Feargus Urquhart quote on addressing hate in games

[RedSocialKnight]

I can't be bothered to trudge through the latest flamefest thread, so I don't know if anyone has posted this quote from Feargus Urquhart yet.

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.

 

Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.

 

I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.

 

I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.

 

We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

 

Of course feel free to respond, but I'm not interested in arguing with you. I just thought this had a place on the forum.

[gkathellar]

/slow clap

[Voss]

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

[gkathellar]

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

 

The quote is specifically in reference to all of this stupid drama about the backer memorial. The article it comes from makes that somewhat more clear.

[Molcho]

There are a plethora of real world concepts that are being explored in the game.

[Arsene Lupin]

There are a plethora of real world concepts that are being explored in the game.

 

After playing so much Bloodborne lately, I can only read that as "placenta."

[Prime-Mover]

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

Why is the setting relevant in this regard? The moral choices you make, would hopefully make you think, whether you're deciding whether kill a guy names Xanzitorp, who happens to be a wizard, or some guy names Joe, who drives a taxi?

[Voss]

 

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

Why is the setting relevant in this regard? The moral choices you make, would hopefully make you think, whether you're deciding whether kill a guy names Xanzitorp, who happens to be a wizard, or some guy names Joe, who drives a taxi?

 

Are you unfamiliar with the genre?  You kill people (lots, and lots of people)  to take their stuff and gain power.  The moral dimension is pretty much not present at all, and you specifically don't turn fantasy game 'morality' on random taxi drivers named Joe. That gets you arrested for murder.  

 

If you were to take the main 'moral lessons' of this game to heart, it would be that feral (badly behaved) children (soulless children with animal souls) should be killed out of hand rather than taught to behave, and religious people should be murdered on sight, because they (exemplified in Waedwen, Durance and Thaos) cause nothing but suffering.  So really, I'd caution Fearghus and the developers of this game to avoid morality discussions at all, and treat the game for what it is: casual entertainment. 

Edited April 10, 2015 by Voss

[Katarack21]

 

 

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

Why is the setting relevant in this regard? The moral choices you make, would hopefully make you think, whether you're deciding whether kill a guy names Xanzitorp, who happens to be a wizard, or some guy names Joe, who drives a taxi?

 

Are you unfamiliar with the genre?  You kill people (lots, and lots of people)  to take their stuff and gain power.  The moral dimension is pretty much not present at all, and you specifically don't turn fantasy game 'morality' on random taxi drivers named Joe. That gets you arrested for murder.  

 

If you were to take the main 'moral lessons' of this game to heart, it would be that feral (badly behaved) children (soulless children with animal souls) should be killed out of hand rather than taught to behave, and religious people should be murdered on sight, because they (exemplified in Waedwen, Durance and Thaos) cause nothing but suffering.  So really, I'd caution Fearghus and the developers of this game to avoid morality discussions at all, and treat the game for what it is: casual entertainment. 

 

Not feral. Not badly behaved. They grow fangs and claws and gain an instinctive desire to eat any animals they can kill, including their family. Bit of a difference. Taught to behave...these are wichts your talking about, not kids with behavioral problems. ****.

 

The questions in this game revolve around things like moving on from your past, understanding who you are, the meaning of faith.

 

If you didn't get any of that then I can only conclude you didn't pay attention.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Katarack21

[Legbiter]

Can someone translate his musings into the English language?

[RedSocialKnight]

Can someone translate his musings into the English language?

 

The quote is clearer at the source -- I copied it from a longer article that provides context.

[Prime-Mover]

 

 

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

Why is the setting relevant in this regard? The moral choices you make, would hopefully make you think, whether you're deciding whether kill a guy names Xanzitorp, who happens to be a wizard, or some guy names Joe, who drives a taxi?

 

Are you unfamiliar with the genre?  You kill people (lots, and lots of people)  to take their stuff and gain power.  The moral dimension is pretty much not present at all, and you specifically don't turn fantasy game 'morality' on random taxi drivers named Joe. That gets you arrested for murder.  

