Story Mode Controversy --REDUX

[Dark Sun]

I primarily think it's a slippery slope of the upmost concern. It starts with the design of the spitting zombie, now the entire story has to be race swapped to make a very tiny and loud fragment of society happy. Every little action going forward will be under a microscope and potentially even worse problems if the game gets review bombed by internet warriors as seen by games collaborating with Anita Sarkeesian. Either way the net benefit of this is practically non-existent and could potentially bring about worse repercussions not to say loss of development time over such nonsense. Political sensibilities aside, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze on this one.

I think most people were upset with the spitting zombie because it was (is) annoying as heck to deal with and because it was based off of an AI generated image, which most people associated with laziness. lol I never once heard anyone claim the design was "problematic" from a political POV.

 

[Kyoji]

i really, really REALLY hope this is never implemented. when there is almost no representation outside of the stereotypes adding one more to the pile is not welcome. i was in my thirties when i finally read a representation of native people that was just normal and not gross and that was only because it wasn't written from the outside. when your childhood is just "be white to be human" it feels a lot more grating to see one more injun story. i guess i am lucky fp rarely finishes things and this will likely spend another ten years on the back-burner :/


you can also watch the 1950's peter pan movie too. something being commercially available is not an indication of moral or ethics.

I fail to see how your example of racial slurs in a 1950's movie has anything to do with an Indian casino owner who happens to be the "bad guy"? It's like you take one extreme to justify why I should be concerned about something far less serious and it sounds like a red herring.

I think most people were upset with the spitting zombie because it was (is) annoying as heck to deal with and because it was based off of an AI generated image, which most people associated with laziness. lol I never once heard anyone claim the design was "problematic" from a political POV.

There was a thread on it being a native american.

A simple solution. Change the main antagonist "The Duke" to look like a person from India and just keep the Indian naming convention.

 

[Dark Sun]

I fail to see how your example of racial slurs in a 1950's movie has anything to do with an Indian casino owner who happens to be the "bad guy"? It's like you take one extreme to justify why I should be concerned about something far less serious and it sounds like a red herring.

There was a thread on it being a native american.

A simple solution. Change the main antagonist "The Duke" to look like a person from India and just keep the Indian naming convention.

One thread. There were like 50 on the subreddit and dozens of YouTube comments about TFP turning to "AI slop". That was the main talking point elsewhere. I've seen similar comments about the family photos in-game and the cover art for the Sledge Saga book series.

 

[Kyoji]

One thread. There were like 50 on the subreddit and dozens of YouTube comments about TFP turning to "AI slop". That was the main talking point elsewhere. I've seen similar comments about the family photos in-game and the cover art for the Sledge Saga book series.

I don't think my point was focused on that being the primary the issue with the model, but rather there will always be outrage and if you keep backtracking on everything that someone doesn't find acceptable you will find yourself with few options to progress. If it were something truly egregious then yes I would agree it should be changed, but I do not feel this meets that criteria threshold.

 

[Dark Sun]

I don't think my point was focused on that being the primary the issue with the model, but rather there will always be outrage and if you keep backtracking on everything that someone doesn't find acceptable you will find yourself with few options to progress. If it were something truly egregious then yes I would agree it should be changed, but I do not feel this meets that criteria threshold.

Eh, I disagree. Unless it's something legitimately illegal and morally reprehensible (things I'm not allowed to list here), then sure, but otherwise art shouldn't be censored. Catering to any vocal minority is always a bad idea anyway, not even politically. If you're writing a book and there's 100 people in a room all trying to talk over each other with their own ideas of what should go down in the plot, you can take ideas as inspiration, sure, but otherwise you do you, as the saying goes, you can't please everyone, and trying to catch the minnows means you lose out on the rest of the fish in the lake.

