PC The Duke, Noah, and the story so far

Status
Not open for further replies.
@khzmusik, the thing is a story about an honest casino owner would be boring. Also it would be unbelievable.

Another trope in the game: The Fat Cop. Is that problematic, too?

Keep digging and there's always something problematic for someone, everthing has something in common with a steroetype. Please keep it constructive and stop the labeling, let them develop their own story and give them a chance to do something with your feedback.

 
Dead Smarty said:
@khzmusik, the thing is a story about an honest casino owner would be boring. Also it would be unbelievable.
Click to expand...


OK, I guess I need to repeat this: tribal casinos cannot be privately owned. No individual can, or ever has, "owned" a tribal casino - Native American or not.

At least fat cops actually exist. "Casino Indians" don't. It doesn't "have something in common" with a stereotype; it is nothing other than a stereotype. To be sure, it is so ingrained in American media and culture that most people might not realize it is a stereotype - but that doesn't make it anything more than a stereotype.

And, silly me, I thought that suggesting a commercial game should avoid objective racial stereotypes was constructive.

I also never said that the Duke needs to be "honest." I have no idea where you got that. I said he shouldn't own a casino.

I should repeat that none of this is officially in the game yet, only that it is in the game files (but not used). So we'll see. Hopefully my concerns will be unfounded.

 
Well, at this rate we will exactly know somewhere in 2027.  I wouldn´t expect too much tbh. I honestly wouldn´t be surprised if the first page of this thread already has way more words than the whole story itself.

Story never was the main focus i don´t think we will see more than a chain of normal quests on Navezgane with maybe a few special story POI´s. Probably most will play it once and never touch it again. This game didn´t survive more than 10 years on the hope for a good storyline.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
theFlu said:
"Problematic". I .. don't even need to say more tbh, everyone knows what I'm referring to at this point :D
Click to expand...


Well, it's a lot less inflammatory than saying "racist" or something similar.

But, yeah, it was clearly a mistake to point out the racial stereotypes presented uncritically in the game's story. Apparently nobody in these forums cares whether the game has them or not. Or at least nobody cares enough to comment.

If anyone does care, I already gave people enough info about it, so I'm not going to say anymore. It's going nowhere.

 
theFlu said:
Indeed, it's quite the familiar motte and bailey tactic; just to imply things, so one can then retreat to the position "I never said that".
Click to expand...


No, I indeed did say it earlier, but regretted it. I do mean it's "problematic" specifically in terms of racial stereotyping. I still do not believe it's intentional on TFP's part, so I don't want to accuse them of intentionally being racist or encouraging racism. People usually jump to that conclusion whenever the term "racism" is used. That's not shifting the goalposts. (EDIT: Nor a motte-and-bailey fallacy, which I thought were synonymous, but aren't.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
No, I indeed did say it earlier, but regretted it. I do mean it's "problematic" specifically in terms of racial stereotyping.
Click to expand...
So, you realized it's not actually racist; well, good. "Problematic" is essentially the same thing, if the topic at hand could be reasonably described as a "problem", it would be. So any use of "problematic" is essentially an admission that the issue at hand isn't even a problem. That's mostly why people don't really participate, for or against; even the description makes it uninteresting.

 
theFlu said:
So, you realized it's not actually racist; well, good. "Problematic" is essentially the same thing, if the topic at hand could be reasonably described as a "problem", it would be. So any use of "problematic" is essentially an admission that the issue at hand isn't even a problem. That's mostly why people don't really participate, for or against; even the description makes it uninteresting.
Click to expand...


I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The relevant dictionary definition of "problematic" means "having or showing attitudes (such as racial prejudice) or ideas (such as falsehoods) that are offensive, disturbing, or harmful."

The idea that it means "it's not actually racist" or "the issue at hand isn't even a problem" is the exact opposite of what it actually means - and, frankly, a really weird thing to say. It's definitely not what I meant. I only mean that it's not intentional. And, I have never said it's intentional.

EDIT: I'm not going to keep arguing about what I actually said. I think I have been very clear. Anyone can go back and read what I wrote, and decide for themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The vast majority (if not all) of casinos in Arizona are tribal, so the whole casino gimmick would have to be dropped. 

And you can sanitize the game all you want. I'm sure there are other similar aspects of this game that can be washed clean.

It would also be great to hear from an actual Native American. Their opinions on this subject are the only ones that have any true, substantial value anyway.