 

If you were to take the main 'moral lessons' of this game to heart, it would be that feral (badly behaved) children (soulless children with animal souls) should be killed out of hand rather than taught to behave, and religious people should be murdered on sight, because they (exemplified in Waedwen, Durance and Thaos) cause nothing but suffering.  So really, I'd caution Fearghus and the developers of this game to avoid morality discussions at all, and treat the game for what it is: casual entertainment. 

 

 

I honestly doubt you would question whether a backer of this game is familiar with the genre. So I can only interpret the first sentence as a an expression of mild hostility. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

 

On point: The fact that certain issues in the game are treated fairly callously, or forces you to make choices which are morally controversial, does not mean that the game and the developers, aren't trying to make you think about these issues and choices. In some cases they want you to consider: "hey, was that guy really a bad dude", or they want you to go "WTF" when seeing how certain norms are almost universally accepted in the world.

[evensong]

Are you unfamiliar with the genre? You kill people (lots, and lots of people) to take their stuff and gain power. The moral dimension is pretty much not present at all, and you specifically don't turn fantasy game 'morality' on random taxi drivers named Joe. That gets you arrested for murder.

 

If you were to take the main 'moral lessons' of this game to heart, it would be that feral (badly behaved) children (soulless children with animal souls) should be killed out of hand rather than taught to behave, and religious people should be murdered on sight, because they (exemplified in Waedwen, Durance and Thaos) cause nothing but suffering. So really, I'd caution Fearghus and the developers of this game to avoid morality discussions at all, and treat the game for what it is: casual entertainment.

 

I don't think you're quite right, but I don't think you're quite wrong either. The murdering and looting stuff is a problem that plagues all video games attempting to discuss serious topics - the Bioshock series is a good example, where you really do explore (through the story) complex and interesting topics like the free market, free will, religious fervor, racism, (plus some quasi-stoner multiverse theory stuff) etc. while the game is also presenting quicktime events where you are presented with a hamfisted binary moral choice, and then literally gore a dude's face out with a mechanical hook machine attached to your arm, after which you proceed to murder ten thousand people. I think this is a barrier that's going to be a problem as long as video games have to deal with the constraints of interactive gameplay, which is, well, always going to be a thing in games, or they wouldn't be games. Even in weird and novel games like Going Home or The Stanley Parable, those constraints are still there to some extent.

 

I don't think anybody is saying that the topics discussed in PoE are directly applicable to the real world, that's rarely the case in books or movies as well - but I'm certainly finding aspects of the game to be interesting explorations of religion and reactions to slow creeping catastrophe. The obvious parallel to PoE is Children of Men, I guess. The moral choices are often less interesting, maybe slightly less so than the dumbass D&D alignment system where everyone fits neatly into nine distinct categories...

 

I dunno. Like, I agree that the moral choices in the game aren't that interesting, but intellectually dismissing it as having no value because it doesn't literally explain how to lead your life in reality seems a bit off as well.

Edited April 10, 2015 by evensong

[Ohioastro]

 

 

 

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

This game actually really fails at talking about anything that matters, because the story is centered on pure fantasy concepts that don't relate to the real world.  So if exploring 'things that matter' was actually a goal, the game fails utterly.  On the other hand, if its about providing ~40 hours of amusing (but empty) fantasy violence, then it is pretty successful.

Why is the setting relevant in this regard? The moral choices you make, would hopefully make you think, whether you're deciding whether kill a guy names Xanzitorp, who happens to be a wizard, or some guy names Joe, who drives a taxi?

 

Are you unfamiliar with the genre?  You kill people (lots, and lots of people)  to take their stuff and gain power.  The moral dimension is pretty much not present at all, and you specifically don't turn fantasy game 'morality' on random taxi drivers named Joe. That gets you arrested for murder.  

 

If you were to take the main 'moral lessons' of this game to heart, it would be that feral (badly behaved) children (soulless children with animal souls) should be killed out of hand rather than taught to behave, and religious people should be murdered on sight, because they (exemplified in Waedwen, Durance and Thaos) cause nothing but suffering.  So really, I'd caution Fearghus and the developers of this game to avoid morality discussions at all, and treat the game for what it is: casual entertainment. 

