Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

[theFlu]

Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, it's effective.

I dunno, I kinda get your point, but I advocate against "won't someone think of the children" any day. Even if the motivations are for the Greater Good, the proposals and outcomes can be terrible. And even completely selfish motivations can produce great results ...

The oil example is struggling under the load; the decisions are made by a man who is appointed by an anonymous blob of shareholders; shareholders that change from day to day ... all we can assume from the structure is that shareholders want profits, and a CEO is subservient to them. The CEOs "good" motivations matter only as long as he serves, the shareholder's motivations aren't really even measurable. Yes, if a company has "moral fiber", we don't need to regulate everything .. but we take out any possible moral fiber by public trading. With that, we kinda need to regulate everything. This is not great ...

 

[Jost Amman]

Even if the motivations are for the Greater Good, the proposals and outcomes can be terrible. And even completely selfish motivations can produce great results ...

Exactly

Spoiler

 

[Dead Smarty]

You bought a "product" in a state "story will be added later" .. if any story can be a problem for you, you shouldn't have bought it at such time. That doesn't mean you can't complain about it, it just means you already voted. You gave the artist your money, they'll write what they want.

That is not the point of my post. I reacted to someone claiming we could vote with our wallet, you guys seem to have issues with scrolling back to see context: How is his claim relevant if there is no "money back" to empower the vote? I see several contradictions in his post. Also his deflection to "other products" or DLC is irrelevant if it comes to THIS game.
So yes, I already "voted" and gave them a carte blanche. What does not mean I have to agree on everything and the whole point of Early Acces is to provide feedback.

 

[theFlu]

How is his claim relevant if there is no "money back" to empower the vote?

You were asking how the "claim of capitalism" is relevant; exactly as we describe. You Can vote, you Did vote for artistic freedom. If you regret it later, that doesn't change anything. Just don't go on blind dates, I don't think you'd be a good match for that experience...

I haven't argued for anyone to be shut up; I don't think Jost has either. Feel free to provide whatever feedback you like, imo. But understand that it matters only as far as the Canadian studio decides to hear it.

The logic you replied to was roughly as follows:
No group should have say what other people write.
Anyone has the right to Not support a product, financially or otherwise. This step is the deciding factor of success in a free society.

Your free choice of early support doesn't change the logic. There are moral arguments to make about "minority rights"; but the capitalism step remains unharmed by your early purchase.

 

[Jost Amman]

I reacted to someone claiming we could vote with our wallet, you guys seem to have issues with scrolling back to see context: How is his claim relevant if there is no "money back" to empower the vote? I see several contradictions in his post. Also his deflection to "other products" or DLC is irrelevant if it comes to THIS game.

You don't get it, do you?
It's not my job to explain things to the (opposite of) intelligent people.

 

[meganoth]

I am not suggesting people treat kHz differently. I was saying it as a general concept. In this particular case people will already infer motive because deciding to post this thread is motivated by something.

To go back to the oil example. If the optics are good then perhaps the company won't be held to the same standard as if the optics were negative. It's the same way we see public outrage influence decisions. Things are rarely discussed in a vaccuum. So while the outcome may be the same initially that doesn't mean the future doesn't branch off and become different based on whether the motivations are clear or not. As an example if the company is need as negative perhaps share holders replace the CEO and that changes the future to where the company is perhaps more focused on such things not happening again rather thaj doing the bare minimum as they didn't take a financial hit due to the optics and now do not need to invest more into eco care to appease public sentiment.

To make this more relevant to this discussion then you can view it as such. If the argument is taken at gave value then perhaps it gets changed and future endeavors are more conscious of this issue. If people were to find out that there is a perceived negative agenda behind it then public sentiment shifts and then you get a new outcome both and and in the future. So if your goal is to prevent future A from happening then challenging the motivation of the person is a great way to go about getting the future B results you desire. Regardless of whether you think it's right or wrong, it's effective. For the record I'm not suggesting anyone does or does not challenge motives, but am explaining that motives clearly matter (not in the item itself, but in the effective changes it can bring).

Your example goes astray. You never say what the discussion is supposed to be about? Was it about the effect of the investment for the ecology? Or was the discussion about how to view or rate that oil company? In the latter case the "motivation" of the oil company has a huge impact, in the former case almost none.