Remember the movie Ghost in the Shell? Wasn't it the Americans that were more offended than actual Japanese people over the casting of Scarlett Johansson as the lead?

 
khzmusik said:
The relevant dictionary definition of "problematic" means "having or showing attitudes (such as racial prejudice) or ideas (such as falsehoods) that are offensive, disturbing, or harmful."
Click to expand...
Yes, you can find an academic definition for the weasel word, and it sounds all so problematic in itself. "Such as, but not limited to" .. it can contain anything "I don't like" and still match the "definition". It's a non-issue, just like the definition implies. Offensive to who, on what metric? I take offense to very different things, including vague language trying to imply intent into people.

Offensive is fine; disturbing is fine; harmful is essentially impossible. Yes, it can contain some "reasonably horrible" things, but it conflates insulting someone with advocating for genocide. Another simple motte and bailey. It's a general problem in some "academic" circles, grouping wildly different things under a single moniker to establish a perception of a larger issue.

 
theFlu said:
Yes, you can find an academic definition for the weasel word, and it sounds all so problematic in itself. "Such as, but not limited to" .. it can contain anything "I don't like" and still match the "definition". It's a non-issue, just like the definition implies. Offensive to who, on what metric? I take offense to very different things, including vague language trying to imply intent into people.

Offensive is fine; disturbing is fine; harmful is essentially impossible. Yes, it can contain some "reasonably horrible" things, but it conflates insulting someone with advocating for genocide. Another simple motte and bailey. It's a general problem in some "academic" circles, grouping wildly different things under a single moniker to establish a perception of a larger issue.
Click to expand...


If you want to argue against Merriam-Webster, feel free. Leave me out of it.

 
Well, this thread took an interesting turn. Maybe there just shouldn’t be bad guys in stories, games, and movies at all. Oops sorry…I should have said bad people.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
The problem with all this theorizing is that none of it is in game right now.

Here is what is in the game files (I don't think any of this is spoiling anything):

  • "The most powerful man in Navezgane before the war was an ambitious, crooked Native American of Apache decent named 'Duke Cassadore' which means Warrior and Chief in Apache."
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reminder, so he is depicted as crooked even before the war.

khzmusik said:
  • "Me and the Duke go way back. I used to gamble at his casino before the @%$# hit the fan." (Trader Rekt)
  • "The Duke owned a casino before the apocalypse started. He's been rigging the game his entire life." (Trader Jen)
  • "The founder of the White River Settler's Outposts, Noah White stood up to the Duke and is now on the run from the Cassadores."
Click to expand...


So Noahs White River is something that seems to have been founded after the apocalypse event. Okay, it means this is not an indication of alternate history.

khzmusik said:
(Emphasis mine.)

There is no indication that this is satire; no mention of alternate timelines; no indication that the Duke was ever anything other than a casino "owner," or that White River was ever anything other than settlements founded by a White guy.
Click to expand...


You are showing 4 sentences and expect to know from them if there will be satire in the game or not? Why should characters in the game like Jen or Rekt mention alternate timelines? !! Obviously anyone in an alternate timeline won't know he is in one, for the simple fact that for him WE are an alternate timeline to him. 

Nothing of this shows anything except we know almost nothing about the story. We can't conclude that it is an alternate timeline. We neither can conlude it isn't !!

We can't find an indication it is a satire, neither can we rule out it is a satire.

khzmusik said:
So, when you are suggesting that TFP could do something else, you are also suggesting that they change the story.
Click to expand...


No. I am suggesting that TFP already did something else (in the sense that there is no indication that what you fear is the most probable version of the story that TFP wants to tell). At the moment they either created a fantasy county or area called Navezgane (which google maps does not find). Or they created an alternate timeline where Navezgane exists. Maybe White River is the actual White River of reality, maybe it is just a name they borrowed from real Arizona, maybe it is an alternate timeline.

khzmusik said:
Since we're all doing that anyway, why have them jump through hoops (complicated alternate histories, changing the main storyline so it's a satire of American racial stereotypes, whatever) just so the stereotypes can remain in the game?

Why not suggest they do the bare minimum to avoid those stereotypes - have the Duke be anything other than a casino owner, and acknowledge that Whiteriver was founded by Apaches and not White-led settlers?

In any case - if TFP do change the story in any way (your suggestions, my suggestions, or otherwise), that's great! We can see what they come up with.

But it's problematic right now, and will remain problematic if they change nothing.
Click to expand...


It is definitely not problematic right now as the stereotype/trope is just a small story detail known to a few forum users and those users speculating whether this story detail might be used in a way that might actually offend a minority group eventually when developed into a full story for the game. And that it attracted attention after only about 7 years of this story detail being known.