 

 

I honestly doubt you would question whether a backer of this game is familiar with the genre. So I can only interpret the first sentence as a an expression of mild hostility. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

 

On point: The fact that certain issues in the game are treated fairly callously, or forces you to make choices which are morally controversial, does not mean that the game and the developers, aren't trying to make you think about these issues and choices. In some cases they want you to consider: "hey, was that guy really a bad dude", or they want you to go "WTF" when seeing how certain norms are almost universally accepted in the world.

 

 

The themes in the end game about the gods and religion and souls are pretty far from "pure fantasy concepts", at least for a lot of people.  In the end, I think that there are some people, for whatever reason, who have developed a real dislike for the game.  They then translate that overall hostility into a dislike of all aspects, including story and dialog.

[Emptiness]

Weirdly incoherent, since soulless children have nothing at all to do with hate speech, nor are they something adults sit around and chat about as if it is a concept that matters.

 

I hate soulless children.  I think we should round them all up and use them to manufacture shoes for the rest of the world without proper compensation for their labor.  Discuss.

[evensong]

I hate soulless children. I think we should round them all up and use them to manufacture shoes for the rest of the world without proper compensation for their labor. Discuss.

**** that. I want my shoes made with passion, you just don't get the same level of craftsmanship if there's no soul - the shoes will just fall apart, and the only thing I hate more than soulless children is soleless shoes.

Edited April 10, 2015 by evensong

[evensong]

Real talk though, don't buy Nikes.

[RedSocialKnight]

the only thing I hate more than soulless children is soleless shoes.

 

Oh God, what have I created?

 

Mods please lock this thread.

[Ted Striker]

I want to punch a baby

[WebShaman]

More thread madness.

 

Much too much seriousness for a video game set in a fantasy setting that has no parallels to our society, etc.

 

I mean...the game is talking about manipulating souls here.  At that point, all morality goes out the window.  You can't put the cat back into the bag once it is out - so...

 

Just have fun.

 

Leave morality issues for RL.

[gkathellar]

a fantasy setting that has no parallels to our society, etc.

 

... I know you're not kidding, but I really wish you were.

[ChipMHazard]

"It was something we, not anybody, had read"

 

I call bull**** on that. Someone obviously read it as someone obviously wrote it into the game.

 

"We can tal about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don't promote hate is the key thing in the end"

 

Aye, indeed. But what does that have to do with the poem? Was he insinuating that Firedorn's poem was promoting hatred towards a group of people? Well, I guess it did promote hatred towards silly bigots whom think running off a cliff is a rational way of handling an akward situation. 

[RedSocialKnight]

Here again is the topic quote from Feargus Urquhart.

 

Is it about language? Yes. But it’s not specifically about language. It’s about talking about things that adults talk about. They talk about where are they going in life. They talk about — in the case of Eternity — about souls and a lot about what happens with children that are being born without souls.

 

Mature to us ... is talking about things that matter, that are difficult, that are worth talking about with adults.

 

I think the question, ultimately, is it’s all coming down to hate, right? Is hate a topic that is being explored in a game, or is the game saying something hateful about someone? And so I think that’s the line.

 

I think for any of us, whether we’re making a movie, or if we’re making a comic book, or we’re writing a novel, or we’re making a game it’s [a matter of] are we exploring the subject in a way that makes people think, or are we saying something hateful through it. And if there’s any red line, that’s the red line for me.

 

We can talk about hate, and we can explore hate, but that we don’t promote hate is the key thing in the end.

 

Edited April 10, 2015 by RedSocialKnight

[Prime-Mover]

More thread madness.

 

Much too much seriousness for a video game set in a fantasy setting that has no parallels to our society, etc.

 

I mean...the game is talking about manipulating souls here.  At that point, all morality goes out the window.  You can't put the cat back into the bag once it is out - so...

 

Just have fun.

 

Leave morality issues for RL.

I don't see what about manipulating souls should make morality go out the window. Mind elaborating? As I see it, being able to manipulate souls rather introduces new moral considerations, which can't as easily be drawn out in a non-fantasy or non-scifi setting.

[gkathellar]

"It was something we, not anybody, had read"

 

I call bull**** on that. Someone obviously read it as someone obviously wrote it into the game.

 

Ctrl-C.

 

Ctrl-V.

 

500-odd times.

 

And you think it's hard to believe that somebody missed one?