Cyberpunk's creator slams critics who claim Cyberpunk 2077 is racist / inaccurate to the source, refutes their claims

[Drak3]

Just now, Derangel said:

plot description makes it sound like the game has a message.

Still doesn't make it political.

[Derangel]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Still doesn't make it political.

You've yet to address the clear misunderstanding you seem to posses with how the term is being applied here. Funny how you choose to ignore things you can't counter while accusing others of doing the same.

[EldritchMoose]

27 minutes ago, Serin said:

But you're all fine with being able to make your characters trans' or non-binary, right?

Yep. In fact, it's one of the features I often miss whenever I see a slider next to "gender" on a character creation screen that still turns out to be a completely binary choice.

 

Like, it's not something I expect to be core to the gameplay, but as far as I'm concerned you can never have too many options when it comes to character customization.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

You've yet to address the clear misunderstanding you seem to posses with how the term is being applied here.

I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding or your erroneous use of terms.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Funny how you choose to ignore things you can't counter

I already did:

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Still doesn't make it political.

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

that's not a political statement. It's just a statement.

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Probably because it doesn't deal with politics.

 

Religion =/= politics.

 

Neither of those are political statements.

Those statements don't deal with politics, even if some of them have been part of political topics.

[Derangel]

Just now, Drak3 said:

I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding or your erroneous use of terms.

 

I already did:

Those statements don't deal with politics, even if some of them have been part of political topics.

Religion on its own is not political, true, but a commentary on religion very much can be. And, for the third bloody time, I can't judge the game until I play it. A look at the plot description on Wiki makes it seem like there very much could be something there. However, I don't know. I'm not sure what magical powers you think I posses, but I can't automagically know everything about a game based on a couple paragraphs of its plot. And, no offense, but I'm not taking your word at face value.

[EldritchMoose]

42 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I ask you, what is political about this?

Honestly, in today's political climate, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found a way to argue that this is an example of environmentalist propaganda...

 

Either way, I would argue that art is a medium and as such has no inherent properties with regards to its content. It can be political, but does not have to be.

[Jito463]

11 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Of course I can't comment on what some unknown artist may have been thinking or intending when they created that piece.

Which only serves to strengthen my argument that it's not political unless someone makes it political.

[Drak3]

Just now, Derangel said:

but I'm not taking your word at face value.

Don't really care.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

no offense

Not even remotely offensive.

 

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

but a commentary on religion very much can be

If it is commentary on religion by itself, no it can't be political. To argue otherwise would take Olympian levels of mental gymnastics.

[JoostinOnline]

On 6/19/2019 at 6:49 AM, Delicieuxz said:

The author also threw in some swipes at Cyberpunk's gunplay in the same breath, just to make sure readers didn't miss the fact that the article has an objective of taking down the game by any means possible.

To be fair, your post is already quite slanted as well.

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

If it is commentary on religion by itself, no it can't be political. To argue otherwise would take Olympian levels of mental gymnastics.

What, exactly, do you think counts as political commentary? Because I think we're looking at this two entirely different ways.

[Drak3]

Just now, Derangel said:

What, exactly, do you think counts as political commentary?

Commentary on,

 

 

 

 

Wait for it,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics.

[Derangel]

Just now, Drak3 said:

Commentary on,

 

 

 

 

Wait for it,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Politics.

That's not a valid answer.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

That's not a valid answer.

Yes, it is.

 

Spoiler

Obligatory at this point:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#note-1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

 

[Derangel]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, it is.

 

  Hide contents

Obligatory at this point:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics#note-1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/political

 

 

You do realize that your example specifically points to the use of politics as not just relating to the government, right? Also, an honest answer to my question would include specific examples, not some smartass dictionary link.

[SupremeGOAT]

55 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

So, you're equating this dude writing an article that you didn't have to read to playing a multi-player game and having a debate. It isn't the same venue. 

This isn't about me... this is about an indie developer who sees this article trending and decides to change an integral part of his game to suit this this guys loud and far reaching propaganda out  of fear of slander. People have gone to jail. lost their jobs because of slanderous filth like this

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Do what I did and denounce the dumbass on Twitter.  It's your right and obligation to do so. 

Sooooo why not tell me to write my own article to curb this madness hmmm? what could possibly go wrong?

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

You're saying the guy shouldn't be able to write what he wants, when he wants. 

What would happen if a person wrote an article that was ridiculously racist and homophobic? would you still keep that same energy?

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

There are people who think the ice caps aren't melting because an article showing a single glacier in Greenland is growing. That's also propaganda, and you don't see me censoring the people spreading it by shutting them down. 