If we were discussing khz himself and his views, then his motivation would naturally be important. If we are discussing the story of 7d2d then facts and arguments are the important stuff, not why someone is posting them. If you can't counter a good argument then it doesn't matter if the one posting it was an angel or someone secretly hired to provide that viewpoint.

 

[Kyoji]

Your example goes astray. You never say what the discussion is supposed to be about? Was it about the effect of the investment for the ecology? Or was the discussion about how to view or rate that oil company? In the latter case the "motivation" of the oil company has a huge impact, in the former case almost none.

If we were discussing khz himself and his views, then his motivation would naturally be important. If we are discussing the story of 7d2d then facts and arguments are the important stuff, not why someone is posting them. If you can't counter a good argument then it doesn't matter if the one posting it was an angel or someone secretly hired to provide that viewpoint.

I don't want to detract too much from the thread but I think your take is idealistic and not realistic. If kHz had political symbolism in his avatar then I firmly believe peoples opinions on the subject would be swayed depending on that symbolism. Again, my point isn't specific to kHz, but about motivation and public opinion. If the public opinion changes one way or another then it matters. This is also why political debates generally have little substantive discussion and more emphasis on motivation as it preys to ones emotions. If I defended the portrayal of Native Americans in the game but had a swastika in my avatar then I would wager many would rightfully call that out and ignore large chunks of my argument regardless of how sound that argument may be as people would understand the intent of my discussion to be abhorrent to their ideals.

I am not saying it's right or wrong, but the fact it matters is, in my opinion, undeniable in swaying the opinions of a vast swathe of individuals. I'll leave it with this as I think the topic has long since gone off track.

 

[Jost Amman]

This whole discussion reminds me of that MOLE scene from that Austin Power's movie.
Nobody was paying any attention to the Duke, until Khz came in the room and pointed that ugly mole out for everyone to notice...

Spoiler

 

[Roland]

so we're legitimately wondering about his motivations.

Then ask khz directly rather than making an assumption and then proceeding as if your assumption is the actual truth. You aren’t speculating about the general motivations of some large faction of gamers. You’re talking to one person directly and you can make inquiries.

The fact that this is perceived as "personal attacks" tells a lot about how you perceive this kind of conversations.

Is there something you want to ask me directly or do you prefer to go with your own projections?

Because customers are the sole judges on what is acceptable for them, and what it's not.

Agreed. Which is why a conversation like this before the story comes out is a valid topic. If khz is right and many people end up getting upset then his warning before the fact is a good thing. I don’t think he’s right but my belief doesnt invalidate his warning. There’s no way to be sure 100% how the public will react to the story so calling the conversation preposterous at this point is…what’s the word?….stupid.

For sure, you have the right to save up a massive “I told you so” vs Khz if public outrage ends up being a nothing burger just as he does if the story goes through as is and TFP suffers a huge blowback as he warned.

Yes. But it explains why this whole discussion is preposterous.

Nah bro. The discussion is good regardless of what side you come down on. Saying that it’s preposterous is like saying it shouldn’t have been started and continued and THAT is the only unfortunate thing that could’ve happened— a discussion not taking place in a discussion forum.

 

[Jost Amman]

Then ask khz directly rather than making an assumption and then proceeding as if your assumption is the actual truth. You aren’t speculating about the general motivations of some large faction of gamers. You’re talking to one person directly and you can make inquiries.

I don't think he's aware of his "true motivations" on a conscious level though...
Also, as they say, you don't ask a barber if you need a haircut, so I won't ask him if his opinion is biased or not based on his "political view".

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:57 PM

Is there something you want to ask me directly or do you prefer to go with your own projections?

Yes. Do you think that stating that someone's opinion may be biased or skewed is a personal attack?
Or do you think, like I do, that it's just a way to disagree with the entire premise of an opinion?

 

[Jost Amman]

Nah bro. The discussion is good regardless of what side you come down on. Saying that it’s preposterous is like saying it shouldn’t have been started and continued and THAT is the only unfortunate thing that could’ve happened— a discussion not taking place in a discussion forum.

That's like saying that as long as you use your mouth to emit sound it doesn't matter what comes out of it...

 

[khzmusik]

Well, glad to see the conversation kept going through the Memorial Day weekend.

I guess we're just assuming each other's motives now? Good to know.

If you want to figure mine out, you could just ask me. Or, read what I already wrote, and just don't assume I'm lying about it. Either one works for me.