Agreed. This is mostly a Western issue. You never see Japanese complaining that a Chinese movie has too many Chinese actors portraying Chinese people in a Chinese movie set in China and is about China. That would probably be something you hear from a white knight in a Western developed country. lol. I'm not an anti-woke person personally, but I do find the conversations around "don't have a black guy as a bad guy, that'll promote racism" and the opposite "don't not have a black guy as the bad guy, that's racist" to be equally daft. I have a friend from the middle of Europe and he says it's not an issue over there. Honestly, it's mostly an American thing.

 

[khzmusik]

@Roland @meganoth @Crater Creator
I honestly don't understand why political discussions are banned, but racial discussions are still allowed

As a practical reason, TFP put racial stuff in the game's story, so if we can't discuss racial stuff, we can't discuss the story of the game.

I agree that it should be on-topic to specifically the things in the game, and not just going off on a tangent about racism in general.

But, also, racial discussions are not necessarily political discussions. I know it's hard to believe in the current era of political "culture wars" (especially in America), but it wasn't very long ago that both the mainstream left and the mainstream right believed that racism is bad and should not be tolerated.

An on-topic example: The IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Agency), the Federal government agency responsible for licensing Native American gaming and enforcing tribal/state compacts, was created through a bipartisan effort, and was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. It was not a "left" vs. "right" thing at all.

 

[Dark Sun]

As a practical reason, TFP put racial stuff in the game's story, so if we can't discuss racial stuff, we can't discuss the story of the game.

I agree that it should be on-topic to specifically the things in the game, and not just going off on a tangent about racism in general.

But, also, racial discussions are not necessarily political discussions. I know it's hard to believe in the current era of political "culture wars" (especially in America), but it wasn't very long ago that both the mainstream left and the mainstream right believed that racism is bad and should not be tolerated.

An on-topic example: The IGRA (Indian Gaming Regulatory Agency), the Federal government agency responsible for licensing Native American gaming and enforcing tribal/state compacts, was created through a bipartisan effort, and was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. It was not a "left" vs. "right" thing at all.

People are more complicated than the two monoliths that you put them in. Opinions on racism vary greatly. Many say that it ended when slavery became illegal, some say that slavery is morally good, others say that racism is just a buzzword and never actually existed, so on and so forth. Even those who are against it may or may not be against the censorship of art. Note that if you are, look at totalitarianism states. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

With all due respect, you're seeing race in an area where it simply does not exist in any sort of relevance. As I've stated above anyway, are you Indian? No? Then you have nothing of relevance to say, and I doubt they would take kindly to you speaking over them. Leave the howling to the wolves, as it were.

Besides, as Roland has pointed out, most people are at best apathetic. I say that without judgment or passion, it just is. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[khzmusik]

People are more complicated than the two monoliths that you put them in.

If you mean "left" vs. "right" then that's the way politics has worked in America since I was born, but those are hardly "monoliths" (both support a plurality of political opinions) and I never said they were.

This is precisely why I said that talk about race is not inherently political. So let's not introduce politics into it. Please.

Even those who are against it may or may not be against the censorship of art.

I am, was, and always will be, against the censorship of art.

Criticizing art is not, and never was, "censorship" of art. If it were, it would mean we should prohibit art criticism, and that is censorship.

My goal is, and always was, to make sure The Fun Pimps themselves were aware that the tropes they are adopting have always been negative racial stereotypes.

That is my freedom of speech.

My hope is that they want to avoid a racist story themselves, and voluntarily come up with a new direction. That would be their freedom of speech.

If they don't, then I'll just mod a new story into the game. That is also my freedom of speech.

I still won't be able to recommend the game to my friends and family, because my endorsement reflects upon me and my values, and I don't want to be associated in their minds with a game that presents racial stereotypes as reality. That is also my freedom of speech.

I am doing exactly what a free speech supporter should do when presented with speech they don't like: countering it with their own speech. It is not censorship at any level.

With all due respect, you're seeing race in an area where it simply does not exist in any sort of relevance. As I've stated above anyway, are you Indian? No? Then you have nothing of relevance to say, and I doubt they would take kindly to you speaking over them. Leave the howling to the wolves, as it were.