So even with risk of global misinformation that would risk the fate of the earth... you would sit and do nothing as the world burns? not me... 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

What? I'm advocating for letting this dude speak his mind and you should as well. How is that censorship? If you want to play Smash without politics, go ahead, I'll join you 'cuz it isn't the time nor place for politics

IS ALL IM SAYING BRO~! video game time is VIDEO GAME TIME~  set the mooood~

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

s much as I'd like to see Biden get off-screened with a Fox McCloud super). I'm not going to stop this guy from writing what he wants, just because my opinion differs (and it does, btw). 

All im saying is a written letter can start a war, a phone call can end the world, apparently facebook posts can select the next president. There is a reason slander is illegal and this article is the perfect example. If this was in court facing charges right now for slander.. I'd be AOK.

[Drak3]

Just now, Derangel said:

You do realize that your example specifically points to the use of politics as not just relating to the government, right?

Quote

a: the total complex of relations between people living in society

b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

So, no, commentary on religion is not political commentary. It's religious commentary.

[Delicieuxz]

18 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

To be fair, your post is already quite slanted as well.

How? I try to phrase my views as being my views. If I succeed at presenting them as such, they are accurate.

[Derangel]

Just now, Drak3 said:

So, no, commentary on religion is not political commentary. It's religious commentary.

Did you miss the part where I said "could be" when talking about religious commentary? That implies that not all religious commentary is political, but that some is.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

Did you miss the part where I said "could be" when talking about religious commentary?

 

26 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

If it is commentary on religion by itself, no it can't be political.

 

[DezGalbie]

55 minutes ago, Commodus said:

You portrayed game journos as heavy-handed dictators trying to force their artistic criticism on others.  I was somewhat hyperbolic, and for that I apologize, but telling game journos to avoid weighing in on the artistic qualities of games (which, yes, includes political aspects) is wrong.

Time for the latest installment of strawman theatre. Where did I say that "journos" (or any single other person for that matter) are to avoid weighing in on the artistic qualities of games? You've got it all wrong. My original comment was not about how people should not discuss the artistic qualities of games, it was about how people should not try to censor art, and how people should pay no attention to people who encourage us to go down that route. My comment was about how an individual person has no authority to decide what should and should not be in someone else's art.

The point of art (or should I say - one of the points) is to bring together a group of elements which become of greater value than the sum of their parts. These elements could be words on a page, brush strokes on a canvas, or any other number of other things. By combining these elements in your own special way you communicate a point or a feeling. For someone to break a work of art down to those individual elements once again and apply intention to each of them individually is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst.

Is every single piece of art which contains the "N" word racist? No, because you have to look at the bigger picture, the entire context, the work of art as a whole. Branding a game racist just because it has a gang who refer to themselves as "The Animals" is exactly the same thing.

This game does not conform to the approved ideology. It does not go all-out in an effort to promote feminism, transgender culture, and other typically left-leaning pet causes. It is because it does not conform to this ideology that this disingenuous method of critique is being used. "Journos" such as this one don't use this same method of critique to assess works of art which do conform to the approved ideology. If you don't believe me then I'll give you an example. The Macklemore song "Same Love" was praised for it's message defending homosexual love and relationships. There was no mainstream backlash for his use of the (gay slur) "F" word. CBS even chose not to censor it despite generally censoring every other slur used by other artists. 

So what is the difference? If your message is approved then you can use whatever elements you like in your artwork and it's all cool. If your message deviates from the approved then your art will be unfairly broken down into it's component parts, and you will be labelled racist/sexist/transphobic/whatever to criticise you and pressure you to conform. If your perceived overall message is seen as favourable then it's good enough to look at your intent and judge you that way. If your perceived overall message is seen as lacking, then your intent does not come into it. Your art is broken down into single atomic elements and judged in the least favourable way possible in order to vilify, demonise, and castigate you.

Everyone on the planet should be free to write whatever article they want. That includes writing articles on games you do not like. I'm all for that freedom. That freedom of expression should also extend, however, to games developers. Games developers should be able to make any kind of artistic expression they want in their games without people trying to exert influence to coerce some kind of modification to their art form. If you don't like a game, that's fine. Tell everyone who will listen that you don't like it, or that you think it would be better if it pushed a different message. But to unfairly brand it (and by association it's creator too) racist/sexist/transphobic based upon a disingenuous breakdown of all the individual elements of which it consists, is to attempt to unduly censor and silence the artist.

2 hours ago, Commodus said:

Because art usually aspires to a higher meaning?  Unless it's completely vapid pop art (and some games certainly qualify for that), exploring the connotations helps people understand it, reflect on their own views and potentially appreciate a game more.

That really does not explain your point any better. We must explore the social connotations of art for it to be art, because it helps people understand it and appreciate it more? Well so what if nobody understands or appreciates it? Does that mean it isn't art? Did The Mona Lisa only become art when Da Vinci showed it to other people who understood it and appreciated it? Or was it still a work of art before he showed anyone? What if the people he showed did not understand it at all and refused to engage with any critique of its social connotations? If Da Vinci had burned the painting immediately after finishing with no one else seeing it then it did not achieve the status of "art"?

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Also, I advised against stereotyping because it's poor argumentation.  It's dismissive, relies on emotion over logic, and by its very nature makes assumptions that are bound to be false in some cases.  Intelligent arguments rely on limited, conditional assertions you can prove... you can't prove a stereotype.

Well that may be a solid point if my stereotyping had anything to do with my argumentation in this case. But it didn't. I didn't argue something like "you shouldn't listen to games journos because they have rainbow hair" or "games journos are full of shit because they use Macbooks", did I? The stereotype had nothing to do with my argument. My argument was based on the nature of qualities of the argument put forward by the person.

Yes, the very definition of a stereotype means that it will be false in some cases. My argument is not that all SJW games "journalists" who do this crap have rainbow hair and use Macbooks, but this is a common scenario, hence the stereotype.

Why can you not prove a stereotype? That seems like a completely bizarre statement to make. It really doesn't seem to be that complicated to prove or disprove a stereotype. Let's pick a completely fictional example so as not to offend anyone. As far as I know this stereotype doesn't already exist, but let's say our stereotype is that "Scottish people love Tic Tacs more than anyone else". You take the identified group of people (Scottish people) and try to prove/disprove that they conform to the standard expressed (loving Tic Tacs) to a higher degree than a control group (consisting of people of varied other random nationalities). You survey both groups asking them if they love Tic Tacs and you analyse your results. Or maybe even just look at per capita sales of Tic Tacs in Scotland compared to the figures for different countries. Both of these methods would provide some hard evidence towards proving or disproving the stereotype. Pretty simple, no?

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

My argument is mainly against people who falsely portray game journalism as an inherently broken thing that must be silenced, rather than tackling the specific problem at hand.

Well, as explained above, your beef is not with me then. I'm not interested in silencing games journalism. I'm interested in encouraging people to refrain from taking any notice of them when they disingenuously cherry-pick elements from games which are then used to brand a games developer's work as racist/sexist/whatever. I'm interested in encouraging people not to lend any credence or air of authority to the opinions of these people just because their name appears on a website.

But above all else, I'm just really super interested in where the sense of entitlement comes from to demand (as a lot of people do) that other people refrain from making art which they do not like. If you do not like someone else's artwork then fine, just don't engage with it. Art is a relative and personal thing. You don't have to like other people's art. But it's a two-way street. You also don't get to decide what another person's art means. You can't decide their intentions based on minute details of the big picture, unfairly magnified in ignorance of the larger context.

And even if you do look at the bigger picture, properly contextualise your analysis, and come to the conclusion that you don't like the piece for whatever reason, guess what? The artist still should be allowed to make his art.

[JoostinOnline]

2 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

How? I try to phrase my views as being my views. If I succeed at presenting them as such, they are accurate.

You posted what is essentially an editorial in the news section, without labeling it as such. It was highly speculative (especially on the original author's motives), but you didn't precede the title with "Opinion". It was just rather hypocritical.

[ravenshrike]

8 hours ago, Sauron said:

I asked for the body count. The best you could come up with where two failed attacks on politicians whereas I can point you to mass shootings on random innocent bystanders where dozens of people died. I rest my case. 

Are you actually trying to argue that the left in the US isn't violent because they're incompetent?

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, ravenshrike said:

Are you actually trying to argue that the left in the US isn't violent because they're incompent?

Wasn't it also a Sanders supporter that shot up a baseball game to kill a US representative?

[Derangel]

28 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

Wasn't it also a Sanders supporter that shot up a baseball game to kill a US representative?

Personally, I think its rather disingenuous to define either political party by the small number of dangerously mentally unstable people that claim to be part of it. But, to answer your question, yes.

[kaiju_wars]

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

Personally, I think its rather disingenuous to define either political party by the small number of dangerously mentally unstable people that claim to be part of it. But, to answer your question, yes.

My point is more pointing out that, yes, some leftists do commit violence in the US also.  Not which party is more violent than the other or that either is completely representative the entire party.  

Please don't assume my intentions by me asking a question.