 
Roland said:
Well, this thread took an interesting turn. Maybe there just shouldn’t be bad guys in stories, games, and movies at all. Oops sorry…I should have said bad people.
Click to expand...
You mean "problematic people"?

Maybe delete all replies from this month so it can be a good factual and informative piece again.

 
Roland said:
Well, this thread took an interesting turn. Maybe there just shouldn’t be bad guys in stories, games, and movies at all. Oops sorry…I should have said bad people.
Click to expand...


Jesus. It seems like not one person here read what I actually wrote.

For what seems like the millionth time. I did not say there shouldn't be "bad guys" in the game. I did not say that the "bad guys" could not be Native American, nor that they should be White people. I did not say that the Duke should be a "good guy."

The things I said were:

  • It would be good if the game did not uncritically adopt the negative racial stereotype of the "casino Indian." (And I suggested many other things the Duke could be, while still being Native American and a "bad guy.")
  • It would be good if the story line was not the hundred-year-old-plus "savage Indians raiders vs. noble White settlers" trope.
  • It would be good if The Fun Pimps didn't (symbolically/literarily) take Native American territory, erase the history of Native Americans from it, and assign it to White settlers.
  • If there are Native Americans in the game who are "bad guys," it would be good if they were not the only Native Americans in the game.

You all are inventing everything else. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
Jesus. It seems like not one person here read what I actually wrote.

For what seems like the millionth time. I did not say there shouldn't be "bad guys" in the game. I did not say that the "bad guys" could not be Native American, nor that they should be White people. I did not say that the Duke should be a "good guy."

The things I said were:

  • It would be good if the game did not uncritically adopt the negative racial stereotype of the "casino Indian." (And I suggested many other things the Duke could be, while still being Native American and a "bad guy.")
  • It would be good if the story line was not the "savage Indians raiders vs. noble White settlers" trope.
  • It would be good if The Fun Pimps didn't (symbolically/literarily) take Native American territory, erase the history of Native Americans from it, and assign it to White settlers.
  • If there are Native Americans in the game who are "bad guys," it would be good if they were not the only Native Americans in the game.

You all are inventing everything else. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they don't make the Cazadors just bad guys and they give white river there faults too..

Maybe white river is more cult like and that's why they helped you. I remember hudge saying 

"I hope your not one of those white river Fanatics" and that made me think of a cult. 

But the theme of white river.  At least from the bandit model is more of a biker gang. Not really cult like. 

Maybe the Cazadors are friendly too those who are Native to nazezgane while hostile too outsiders. Idk 

Also on a side note and off topic I think it's kinda weird that there is no Hispanic opinion while making your character 

You only get white, black, Native, Asian 

Kinda weird too cut out a whole group. Native Americans look completely different from Hispanics. Different faces and features, etc idk I might be wrong 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, and people were trying to interact with you on a reasonable level, and then you attacked them by saying that they were being apologists for the possibly intentional racism in the game.  Once you do that, people tend to not take you seriously anymore. 

khzmusik said:
The things I said were:

  • It would be good if the game did not uncritically adopt the negative racial stereotype of the "casino Indian." (And I suggested many other things the Duke could be, while still being Native American and a "bad guy.")
  • It would be good if the story line was not the "savage Indians raiders vs. noble White settlers" trope.
  • It would be good if The Fun Pimps didn't (symbolically/literarily) take Native American territory, erase the history of Native Americans from it, and assign it to White settlers.
  • If there are Native Americans in the game who are "bad guys," it would be good if they were not the only Native Americans in the game.

You all are inventing everything else. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
1. Sure, if that is what they did then you have a point.  But you don't know the mindset, nor do you know the impetus of the story itself.  You can't claim it was done uncritically, you can't say that it was done on purpose.  You can't even say that even happened.  The game is not done, there is a story and background that we don't even know if it in the final game.

2. Again, you don't know the actual story of the game.  The white river settlers could easily be the bad guys in the game, there are lines from the traders that say ' i never trusted those white river settlers'  The snippets we have of the story can very well be from unreliable narrators.
3. Again, you have no idea what they have done, or not done.  There simply is not enough information out there to hold a strong opinion here.  And also, This is not the real world, this is it's own universe.  The Native Americans could literally control half the country because they fought back the settlers.  There are a practically infinite other possibilities here, and to make a solid claim for any 1 is just unjustified.
4. In the game we have direct evidence of 5 total people in the world.  your character and the 4 traders.   Once the bandits come into the game, then we will know of more people, until then you do not have a good reason to even think that there are any 'bad guy Indians'.  (see point 2)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top