The game has a Native American "bad guy," based on pre-existing tropes ("ignoble savage," "Casino Indian") that are widely acknowledged to be negative racial stereotypes. Saying that I'm "seeing race in an area where it simply does not exist" is completely laughable.

It is also ridiculous to say that non-Native-Americans have no right to speak about racist tropes against Native Americans. If that were true, I could not (as a White person) speak on any racial subject unless that subject is racism towards White people.

By that exact same standard: Are you a Native American? No? Then you have nothing of relevance to say, and I doubt they would take kindly to you speaking over them.

See how ridiculous that sounds? If it were true, hardly anyone could speak about anything.

 

[Jost Amman]

This is precisely why I said that talk about race is not inherently political. So let's not introduce politics into it. Please.

Then you live in your own reality.

In the USA (today) racism is ALWAYS used by the left as a "get out free" card in any political argument.
Communism itself promulgates racial division as a means to take power (divide et impera anyone?).

So, please, don't come here and tell us that race has nothing to do with politics.

Post automatically merged: Today at 1:13 AM

Saying that I'm "seeing race in an area where it simply does not exist" is completely laughable.

What you're doing is the same someone will do if a person happens to have a mole on his face.

Most people would talk to that person normally and don't care about the mole.
Then you arrive in the room and start pointing out the mole on that person's face.
Now everybody is looking at that mole and doesn't listen to that person anymore.

Good job!

 

[murky water]

I fail to see how your example of racial slurs in a 1950's movie has anything to do with an Indian casino owner who happens to be the "bad guy"? It's like you take one extreme to justify why I should be concerned about something far less serious and it sounds like a red herring.

there is nothing extreme about it. it is a well-worn pattern that is barely changed in 70 years. indigenous people in the americas have had this same problem for a little less than 600 years with almost no change

No worries. I didn’t take it as such. I wasn’t attacking back. I merely wanted to emphasize that for good or ill, the casino Indian trope doesn’t spark outrage on a critical level (though apparently the tomahawk chop does…) I agree that people will turn a blind eye in order to be able to enjoy entertainment. That was one of the defining characteristics of the 80s. lol.

Okay. I get it now. But it’s the same. That level of racial stereotyping just did not create enough of a public backlash to cancel those shows. Disney posted a disclaimer at the start of the movie and also for the crows at the start of Dumbo explaining the stereotypes were an unfortunate reality for that time in history but do not represent current beliefs of the company.

I wonder if the Beatles got mad when they watched the buzzards in Jungle Book….?

i haven't heard about the "tomahawk chop", i must confess i have only been playing for 13 months and only within a close group of four(none of whom has blayed more than two years)

funnily enough the beetles DID get upset. they were upset to be asked to be in the movie and were extra irate when the knock-off buzzards were put in there after they refused.

With all due respect, you're seeing race in an area where it simply does not exist in any sort of relevance. As I've stated above anyway, are you Indian? No? Then you have nothing of relevance to say, and I doubt they would take kindly to you speaking over them. Leave the howling to the wolves, as it were.

ok, much of my family is though and i am seeing race in a place that it is relevant. with tfp not being super chatty about their inclinations and with the issue of the original chuck being a sub-human beast-like being in a loin-cloth decorated with bones there is a decent chance that they are not concerned with the implications that this has. if you are struggling to understand though please let me show you three non-white previously-human zombies and ask which of these stands out;

Spoiler: condensing it down with spoilers

at the same time tfp replaced the frostclaw with the chuck they replaced the plague spitter(also racist but in a much more complicated way that is well above my pay-grade to explain) with the rancher and i have no issues with the new model because he looks like he was actually human before the infection got him( in fact the rancher looks like a distant cousin who fell in a mud-puddle for 500 years which is perfectly agreeable for a zombie game with particularily mushy-looking zombies).


tldr? this is not about indigenous people being in the game. this is about indigenous people being exclusivly designed to be something foregin and less-than-human and to be seen exclusivly as villianous. what they came up with on frostclaw was super ick and clearly racist but also not unusual or special. it is banal and common to see this sort of portrayal(though the elf ears were a bit novel i suppose?)most non-indiginous people just don't care though. what they want is silence and, as long as silence is had things can keep on just as they always were. frankly as far as i am concerned khzmusik can keep going on about it; better an imperfect ally than demanding silence. if jars can be sorted with enough fussing then more realistic depictions of indiginous people should be able to be sorted too.