But, to hopefully put this question to bed, I'll answer a couple things and then we can all move on.

If he believes TFP faces real reputational damage from a racist depiction, then forum debate and an optional mod are weak solutions compared with getting actual affected voices or public scrutiny involved before release.

Yes, one reason (not the only one) why I want the story to go in a different direction, is because I don't want 7D2D or TFP to suffer reputational damage.

And to avoid that, I should whip up public opinion against them, which would damage their reputation? That doesn't make sense to me.

I also don't want to do that because I'm not an activist, and have no interest in becoming one.

I'm writing on these forums because this should ideally be handled internally. If TFP do not decide to change course themselves, then the pressure to do so should come from within the community.

I'm letting them (and you all) know, because I don't think most people realize how false and racist these tropes are. I did not realize it myself before I did the research.

Side note: if anyone thinks this approach is "censorship," then they must absolutely hate the Survival Revival changes, because those came about through exactly the same form of "censorship."

That's because for some people this whole conversation is pure la la land talk, so we're legitimately wondering about his motivations.
The fact that this is perceived as "personal attacks" tells a lot about how you perceive this kind of conversations.

My motivation is to share what I learned while researching the real-life facts behind the lore (for unrelated reasons - I wanted backstories for my NPCs which meshed with the existing story and lore). What I found, I didn't like, and I don't think other people like it either, so I'm sharing it.

If you perceive it differently, that tells a lot about how you perceive this kind of conversation.

This really is not hard to figure out. Anyone who reads the dialogue in the localization files, and does even a little bit of honest research about Native Americans, would probably come to the same conclusions I did.

As it stands now, the Duke matches exactly the "Casino Indian" stereotype. (People may disagree if they have not read the lore, or misunderstand the "Casino Indian" stereotype. That is completely understandable, and I try to provide them with sources of information.)

And, I have found no source at all who denies the "Casino Indian" trope is a negative racial stereotype. Even the people who promote the stereotype agree with that. They just claim the negative stereotype is factual, and is "racial" because it arises from race-based preferential treatment enjoyed by Native Americans.

"Casino Indian" stereotype aside, there's also the fact that the real life Whiteriver has been stripped of its Apache heritage in the game (whether that was the intent or not).

In an ideal world, this would be most people's reaction to those facts:

"Huh, I didn't realize that stuff was so false and racist. Yeah, we probably shouldn't have that in the game."

End of reaction.

I realize we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where any criticism of racism (or other controversial topic) will be met with a very vocal minority among the contrarians, who seem to be offended that anyone would even dare to bring it up, and believe the best way to deal with it is by making personal attacks, misrepresenting what the critics say, and publicly maligning their motives. It is probably a result of the political "culture wars" that have become especially virulent over the past decade or so.

This is why I've tried very, very hard to not make this conversation devolve into that. I try to be unambiguous, to focus on facts and sources, to avoid politics, and to not assume people's motives (even if I think those assumptions give people the benefit of the doubt). I have failed at this in the past, so I want to be extra careful now.

If that makes me sound too serious then so be it.

Now, maybe we can get back to the topic at hand?

 

[Roland]

I don't think he's aware of his "true motivations" on a conscious level though...

oh brother…. I really hope that’s a joke.

Yes. Do you think that stating that someone's opinion may be biased or skewed is a personal attack?

Absolutely. It deflects away from the argument itself in order to label someone as some ideology. Often there are prejudices associated with such labels that destroy reason. It’s exactly why I warned you early on that coming in this thread and accusing people of being marxists was not going to be tolerated.

The topic of Native American stereotypes as they appear in the story can be discussed without labeling people by perceived motives or agendas you think they may have. Whether someone is liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, Marxist, or whatever doesn’t matter. Speak to the argument itself instead of trying to discredit it as talking points for some political platform’s agenda.

Like I said, I don’t agree with khz on the severity of the stereotyping nor that there will be any significant outcry. My evidence is ongoing stories in media that use the stereotypes and are not shut down or canceled or boycotted. There just isn’t anyone who cares that a good story might be inaccurate when it comes to irl casino management laws and policies. My disagreement doesn’t require me to know or guess at anyone else’s ideology.

 

[khzmusik]

Absolutely. It deflects away from the argument itself in order to label someone as some ideology. Often there are prejudices associated with such labels that destroy reason. It’s exactly why I warned you early on that coming in this thread and accusing people of being marxists was not going to be tolerated.

