, but it means a non-Native cannot be a "Casino Indian.")
  • Owns the casino, so all its profits go into their pocket (not to the tribe). It is implied, or outright stated, that they own the casino because they are motivated by greed.
  • Is only allowed to own the casino through legal loopholes, and/or by tricking lawmakers into handing them rights ordinary Americans don't have. (As Jen says, "rigging the game.")
  • Takes valuable things - money, land, local business, tax dollars - away from non-Native (usually White) people.
  • Is directly associated with organized crime. Either they are a willing participant with non-Native criminals (e.g. allow the Mafia to launder money through the casino for a kickback), or themselves behave like an organized crime boss (loan sharking, running protection rackets, has criminal underlings, etc.). They get away with it because tribal casinos are unregulated hotbeds of criminality.
  • Is economically and politically powerful - powerful enough to rival, if not outright dethrone, the economic and political power of non-Native (White) people. Often this is accomplished through corrupt means (bribing officials, back-room deals with shady politicians, etc.).
The Duke has all of the character traits which fit this trope. He has no character traits which do not fit this trope.

In the real world, this trope reinforces negative attitudes towards tribals casinos, and can be directed against Native Americans in general and their rights. "They're not paying their fair share." "They don't need our help, they have casino money." "Casino handouts have made them greedy and lazy." "They claim it's 'sovereignty,' but it's really just a license to violate the laws the rest of us have to follow." You know, stuff like that.

Do you think this is the message The Fun Pimps want to send? I can't be certain, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

On the other hand, your replies sound like you're saying "but that's all true tho!" But I don't want to assume that (it's why I asked what you were saying about the trope, and not what you were saying about me).

Jost Amman said:
Also, I don't think it'll be safe for me to use any of his mods again... because I think he'll add some lines in the code such as: "IF user = "Jost_Amman" then <many bad things will happen>"... 😨
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous. I don't hold any personal animosity towards you. I think you're factually wrong, and consistently misunderstand what I'm saying, but there are far worse things to be in this world.
 
Last edited:
Dark Sun said:
Bad writing is bad writing. Meddling is meddling. It's no different than Hollywood pressuring writers of foreign works to change their material to appear "more American", to the point it would miss the mark on the intent and message of the creation, like a poet being pressured to rewrite their creative works to be more "formal" and "corporate". In the end, it would create a stale nothing burger of little to no substance. For instance, there is something very particular about "British humour". Changing it to suit the standards or tastes of another culture would only spoil it.
Click to expand...
Just this: Modern script writing killing stories.
 
I am curious as to what would be the least invasive path, for those that find issue with the presentation of the Duke, to correct the problem they have with the portrayal of the Duke?

At the end of the day people will either find it offensive or not but for those that do I am curious as to what they would do to fix their issues with the least amount of development time involved.
 
Kyoji said:
At the end of the day people will either find it offensive or not but for those that do I am curious as to what they would do to fix their issues with the least amount of development time involved.
Click to expand...
The baffling thing about all this, is that @khzmusik said it's not even the one he's speaking for, so he won't be able to explain what would "feel right" to fix this made-up issue. 🤷‍♂️

The only one (that we know) with some ties to the Native American community is @Riamus , but he already stated that he doesn't find the Duke story trope problematic or offensive. So, what now? :unsure:
 
Kyoji said:
At the end of the day people will either find it offensive or not but for those that do I am curious as to what they would do to fix their issues with the least amount of development time involved.
Click to expand...

An excellent question.

I wonder about the picture of the Duke. I've probably not looked at it closely, but doesn't it show a somebody kind of dressed like they were in the late 1800s who sat for a portrait? It seems like an antique and like it is stressing a specific culture for no reason.

This isn't my area of expertise but I wonder if the story involved the Duke rising out of poverty on the reservation and into being an educated business man in Phoenix prior to the apocalypse. As an early investor in Hygashi's work and an advocate for the Navezgane region, he was influential in Hygashi locating its research in Navezgane. In the aftermath of the apocalypse, he attempted to unify survivors, but ultimately concluded force and power were the only way to hold a society together, eventually twisting him into a cruel leader.

As far as the casino goes, it being a place that (1) survives the devastation, (2) has decent security, and (3) sufficient lodging for his gang, eventually becomes his base. No need to establish prior ownership.

I don't know if that fits or not as I've not done a bunch of story research.
 