 

[khzmusik]

Then you live in your own reality.

How about we agree to this: that talk about race should not be about political opinions.

That way, we don't derail this thread entirely with talk about "woke libs" or "leopards eating faces" or any nonsense like that.

I would like to extend that to everyone engaging this thread. Please?

What you're doing is the same someone will do if a person happens to have a mole on his face.

Most people would talk to that person normally and don't care about the mole.
Then you arrive in the room and start pointing out the mole on that person's face.
Now everybody is looking at that mole and doesn't listen to that person anymore.

Good job!

I don't think that's a good analogy. Here's a better analogy.

That "someone" with a mole is a fictional character, who is also an old crone with green skin who rides a broomstick and casts evil spells.

I arrive in the room and point out "that fictional character is a witch, and in fictional depictions of witches, a mole signifies a mark of the Devil."

Now everyone who had never heard of it would know about the "witch" trope, how moles fit into that trope, and that this character exemplifies that trope.

If that causes everyone to not listen to that fictional character, or their author, that's not a problem with anything I said.

...I also note that you haven't actually criticized the content of anything I said. I don't think anyone else has either.

The criticisms have been of my own personal motives (which are assumed); my political viewpoints (which are assumed); the idea that I am trying to censor the game (which I am absolutely not doing); the accusation that I am "virtue signaling" (which is unfalsifiable, so even though it is false, I can't "prove" it); the accusation that I am calling people racists (which I am not); or whether it is OK for me, personally, to say anything at all.

These are not the tactics of anyone who has a valid criticism. They are mostly ad hominem attacks. If you want to present a valid criticism, point out where the content of anything I said about the game or the tropes in it was wrong: factual errors, bad analogies, logical fallacies, or things like that.

I already posted what is in the game files, so if you doubt what I say about that, you can check yourself.

Please be patient while I put together the list of links to external sources about "Casino Indians" and other Native American stereotypes, so you can check what I am saying on those topics. Thanks!

 

[Jost Amman]

@khzmusik
You're basically saying that you can use whatever narratives you want, even if those are part of the woke-left or even Marxist culture... BUT, you can't be perceived as part of those cultures or ideologies. That's not how it works though.

Dude, you should learn to own who you are. The way you speak and lay out your opinions tells us A LOT more than you think about you.

So, no, we're not doing ad hominem attacks or trying to politicize your opinion... because it's already a political statement.
Now, just to be fair, maybe you don't even realize that the way you express your thoughts is THAT woke, but that's your problem, not ours.

In any case my contribution to the topic was more aimed at the "unfairness" of the current forum rules which forbid political talk but allow racial talk, considering that, as I stated before, the two are almost always intertwined. So, in that sense, don't take it personally, since I'm not against how you express you opinions, I was just noticing that the way you express them comes from a specific ideology/culture, ok?

This is all crazy talk to me, specifically because this is a computer videogame with a fictional theme and story. If I had to get offended for each time I saw a movie or series where white people are portrayed as the "bad guys", I should have an ulcer by now!

 

[khzmusik]

@khzmusik
You're basically saying that you can use whatever narratives you want, even if those are part of the woke-left or even Marxist culture...

So, I guess that's a "no" on not equating racial issues with political issues. Shame.

For what it's worth, you're wrong about my politics, but that discussion would involve personal political opinions, so I'm not going to engage.

So, no, we're not doing ad hominem attacks

You realize what an "ad hominem" attack is, right? It's attacking the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument itself. That includes talking about the (alleged) political motivations of the person making the argument.

So, yes, you're making an ad hominem attack. If you were not, then it wouldn't matter whether I was making a "political statement" or not. You would engage with the argument, and not with who I am as a person, or my personal opinions, or anything having to do with me in particular.