The topic of Native American stereotypes as they appear in the story can be discussed without labeling people by perceived motives or agendas you think they may have. Whether someone is liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, Marxist, or whatever doesn’t matter. Speak to the argument itself instead of trying to discredit it as talking points for some political platform’s agenda.

Probably goes without saying, but I 100% agree with you about this.

Like I said, I don’t agree with khz on the severity of the stereotyping nor that there will be any significant outcry. My evidence is ongoing stories in media that use the stereotypes and are not shut down or canceled or boycotted.

Most reputational damage does not result in being shut down or canceled or boycotted. It is still harmful.

I already said what I think will actually happen. The story will come out as the last major update, and since it was never marketed as a "Cowboys and Indians" game, it will take most people by surprise.

A lot of those people won't like it, even if they don't know the details of the "Casino Indian" stereotype or that Whiteriver is a real town. Something will just feel "off" to them.

They'll come to places like this forum, or the Steam forums, or whatever, and voice their displeasure. The community will immediately make it clear their opinion is not welcome. They will just shut up and leave. Seeing how they are treated, people who agree with them will also shut up and leave.

But they won't call for a boycott, or demand 7D2D be cancelled, nothing like that. They might even still play the game. But sooner, rather than later, they will silently quit. They'll stop playing the game, stop watching the 7D2D YouTube content creators or Twitch streamers, unfollow TFP on social media, and stop discussing it (or playing it) with their friends.

They definitely won't be excited to see the next game from TFP, because they no longer trust TFP to make a game they consider fun.

TFP may not lose a single 7D2D sale, but they will lose a lot of customers, and that loss will be gradual but permanent.

 

[Roland]

I already said what I think will actually happen. The story will come out as the last major update, and since it was never marketed as a "Cowboys and Indians" game, it will take most people by surprise.

In my opinion, most people won’t see it as a cowboy and Indians game. It’s not like all the bandits are Indians. Most of the time you’ll be battling against a mixed bag of ethnicities with the majority probably white. Only the final boss battle would be killing an Indian if you chose the other faction.

I just don’t think people will “feel off” about the game— especially those who aren’t versed in the Casino Indian trope. Most players don’t play a single game long enough to get to the end boss battle and may never be confronted by the trope at all other than the snide remarks made by the traders from time to time.

We’ll have to see how popular your re-theming mod turns out to be.

 

[Jost Amman]

Yes, one reason (not the only one) why I want the story to go in a different direction, is because I don't want 7D2D or TFP to suffer reputational damage.

And who appointed you "Defender of TFP"?
They can defend themselves already quite well I think.

If you want to figure mine out, you could just ask me. Or, read what I already wrote, and just don't assume I'm lying about it. Either one works for me.

Yeah, sure. You missed the part of my comment about the barber... and the cut... you know?

My motivation is to share what I learned while researching the real-life facts behind the lore (for unrelated reasons - I wanted backstories for my NPCs which meshed with the existing story and lore). What I found, I didn't like, and I don't think other people like it either, so I'm sharing it.

That's not a motivation, that's your rational decision thought process.

Spoiler: Motivation

In philosophy and psychology, a motivation is an internal state or condition that initiates, directs, and sustains behavior toward a goal.

More precisely, it encompasses three components:

• Activation — what prompts action in the first place (a need, desire, or drive)
• Direction — what the action is aimed at (the goal or object of the desire)
• Persistence — how long and how intensely the behavior is maintained until the goal is reached or abandoned

Motivations can be intrinsic (arising from within — curiosity, enjoyment, meaning) or extrinsic (arising from external rewards or pressures — money, social approval, avoiding punishment). They can also be conscious (you know why you're doing something) or unconscious (the underlying drive is not fully accessible to reflection).

At the most basic level, a motivation answers the question: why does an agent do what it does?

As it stands now, the Duke matches exactly the "Casino Indian" stereotype. (People may disagree if they have not read the lore, or misunderstand the "Casino Indian" stereotype. That is completely understandable, and I try to provide them with sources of information.)

We all understand the "stereotype", we just disagree that a stereotype used in a videogame (or any art form) is offensive.

In an ideal world, this would be most people's reaction to those facts:

"Huh, I didn't realize that stuff was so false and racist. Yeah, we probably shouldn't have that in the game."