Kyoji said:
At the end of the day people will either find it offensive or not but for those that do I am curious as to what they would do to fix their issues with the least amount of development time involved.
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding this crazy thread correctly.... if the Duke were simply a casino janitor pre-apocalypse, who took advantage of the zombie outbreak to seize power... that alone would be enough to abandon the offensive trope and every thing would be ok?
 
zztong said:
I wonder about the picture of the Duke. I've probably not looked at it closely, but doesn't it show a somebody kind of dressed like they were in the late 1800s who sat for a portrait? It seems like an antique and like it is stressing a specific culture for no reason.
Click to expand...

I feel I should clarify. I don't mind the picture and that it looks like an antique. I just don't think it should represent The Duke. Likewise, I don't think the other portrait should be Noah.

That painting is in POIs all over the world. I can't imagine The Duke having sat for that painting and being so influential and inspiring before the apocalypse that people wanted to hang that portrait all over the place.
 
Kalen said:
If I'm understanding this crazy thread correctly.... if the Duke were simply a casino janitor pre-apocalypse, who took advantage of the zombie outbreak to seize power... that alone would be enough to abandon the offensive trope and every thing would be ok?
Click to expand...

This is the solution in my opinion and I said as much earlier in the thread. Simply remove the pre-apocalypse back story of him owning the casino and the problem is solved. That he took it over after the disaster has nothing to do with tropes about casino indians. It's more like the Governor from Walking Dead who was a copy machine repairman before the apocalypse if memory serves.

Be that as it may, I doubt there would be any outcry even if they went full throttle ahead with the casino indian trope. There just are not enough people knowledgeable enough about the trope as a negative stereotype to care. It's like me (a high school teacher) trying to watch Glee or any other show or movie that has to do with high school. The way teachers are presented is always so unreleastic it detracts from my enjoyment as I watch. I loved ER back in the day but I had friends who were doctors who couldn't stomach even part of one episode because the writers leaned so ■■■■■■■ stereotypes and technobabble that has little to do with reality. But I didn't know enough to be put off by the inaccuracies.

It will be the same with 90%+ of the gamer population and the casino indian trope. There just won't be enough awareness of the inaccuracies for anyone to care as much as the few people who are intimately familiar with the trope and are also offended by it.
 
Roland said:
Simply remove the pre-apocalypse back story of him owning the casino and the problem is solved. That he took it over after the disaster has nothing to do with tropes about casino indians.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect that to be sufficient to appease that specific crowd; if you have an Indian running a crooked casino, you match to the stereotype. In terms of risk management, you'd have to eliminate the casino or the Indian - or the apocalypse, but I don't think 7DTD can do that :P

It's akin to having a skit where a dude faceplants into an oil change bucket.. it's going to be deemed blackface, no matter how funny it is; no matter the intent.
 
Vaeliorin said:
So if I'm reading this right, it's never okay to present a character who exemplifies a negative stereotype, because every individual exemplifies every member of their supposed group?

I guess that means we need to get rid of almost every dad in modern media, at the very least.
Click to expand...

No, but if such a stereotype is very much in front and center of a story, without any other similar but non-stereotyped characters of the same race offsetting it, that gives it more weight. He is the only indian in the game and he definitely fits the stereotype to the T

@all:
What makes that acceptable though IMHO is that everything in the game is painted with humor, the game just isn't serious. Comedy is practically living on stereotypes. Racial prototypes are a lot more problematic when the story is realistic. Even the japanese guy in "Breakfast for Tiffanys" seems somewhat acceptable in a comedy, I at least would probably not cringe (much?) viewing it again. But if it were a serious drama that guy would raise all alarms.

Remember Zombieland 2, a comedy. And the blonde is not a racial but a blatant gender prototype. And it works because it is a comedy. And it works even better because there are moments when they subvert the prototype/trope. Though I could be misremembering any subvert happening. The proposed solution to make him a janitor before the war for example would as well subvert the prototype, especially as a mid game revelation.
 
Sounds like some easy solutions (assuming it was to be changed)
  • Add other non stereotypical Native Americans or at least make them neutral/good faction for balance
  • Disconnect the primary concept of the Duke being a Casino owner and focus on it being a base of operations due to convenience. So he is now a copy repair guy that took over a Casino and who just so happens to be Native American.
Those don't seem too difficult to solve. Adding more NPC interactions is a good thing for the game IMO and the amount of text or designs that would need fixed would be minimal.

I am curious to see if that would fix the issue for the OP as he is the one who asked for it to be changed/looked it (semantics) or if there is another criteria I may have missed.
 
zztong said:
I think this approach disarms any potential issues. Depict native Americans in a few roles, good and bad.
Click to expand...
"Any" ..? One guy saying the N-word is enough for cancellation; one character being oversexualized gets the criticism; why would one Casino Indian get the exception?

You might be able to teach me something here, I truly can't follow this particular logic - but from experience, any amount of good features doesn't seem to cover for the one bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top