You still haven't done that.

If you want to rebut anything I said from a factual perspective, then I'm all ears. But if all you're going to do is assign political motives to me, due to nothing but your own prejudices, then attack those motivations, then I have no interest in engaging with you.

Also, this whole discussion probably shows why the forum doesn't allow overtly political discussions. In the current political climate, those discussions invariably devolve into personal attacks, and nobody wants that.

Including me. I don't care about your politics, and I have no interest in reducing everything you have to say to your political opinions. You have facts, bring them to the table.

 

[Jost Amman]

You realize what an "ad hominem" attack is, right? It's attacking the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument itself. That includes talking about the (alleged) political motivations of the person making the argument.

That's were you're misunderstanding my replies then.

I wasn't alleging anything about your political motivations, I don't care. I'm just saying that your opinion was expressed with a language and content (so, yes, here I'm attacking the argument, in a way) that it's typical of the Marxist narrative. I don't know how I can be clearer than this.

And as I said, my main focus is not on your opinion. You opinion, albeit absurd to me, is legitimate as far as freedom-of-opinion goes.
My focus is on the fact that forum rules forbid some topics and allow other (mostly overlapping) topics instead.

But if you want ad-hominem attacks, feel free to ask... I don't bail out from fights!

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

this is not about indigenous people being in the game. this is about indigenous people being exclusivly designed to be something foregin and less-than-human and to be seen exclusivly as villianous

I don't think zombie lack-of-design particularly relevant to the discussion. Obviously, neither the original Frostclaw nor Desert Spitter models were even close to being based on or representative of people, including indigenous people, much less portraying indigenous people as something foreign and less-than-human. They weren't even zombies, hello. One was a Yeti; the other a mummy. Both better fit completely different, fictional genres and those models, based on AI-generated images, were just supreme examples (to me, at least) of the fact that AI is incapable of creating art. In fact, such models are usually used in the industry as placeholders and replaced later in development with models and textures based on concept art created by humans, which is a controversial subject itself and a whole different discussion. The next spitter (after the Frostclaw) was wearing an Apache headband and Native American jewelry. The headband, in particular, identified the zombie as formerly Apache, emphasis on the formerly. Does that qualify as regalia? Was it insulting? Somehow I doubt it. I thought nothing of it. It was a headband and Native American jewelry, which is perfectly normal attire for a zombie that was formerly human. Personally, I'd have to question turning the zombie model into a former "rancher," not out of any political stance, but out of sheer consternation at the idea that turning a formerly indigenous (again, emphasis on the formerly) zombie into a mish-mash of "cowboy and Indian" somehow makes any sense, much less makes the model more acceptable. Afic, it's aesthetically worse than it was.

The Duke/Noah characterizations and rivalry, otoh, are obviously proving problematic. The characters are fictional humans, not zombies, and I still think the best way to determine what the Apache think of the exceptionally simplistic story is to contact the Apache and get their thoughts on the subject before the story is written in stone, as it were. Consulting an Apache cultural advisor would make this entire discussion moot, afic, and perhaps even result in the most frutiful collaboration on a video game we've seen in quite a while. You never know.

 

[Jost Amman]

The Duke/Noah characterizations and rivalry, otoh, are obviously proving problematic. The characters are fictional humans, not zombies, and I still think the best way to determine what the Apache think of the exceptionally simplistic story is to contact the Apache and get their thoughts on the subject before the story is written in stone, as it were. Consulting an Apache cultural advisor would make this entire discussion moot, afic, and perhaps even result in the most frutiful collaboration on a video game we've seen in quite a while. You never know.

Yeah, since obviously you don't think they have a life, I'm sure the Apache have nothing better to do than consulting TFP on a fictional videogame character that may, or may not, represent them in a fictional future.

 

[theFlu]

the idea that I am trying to censor the game (which I am absolutely not doing)

Do you want the use of the trope removed, or not? One answer is censoring; no matter how good willed it might be. There's plenty of things I'd be willing to censor, but this isn't one of those.

