Meshugger

Technically, no one is forcing Western developers to include minorities in their games either. If you want to split hairs, then you got a point. There's *no push* then from media or the intelligentia for japanese/asian game companies to include non-asians. Absolutely. It's totally a fair thing to say "we don't think minority representation is a priority in our game". It's a valid artistic choice. But a (minority) consumer's choice to not buy the game based on this artistic choice is just as valid, which is the entire point of the article. Their loss for their own stupidity then. With that mindset, i would've never played any of the Final Fantasy games. Why on earth Polygon thinks that this is good idea stems either from something very sinister or just very ignorant. This thing right here, exactly this, is what the article was about ??

But its really a fantasy realm so why not just include minorities? It can still be very Slavic but I don't see the big deal? The big deal is 1) Is that it is quite racist to include minorities for the sake of them being minorities. 2) The double standard. No one is forcing the Japanese/Asian market to include whites or blacks in their games. I know I will fail to convince you but its not racist if its intention is to be inclusive and we don't need other cultures to prompt the white\European race...we already dominate on most levels Racism is still racism despite with "good" intensions, nice try though. Who's "we?" not needing to prompt european race? Who are you talking about? Why is it morally right for any artist pursue this racial/cultural propaganda and why should companies profit from it?

Don't worry, the brave journalists are quite busy being offended on your behalf. Stay safe!

But its really a fantasy realm so why not just include minorities? It can still be very Slavic but I don't see the big deal? The big deal is 1) Is that it is quite racist to include minorities for the sake of them being minorities. 2) The double standard. No one is forcing the Japanese/Asian market to include whites or blacks in their games. Absolutely. It's totally a fair thing to say "we don't think minority representation is a priority in our game". It's a valid artistic choice. But a (minority) consumer's choice to not buy the game based on this artistic choice is just as valid, which is the entire point of the article. Their loss for their own stupidity then. With that mindset, i would've never played any of the Final Fantasy games. Why on earth Polygon thinks that this is good idea stems either from something very sinister or just very ignorant.

I dunno, I'm your generic eastern european mix of slavic, germanic and god knows what else, and didn't really feel the article was trying to erase me or my culture. Well, this is more about what the text says and not what you feel, is it not?

I....I agree. That has to be the first time. Polygon is gonna Polygon as usual: Bollywood cannot be Bollywood by the same logic. What problem would be fixed by this exactly? Oh never mind, it is whining by that Moosa fool. Yeah non whites are shown the door by Witcher 3. The problem of too much white people will be fixed. Didn't you get the memo? For example, lets say you make a movie based on danish folklore, where everyone is white because....well the danish people are white. But that will cause ungoodfeel for minorities and thus, a transsexual asian blacksmith should fit perfectly fine with the setting. Oh, but don't even think about including white people in indian movie for the same reason. That's cultural appropriation, which is problematic. This is the level of malevolent idiocy we are dealing with.

I also find it funny how ex-communist countries with a 1000-year history and recent re-awaking of cultural and ethnic identity are told that their homogenity sucks. Finally free and independent only to be told that it shouldn't matter.

I....I agree. That has to be the first time. Polygon is gonna Polygon as usual: Bollywood cannot be Bollywood by the same logic.

Yeah, and then there's the method of determining average. So games journalists. Everyones favourite, Nathan Grayson, finds the whole thing problematic https://archive.is/FJTVd

MOAR

You make it sound like both beliefs are mutually exclusive Well, I can see them being mutually exclusive. The latter is the result of a competitive, self-centred outlook that makes the former rather difficult to achieve. But isn't it a self-centered and competitive outlook that created the automation industry to begin with? Well, the competitive, self-centred view doesn't lead to the sort of society Rosbjerg is describing, but to the question: what to do with all the redundant people. Wait for them to starve? Have them shot? No idea, i am pondering on the same thing.

You make it sound like both beliefs are mutually exclusive Well, I can see them being mutually exclusive. The latter is the result of a competitive, self-centred outlook that makes the former rather difficult to achieve. But isn't it a self-centered and competitive outlook that created the automation industry to begin with?

You make it sound like both beliefs are mutually exclusive

A reasonable indie response: Not so reasonable indie response: Let's let Brad Wardell to tie things together: It's uncanny how many anti-GG seem to be against this. Should we simply start to call them anti-consumer? And WTF is a 30 second game? Yup, no surprises there about them being anti-consumer since the consumers themselves have the power to make them feel ungoodfeelz with their opinions and reviews. The 30 second game is usually being naked with the woman of your dreams.

It seems like the future is going quite like Frank Herbert envisioned. //edit: granted that a basic guaranteed income is introduced as soon as everything is automated. Otherwise we can kiss this modern society goodbye.

This one? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist-frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/ Seems fairly mild IMO. I think that they cannot handle the part where Erik calls them out on wanting art to serve a political agenda.

Remember the article from Erik Kain calling out FF on their tropes a few pages back? I would like to thank the mods for allowing continued discussion about this on the Obsidian-boards

This is quite funny. Remember the gg_autoblocker on Twitter that blocked people based on who they followed and even endorsed by IGDA for a while? Well the creator of it, Randi Harper, seems to be bullying the author Anne Rice (Interview with a Vampire) https://twitter.com/AnneRiceAuthor/status/605803197324599298 Seems like the "harassed ones" are really just projecting.

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right. As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do. But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!" In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer). So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent. But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention? What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail? I think Adam Sandler should go to jail. God dammit.

Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right. As I understand it, the guy was convicted under the test that recognizing the words as a threat was something a "reasonable" person would do. But that as a test could remove the words from any potential context they might have. Context is always important. "I kill you? I kill everyone!" might be a threat...but probably isn't if it was proceeded by something like "Man, you're hilarious - you kill me!" In this case - and again as I understand it - the guy clearly marked on his posts in ways that would provide different context for what he wrote (some sort of Free Speech disclaimer). So what I gather reading about this decision isn't that you can post anything online without consequence, but the words themselves are not enough to convict - you have to provide intent. But how do you prove intent if they are just seen as words...surly words can prove intention? What if he was joking? Should we put people with bad sense of humor into jail?

Errr...its probably got to do with the fact women are the victims of more abuse than men on the Internet Not really. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733071/Men-twice-abuse-women-Twitter-ones-trolling.html Shocking. Probably do need consequences, but I think the court was saying you need more evidence than just someone saying it is threatening. Throwing people in jail is serious business, right. In my humble opinion, the judge realized that "muh feelz" as a base for harassment charges is not beneficial for anyone.

Yikes, the guy even talked about going on a school shooting spree. He was a douche, yes. But let douches say douchey things without making it into a trial.

Semi-relevant: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html ****posters, rejoice!

http://tiredoldhack.com/2015/06/01/an-open-letter-to-journalists-who-dont-give-a-****/ Response to the dreary Polygon-article about Rock Band 4

Oh, what the times have changed. Kennedy though that he knew better than CIA and the rest: