The RPS Feedback Thread

Shadoko 2019-06-16 07:10:26 UTC #1450

You’re right. Don’t feed the troll. Apologies.

seams412 2019-06-18 21:06:15 UTC #1452

About Cyberpunk 2077 article. I would give more weight to these criticisms of transphobia and misrepresentation of marginalized cultures at CDPR if they were coming from people within those marginalized groups. All too often its a cis white male game journo screaming at their audience about how awful something is, rather than giving a member of the marginalized group a chance to share their opinion. If these sites don’t have a member on staff who can speak on behalf of a group, why aren’t these game journos at least interviewing members of said group and printing direct quotes? I’d rather hear that, than read hundreds of words about how bad something is, when the writer couldn’t take a minute to get an opinion from an actual member of the group that is apparently so offended. I myself am a minority. I applaud CDPR for adapting a game created by a black man, I applaud CDPR for putting images of trans and other marginalized groups in their game at all. So far, Night City appears to be one of the most diverse in-game environments ever created. Why is that coming from a Polish studio rather than one from a more diverse country, city, or state? How long have we gone in this industry without any representation of these groups what so ever? Lastly, with the recent and ongoing strings of unsolved murders of trans women in cities like Dallas, and D.C., why is the focus on a game dev, when there are far more serious issues facing these groups? It all rings hollow to me. I also find it interesting that RPS hasn’t printed Pondsmith’s rebuttal. Whats up with that?

SinVega 2019-06-18 23:07:46 UTC #1453

How would you feel if a white trans person posted to “applaud” a dev for putting in an exaggerated image of a black man taken directly from hand drawn, racist fetish porn, because hey at least it’s something? Shitty, pornographic representation is not better than nothing. It’s often used to actively objectify and harass and stereotype and exploit people, be they black or women or trans or any combination of the above. A gigantic project involving hundreds, possibly thousands of staff isn’t immune to criticism or incapable of fucking up just because one person near the top is black.

You’re also asking some of the people most targeted by abuse, especially in this industry, to put their neck out in front of a studio with a particularly huge, often fetid following (the game doesn’t even exist for another year and it’s already the biggest selling game in the anglosphere this week), in return for very little, at a time when frankly trans people have enough to deal with. It’s not like we didn’t have en entire organised harassment campaign drive countless people out of the industry and some out of their own homes simply for daring to exist in or around games. And none of it has gone away, unless you count the parts of it that have moved on to open fascism.

RPS’s work on this mess has been welcomed by a LOT of trans people, and you can be sure that they asked around beforehand.

alms 2019-06-19 01:09:49 UTC #1454

You should try sea lioning, then.

Oh, wait.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 02:18:07 UTC #1455

The whole article is just RPS being its current incarnation and stirring controversy up for monetization, nothing more than that.

Of course there will be plenty of people that get offended with everything, so no surprise there.

seams412 2019-06-19 03:09:29 UTC #1456

I’d be fine with it because context matters. Its a cyberpunk future where anyone with the means and desire can alter their body to their hearts content. In addition, the exaggerated depiction in question apparently applies to advertisements throughout the game, regardless of gender. Lastly, the creator himself has rejected these claims.

Those who are offended have the right to voice their opinion. I would rather hear those opinions than one that comes from a place of privilege, asserting that those from marginalized groups are or should be offended.

The assertions made appear to come from the author’s own discomfort with the depictions, rather than from voices inside those marginalized cultures.

BillButNotBen 2019-06-19 05:10:00 UTC #1457

The article seems to be someone writing about something that they wanted to write about.
I’m not quite sure when we got to the point where every article has to be definitively correct or wrong on an issue, or has to either persuade you that it’s right or it must be wrong.
Why can’t it just be someone expressing their thought about a matter?

Why can’t people just read it and think ‘Hmm. that raises a few interesting points… interesting.’ whether or not they end up agreeing with it?

Why do people always have to get offended about people being offended and then claim that the people being offended are somehow oversensitive for being offended but that they aren’t oversensitive for being offended?

Why do people always claim RPS is stirring up controversy for monetization when there’s zero evidence of that ever being the case and what they usually mean is ‘i disagree’?

As far as I can tell he was responding to a Redditor’s paraphrasing of a comment in the comments on the article (by our very own LexW, if i’m not mistaken! * waves * ).

There’s no indication of whether he even read the original comment, let alone the article. (infact i think LexW’s comment was on another article about Cp2077 by Matt).
He does seem to confirm that LexW was right about the point on the Voodoo Boys.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 05:31:17 UTC #1458

Because, in my view, these points are not interesting. Neither valid. They are nit picks that stir controversy.

But of course this is just my view, others are perfectly entitled to disagree with me and find these articles interesting and valid.

Shadoko 2019-06-19 07:44:00 UTC #1459

Because assuming people do something purely for money and not because perhaps, they might actually care (whether or not they’re right, it’s another issue) is a very effective tactic to dismiss anything you don’t like.

As it stands, I engaged in rather bitter debates on Reddit about representation as whole in CP77 and I don’t feel like engaging in that again. One thing is certain though : whenever an article has something to do with representation in games as a whole, whether it’s about women, transgender people, non-white people, etc…it attracts much more comments than other articles. I am thoroughly convinced it says much more about the gaming community (if I may call it as such) rather than RPS itself.

In any case, feeling that RPS was not legitimate in their criticism, that there are worse issues or that they have totally misunderstood what was shown is a valid opinion anyone is entitled to have. Assuming that RPS only does that out of greed is incredibly dismissive of any diverging opinion that might exist.

And interestingly enough, an environment where in the last E3 gameplay presentation most of the enemies where black people with a stereotypical voodoo shtick and the only transgender people we’ve seen were on a nigh pornographic, fetishized ad. And whose box art features a young white guy looking badass and holding a gun. So yeah, diverse maybe, but not really showing it so far, eh ?

Also, here is the exact same commentary, but written by an actual trans person, if we’re going the “but what about representation at RPS” route.

EDIT : I should add that I have faith that CDPR will produce something great, even now. I’m just not on board with what they’ve shown so far.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 08:18:24 UTC #1460

So are you suggesting that according to you, other people’s creative fictional dystopia should conform to your comfortable ideas of dystopia? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Shadoko 2019-06-19 08:41:54 UTC #1461

At no point did I say “hey this is how you have to picture dystopias, how dare you do something different !” For instance, I strongly dislike Neuromancer’s first part, the iconic one. I just don’t like the aesthetic nor the themes. I do enjoy the second part though. However I’m not going to run around yelling “CYBORGS UNDER THE NEON RAIN ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD BAN THEM.”

Same thing here. I don’t like what they’ve shown. I don’t like how they’ve handled diversity. At no point did I suggest that CDPR should change anything because I, a complete nobody, didn’t like their artistic vision derived from a 20 year old tabletop game. Yeah, I didn’t like it, and I think not liking it for several reasons including how I, personnaly, subjectively, think diversity should be handled, is a valid opinion. Just like “Shadoko you’re just plain wrong and this is awesome” is valid as well.

A criticism is not an anathema. This is not how I think a cyberpunk dystopia should be presented. Personally. From a purely subjective point of view that is born out of what I like and what I’ve experienced. That’s it. I’m not some kind of culture cop and people are not “wrong” for enjoying something I don’t enjoy at all.

And I do think that automatically assuming that any criticism is an attempt at stirring up controversy for clicks is kind of a bad move.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 12:49:17 UTC #1462

And I, in turn, never said that, either. I just asked for clarification, nothing more, so I don’t misunderstand what you said.

I agree criticism is not anathema. It should be welcome, even. My issue is that the majority of criticism the last few years concentrate on the same stuff. Inclusivity. Sexuality. Most of it forced or out of context.

shrug

alms 2019-06-19 13:02:16 UTC #1463

Because unwelcome issues must be marginalized through thinly veiled personal attacks based on innuendos and made up accusations, impinging on the leitmotiv of ulterior motives ($$$) and subsequent lack of moral fiber of the writer(s) and publisher(s), both of whom should stop posing and get off their high horse.

By making sure dog whistle terms are used, virtue signalling is achieved, of which, of course, the attacked party was accused in the first place.

All standard issue propaganda for cultural war, cynical and jaded to the last bit.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 13:33:36 UTC #1464

Just like this sentence?

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 13:40:24 UTC #1465

To elaborate more, there are a lot of people, and yes, myself included, who are at least mildly fed up or annoyed with the culture wars in gaming. Why should some people constantly bring their sexuality in the forefront, in everything? Or their politics?