Finally! There we go! ... If that's your ideal world then you're surely part of the "woke mob" who thrives into being offended by everything, even when they're not the direct recipients of the offense. So, your REAL motivation, is to spread your "woke" ideology in the forum and into this game.

Good to know.

I realize we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where any criticism of racism (or other controversial topic) will be met with a very vocal minority among the contrarians, who seem to be offended that anyone would even dare to bring it up, and believe the best way to deal with it is by making personal attacks, misrepresenting what the critics say, and publicly maligning their motives. It is probably a result of the political "culture wars" that have become especially virulent over the past decade or so.

This is why I've tried very, very hard to not make this conversation devolve into that. I try to be unambiguous, to focus on facts and sources, to avoid politics, and to not assume people's motives (even if I think those assumptions give people the benefit of the doubt). I have failed at this in the past, so I want to be extra careful now.

Wait. So everyone who's dismissive of your own world view is a racist, right?
That's the typical counterpoint of any activist on the woke left.

Finally, now the unmasking is complete.

Post automatically merged: Today at 1:40 AM

Absolutely. It deflects away from the argument itself in order to label someone as some ideology. Often there are prejudices associated with such labels that destroy reason. It’s exactly why I warned you early on that coming in this thread and accusing people of being marxists was not going to be tolerated.

So, basically it's ok for the OP to be ideological and biased, but no one can dare to criticize OP for it.
Good to know. I didn't know this forum was moderated by Stalin!

 

[Jost Amman]

The topic of Native American stereotypes as they appear in the story can be discussed without labeling people by perceived motives or agendas you think they may have. Whether someone is liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, Marxist, or whatever doesn’t matter. Speak to the argument itself instead of trying to discredit it as talking points for some political platform’s agenda.

Yeah, but in this case that's like a Catch 22: my counter point to him is that there's no issue BECAUSE the problem is there only in HIS eyes BECAUSE of his ideological bias, however you're telling me that I can't say that because it's a personal attack.

See what you did there?

 

[Kyoji]

Can't speak for every countrily but I feel like public outrage over something of this level died about a year ago. It reminds me of game companies chasing trends a few years too late.

Personally I don't think there will be much public outrage for a few reasons.

#1) it's not a large enough group that would protest such things and doesn't have the funding support behind outrage propaganda
#2) looking at trends, public outrage towards such things have been massively reduced as many feel like the movements went too far so you are now seeing shifts in opinions in several countries as shown by election results
#3) I don't think this is on the same level as something more offensive would garner attention. Combined with the first point and I think the chance for any significant outrage is low.

At the end of the day not every minority has the same protection through outrage. If this were more focused on a more prominent group then it might pick up some small traction but I think anyone who wouldn't buy the game because of it would be in such a small minority.

I don't have any real care about who the bad guy is but I don't want the developers walking on tiptoes because every action they do might trigger a negative reaction from someone else ranting about representation in the game or something else which further slows development. Lastly I think tropes are mandatory for games to tell efficiently compact stories without needing to provide a lot of details. If I say Italian mobster movie it brings forth a lot of assumptions that do not need to be explained to the audience and the movie can proceed without needing to go into motives etc as it's generally understandable.

Yes, one reason (not the only one) why I want the story to go in a different direction, is because I don't want 7D2D or TFP to suffer reputational damage.

 

[Jost Amman]

My disagreement doesn’t require me to know or guess at anyone else’s ideology.

You don't need to guess. If someone says (hyperbole: "I hate white people"), you don't need to "guess" that this guy is a racist, do you agree?
But from then on at least you know where his/her comments are coming from. (Disclaimer: I'm not accusing Khz of being racist, it's just an hypothetical!).

 

[meganoth]

Yeah, but in this case that's like a Catch 22: my counter point to him is that there's no issue BECAUSE the problem is there only in HIS eyes BECAUSE of his ideological bias, however you're telling me that I can't say that because it's a personal attack.

See what you did there?

Everyone is biased by his personal believes, values, political views, ideology. We have people here on the forum with a wide range of political views and they can all post their arguments and opinions.

What would you think if someone posted under every argument you made "He is a radical right-wing ideologist, just disregard his arguments" or "He is a closet racist, he just doesn't know it". Would you feel that is a fair assessment? Or would you feel like unjustly painted in a corner?

(Disclaimer: I'm not accusing Jost of being racist or a radical right-wing ideologist, it's just an hypothetical!).