If you want to present a valid criticism, point out where the content of anything I said about the game or the tropes in it was wrong

Your point seems to be "the use of the Casino Indian -trope is inherently bad". It seems to have two main elements:
- it gives the false impression that Indians are Casino Owners
- the characters fitting the trope are depicted as evil
The first is mainly true, casinos are owned by Indians.. who do you think would take one over?
The second, it can be subverted. Here you'll be able to join Duke's faction, meaning that you can't really write him as pure evil. If the Casino Indian is a Good Guy, that's subverting the trope and chipping away its negative connotations. Which should be a good thing in Hollywood nowadays, I think..?

Now, personally, I don't care about the IRL use of blackface, that's no reason to fire Trudeau ... and this trope quite pales in comparison.
But I don't think "having the trope in the game" is any kind of a problem.

 

[khzmusik]

I wasn't alleging anything about your political motivations, I don't care. I'm just saying that your opinion was expressed with a language and content (so, yes, here I'm attacking the argument, in a way) that it's typical of the Marxist narrative. I don't know how I can be clearer than this.

The notion that you can dismiss anything I have to say because it is "typical of the Marxist narrative" (whatever the hell that means), and in the same breath claim that you're not saying anything about my political motivations, seems absurd and disingenuous.

But, it doesn't matter. Criticizing what your political biases lead you to believe is the language of the argument, is not criticizing the argument itself. Even if your beliefs were true, it would not make the argument false.

Talk about the story that is in the game files, and whether or not characters in the story embody the already-existing negative racial tropes of the "Casino Indian" or the "Ignoble Savage." Or, perhaps, argue that the "Casino Indian" or "Ignoble Savage" tropes are not actually negative racial stereotypes. Back it up with evidence, not political opinion.

Use whatever language you like, whether it fits a "Marxist narrative" or not.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

Yeah, since obviously you don't think they have a life, I'm sure the Apache have nothing better to do than consulting TFP on a fictional videogame character that may, or may not, represent them in a fictional future.

You must be confusing research and consultation on a fictional work for the purposes of authenticity with the (insipid) "sensitivity reader" phenomenon that's cropped up in recent years. (Go looking for something offensive and, guaranteed, you'll find it, especially if that's your job.)

I'm not talking about "sensitivity reading." I'm talking about the age-old practice of consulting the knowledgeable in the production of a work of art.

 

[Jost Amman]

The notion that you can dismiss anything I have to say because it is "typical of the Marxist narrative" (whatever the hell that means), and in the same breath claim that you're not saying anything about my political motivations, seems absurd and disingenuous.

But, it doesn't matter. Criticizing what your political biases lead you to believe is the language of the argument, is not criticizing the argument itself. Even if your beliefs were true, it would not make the argument false.

Talk about the story that is in the game files, and whether or not characters in the story embody the already-existing negative racial tropes of the "Casino Indian" or the "Ignoble Savage." Or, perhaps, argue that the "Casino Indian" or "Ignoble Savage" tropes are not actually negative racial stereotypes. Back it up with evidence, not political opinion.

Use whatever language you like, whether it fits a "Marxist narrative" or not.

I won't spend any more time replying to someone who quotes one part of my text and completely ignores another part that is relevant to your own reply or forgets what has been said. You're losing yourself in this sterile discussion and you're not even understanding (or maybe you're just ignoring) what I've already explained before.

The fact that you say "The notion that you can dismiss anything I have to say because it is "typical of the Marxist narrative" (whatever the hell that means)" and completely ignore the explanation I gave on this a few posts back, means you're lost or simply trolling.

Since you don't seem the "troll type" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just lost track of what I said before. This goes for the part where you want me to prove you wrong. I don't have to prove you wrong because, contrary to what you think, as they say in legal jargon, you have no standing and there's no crime.

Post automatically merged: Today at 8:06 AM

I'm not talking about "sensitivity reading." I'm talking about the age-old practice of consulting the knowledgeable in the production of a work of art.

Thanks for clarifying.