Does this somehow imply that I or everyone else have any issue whatsoever with minorities, alternative sexualities, different views or political inclinations or whatever? Because if in some way people think that, not only they are wrong, but the assumption is offensive, to use the current popular word.

The main issue I and some others have is the accusatory tone and constant lecturing and very often mob-like threatening stance.

BillButNotBen 2019-06-19 13:42:34 UTC #1466

But they only ‘stir controversy’ because some people appear to get very upset about certain kinds of nit-picks.

You are totally entitled to find them not interesting, or even invalid. (though claiming they’re just there to make money seems a little ott.)

I read a bunch of criticism every day that falls somewhere on the spectrum between interesting and not interesting. But if it’s not interesting I just stop reading and read something else. If it’s mildly interesting in part then I go “hmm.” and file bits away.

As Shadoko says, any criticism that even mildly touches on any issues related to representation tends to generate masses of comments. Criticism that talks about how cool giant ladies are, or whether it’s ok to show sharks as crazed killers, or how badly the vampires dance, or the weird larndan accents in a game, or some technical aspect or other, doesn’t seem to generate a quarter as many angry people.

Now we could blame RPS for that and conclude it’s some kind of calculated attempt to get comments… but all evidence points the other way. So we could as why so many people get vocally upset about criticism focused on one small aspect of a game, but not on criticism about other aspects.

Weird. That’s the same issue I have…

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 13:49:27 UTC #1467

There are plenty of people who write and elaborate their differing thoughts calmly, politely and with concrete examples and thoughtful criticism. And they have all (most?) stopped bothering, due to the avalanche of hostile and angry responses from (some) people, even in this forum. I know at least half a dozen of people who have quit this very forum, due to the, quite frankly, rude to the point of being pain in the ass responses from some. (Not you, might I add, you are always polite and it matters not to me if our views differ).

Shadoko 2019-06-19 14:22:44 UTC #1468

I can agree on that but in that case I’d argue a cyberpunk-themed game is exactly the kind of game where criticism concentrating on gender and inclusivity is on point, because identity and oppression are at the core of the theme. If a studio doesn’t want to engage on these topics while making a cyberpunk game, well…don’t market it as cyberpunk, because you’ll expose yourself to that, as it’s a genre that’s heavily politicised and prime for controversy by essence.

I can totally get that constant controversy can get very tiring - and from all sides. But in that particular case, it’s a goddamn cyberpunk game. In this particular context I would say that nothing appeared forced to me. But again, that’s me and just me.

I am always amused that my scathing reddit comments about I think how regular city-builders are bad games that perpetuate an ideology of accelerated gentrification and limitless growth always sink to the bottom of the pile while whenever I talk about something I find slightly sexist I get tons of angry gamer attention. Weird, weird, isn’t it…

(Disclaimer : I am not targeting anyone on this site with the “angry gamer” comment. Just so that it’s clear. You’re all nice folks, even those I disagree with and I mean that most sincerely.)

EDIT : Yeah, one thing to add. I don’t think that the “culture war” in gaming is a reality but even if it was true - it would be a two-sided thing. RPS weren’t the ones complaining that the women in MK11 weren’t sexy enough or that having a transgender option in Cyberpunk 2077 was a scandal.
(Not targeting anyone in particular either here - just a general observation.)

Anyway, have a good day, all of you. Apologies if I sometimes sound scathing or anything. Probably real life pouring in.

TheDreamlord 2019-06-19 14:40:35 UTC #1469

See, I don’t get it, as particularly in this instance, a cyberpunk game, would be a card blanche for creators to let their creativity and interpretation free from the usual nit picks. Especially since cyberpunk is all about body modification and human transience. Which makes it all the more annoying to see this word “problematic” (I really really dispise how this word is used in this context nowadays) pop up.

Shadoko 2019-06-19 14:44:29 UTC #1470

Of course. And this also means that they can be criticized, given the genre’s history as a social and political critique first and foremost.

For instance, there’s a case to be made that it’s kind of odd that a game about body modification and human transience, as you said, has a 101 badass-looking white dude on their cover. I’m not saying “you should ban badass-looking white dudes from covers”, far from that (and seriously who the hell am I anyway). Just that stuff like that can be questioned. Not agressively, not in a mean way, but it can be questioned (and in this case my criticism wouldn’t be really political, it’d be an artistic one : you have such a creative setting and you come up with that ?)